Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Adventures in Photo Publishing

By bugmaster in Internet
Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 06:51:31 PM EST
Tags: Help! (Ask Kuro5hin) (all tags)
Help! (Ask Kuro5hin)

After a few days of laborious searching, I have determined one thing: there is no good way to publish your photos on the Web. But there are several sub-optimal ways. I finally settled on Fotki, but this is only a temporary measure.


All I wanted was to upload some of my photos to somewhere where people can view them and comment on them. More specifically, my ideal requirements for a photo-publishing package looked something like this:
  • It must be able to accept photo uploads in all the common formats (JPEG, PNG, GIF)
  • It must automatically create thumbnails and "mid-size" versions of the photos
  • It must be able to support nested folders/albums
  • It should parse EXIF metadata
  • It should be flexible enough to allow customization of the "look and feel" of the entire gallery; ideally, through CSS
  • It should allow viewers to post comments about my photos, and to rate them on some scale
  • It should be free, or at least cheap. Open-source would be ideal, because then I could administer it myself
Sounds simple, right ? Unfortunately, nothing in life is really simple, as I have found out.

My first attempt at this actually took place about a year ago, when I opened an account on photo.net. Unfortunately, on top of their other problems (such as being built by Philp Greenspun on obscure and obsolete software), photo.net has this to say about Photoshop:

As of Photoshop 7, Adobe started using the JPEG profiles to record an XML-encoded "preview" of the JPEG image. PS 7 does this by default when the "Save..." option is selected. These JPEG files, when downloaded by some versions of Internet Explorer, will render the browser completely incapable of downloading images...
...Which is why they disallow any images which contain this XML metadata. Now, I use Photoshop for all my work with graphics. I have never had any problem with opening the resulting images in MSIE (in fact, I am looking at one now). And I am certainly not going to convert all my images just to appease some uppity website.

My next attempt was to use Gallery, an open-source package written in PHP. It certainly seemed like the ideal choice: I'd get to administer it myself, it allows image uploads through ftp, it will automatically parse EXIF metadata, etc. Unfortunately, the reality was, as usual, a bit different from the ad. While Gallery allows you to customize the colors of the album pages, the general layout can only be customized by hacking their HTML files (no, they don't use CSS). There are no per-album settings, of course -- the settings are global to the entire gallery. What's worse is that, in order to function, Gallery requires you to have chmod 777 directories under your webserver. That's right ! World-writable directories accessible to your webserver are a must. This little security hole (that you can drive the Starship Enterprise through), combined with the cumbersome UI and many non-working upload options, ruled out Gallery as a viable choice for me.

My next attempt was to try Zope, an open-source content management system. Zope looks really cool. Everything can be customized right there in the admin interface, including scripts and templates (similar to how MovableType works). The scripting language is Python, and the templating system is simple and intuitive. And installing Zope was as easy as unpacking the tarball and running a single script. I feel confident that I could create a kick-ass photo gallery package based on Zope; however, I simply don't have the time to do that right now. There is no default gallery package for it, and none of the user-written packages did the job for me. One of them, called Photo Folders, looks like a step in the right direction; unfortunately, it does not have enough features "out of the box". The other one, called ZPhotoSlides, looks like a quantum leap in the right direction; unfortunately, it would require me to install The Python Imaging Library library (aka PIL). I could do this easily if I ran my own server; however, I don't have the permissions to install it on my deru.net hosting account (and I doubt they'd give me sudo to do it). In addition, Zope is written in Python, so the fact that I don't know Python at all was also a huge limiting factor.

My next desperate step was to try PhotoSIG, a site where photos can be critiqued (put on your black berets everyone) by other photographers. Unfortunately, PhotoSIG has this to say in their Terms of Service:

8. By submitting any contribution to photoSIG, you grant us a non-exclusive, perpetual right to reproduce that contribution on photoSIG and to edit or alter it as needed. You also grant us a non-exclusive, perpetual right to reproduce such contribution on other sites on the World Wide Web for the purpose of promoting photoSIG. You retain the copyrights for all contributions.
I am not quite sure what this means, but it looks like they will use my photos to spam people. This normally wouldn't be too bad, even though I am scared of all the "perpetual right" type of language. However, on top of the scary legalese, PhotoSig only allows photos of a certain size; limits you to 3 uploads in 72 hours, and costs money. Unfortunately, PhotoSig is not for me.

Fortunately (well... sort of), PhotoSig had a link to Fotki, which is a kind of "photo.net lite" site. It does not parse EXIF metadata, it does not allow photo ratings, and you cannot customize its layout. However, it does automatically create thumbnails and provide basic commenting functionality, which by this time I was content with... And their layout is not too odious. In addition, they have the best uploading interface of all the sites I have tried: their Java applet (or ActiveX control, if that's what you prefer) lets you browse your local files, preview them, add them to the upload queue, and then upload them without any hassle.

Thus, for now, I uploaded some of my photos to Fotki. However, I am merely tolerant of this solution -- I am not happy with it. I think that, ultimately, something like Gallery is what I need, only with more customization options and less security holes. When I have some more time, I can try fixing Gallery or rolling my own package using Zope. However, for now I would be interested in hearing other solutions that people have come up with. Surely, I am not the only person on kuro5hin who likes to share his substandard photos with the world ?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
What should I use to publish my photos on the Web ?
o photo.net or a similar site. Customization is for nerds. 6%
o Gallery. Security is for wussies. 13%
o PhotoSig. Comes with a free beret. 2%
o Roll your own. If you want something done right... 65%
o Nothing. Your photos make my eyes bleed. 11%

Votes: 43
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o Fotki
o photo.net
o to say
o Gallery
o hole
o Zope
o MovableTyp e
o Photo Folders
o ZPhotoSlid es
o deru.net
o PhotoSIG
o Terms of Service
o Fotki [2]
o photos
o Also by bugmaster


Display: Sort:
Adventures in Photo Publishing | 92 comments (80 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden)
Meh (1.91 / 12) (#2)
by The Jews on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 02:33:23 AM EST

First of all, I'd like to say that your pictures are OK, but that you look pretty freaking gay. Or at least like Weird Al in his younger days.

In any case, you should try JAlbum. Even though it's written in that abortion of a programming language, Java, it uses scripts to generate layouts, as well as CSS, so it's pretty flexible.

You call these bagels?

Dude (3.00 / 2) (#3)
by marcos on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 02:47:11 AM EST

What is the deal with nerds and those glasses. They don't look good, for heavens sake!

[ Parent ]
I agree (3.00 / 1) (#47)
by pdrap on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:55:21 PM EST

But I'm going to be constructive about it. If you are a person who doesn't like how they look in glasses, have no idea what kind of glasses to get, and are generally frustrated by the whole thing, here's what to do.
  1. Find a store in your city (or a large city near you) that sells high end frames. Don't go to a discount eyeglass store. There are some ways to tell if you've found a good place. Generally, if you find a store that sells Matsuda brand frames, you're in a good place.
  2. If you have no idea what you want, tell the salesperson that. They will help you and give you advice. It might help to take someone along with you for a second opinion.
  3. This is very important: if everyone there says that you look good in a pair of glasses, but you don't know for yourself, take their word for it.
  4. Don't be hit by sticker shock. Attractive looking frames can be pretty expensive. I haven't bought a pair of glasses for less than $250 since 1991. I've paid as much as $400.
  5. Don't be self-conscious about your new glasses. Just wear them, and within 2 or 3 hours you'll notice that nobody is laughing at you, and you will have forgotten that you are wearing new glasses.


[ Parent ]
Sorry to disappoint you... (none / 0) (#4)
by bugmaster on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 02:49:11 AM EST

...But I am straight. I do bear a resemblance to Weird Al, though, especially to how he appears in his "Fat" music video.
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]
JAlbum (none / 0) (#5)
by bugmaster on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 02:52:38 AM EST

Thanks for the info; I will check it out and post my impressions as a comment. I am not sure if I will be able to do this by the time the article leaves voting, though.
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]
Geeks Attacking Geeks About LOOKS? (4.20 / 5) (#17)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 12:18:33 PM EST

Fuck off, you hosers. Leave the guy alone. I'd like to see the population of K5 run a fashion gauntlet.


___
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski. Personally, I pref
[ Parent ]
Then you have no idea (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by terpy on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:45:05 PM EST

how sexy and suave I am.

----
"By siamese kittens, you mean Asian hookers, right?" --Skwirl
[ Parent ]

Exception Proves the Rule (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 08:34:32 PM EST

Fine: I concede the point. It's well known that terpy's looks outshine us all. But let's not get caught up in the exception that proves the rule.


___
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski. Personally, I pref
[ Parent ]
Gallery should work... (3.00 / 2) (#6)
by SiMac on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 02:58:12 AM EST

Just set up your directory that would be 777 as 700 with nobody as the owner. The web server user can still write anything there, however. Anyway, there are many, many alternatives.

Good, but... (none / 0) (#8)
by bugmaster on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 03:13:53 AM EST

Unfortunately, deru.net does not allow you to chown directories to nobody, either. Are they just too restrictive in this, or what ? Anyway, thanks for the alternatives, I will check some of them out.
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]
Forgot about that... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by SiMac on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 06:04:16 PM EST

Only root can chown...I forgot about that because I'm used to administering my own server. You could chmod the directory you're putting the 777 directories in 777, use Perl/PHP to create the directories and chmod them 700, and the chmod that enclosing directory back to 700 afterwards. I'm not sure if I'm being at all clear here, but I hope I am. Anyway, the web user can still write anything it wants there, so it's not a full solution.

[ Parent ]
use groups? (none / 0) (#53)
by city light on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 10:29:25 AM EST

Most (all?) of the webhosts I've used should set you up with a user account and a default group (usually of the same name) for your files that includes just you and whatever user the webserver daemon runs as. So you'd just change the directory to give read and write permissions to the group: chmod g+wr directory (think this is 770 ?)

short of having suexec cgi wrappers or something similar set up on the server that's about the best privacy you can achieve while still allowing the scripts (running as nobody) to write to your directory... of course other people's scripts (also running as nobody) could access it too. but anyway, what are the chances that anyone with a hosting account on the same server is actually going to be interested in messing about with your photo directory? If you're really paranoid you could keep a backup. Sometimes people worry too much about security just for the sake of being geeky about it...

[ Parent ]

Your standards are too high. (4.33 / 6) (#7)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 03:09:39 AM EST

  • It should have a mouth that reaches out of the monitor and gives me a blowjob.

Personally, when I need to show someone a picture I just FTP into my 30 MB of Verizon webspace, upload the JPEG, and pass around the URL.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."

True (4.50 / 2) (#9)
by bugmaster on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 03:19:15 AM EST

Yes, the blowjob feature would be nice. However, plain old ftp just doesn't cut it for me. I don't want to deal with manually regenerating all my html every time I upload a new image, even though I could theoretically do it.
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]
not every one has enough time to use linux..... (none / 0) (#48)
by auraslip on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 12:36:34 AM EST

where you have to jerk the computer off, not the other way around.
124
[ Parent ]
he just said to upload the picture (none / 0) (#71)
by Hillman on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 02:55:15 PM EST

to a ftp account. Don't tell me you can't do that on a windows or mac box....

[ Parent ]
those pics are nice (none / 0) (#10)
by illuzion on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 03:27:26 AM EST

There are some great photos on that site. One of the fire ones, the ice shard and one of the wave ones were the best, but they were all pretty good.

As for the article... I dunno if it's got that extra thing that make articles get voted up. It was interesting though.

Kick it up a notch (none / 0) (#11)
by bugmaster on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 04:02:37 AM EST

Thanks for the kind word about the photos :-) However, what can I do about the article in order to "kick it up a notch" ?
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]
Whats wrong with html (4.50 / 6) (#13)
by StephenThompson on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 08:10:29 AM EST

If you have any site that allows pictures and html, why not just do a nice html page with links to your pictures and thumbnails.   Why do you need a "package" to do this?

Using a prefab site just sounds like a nightmare to me; when instead you can do whatever you want with notepad and a freeware image converter.  You also avoid all the ads and clutter of the photo site.

When you are done, you just copy and paste the stuff to the server.

Blog Commenting Scheme (2.50 / 2) (#18)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 12:22:17 PM EST

Maybe he could build his own HTML and then for the comments use one of those freebie blog feedback systems like BlogOut. I don't know what you'd do for ratings, but who the hell wants idiots off the web rating your photography anyway?

Here is my own very modest and middling dull photography page.


___
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski. Personally, I pref
[ Parent ]
Re: Blog Commenting Scheme (none / 0) (#24)
by bugmaster on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 04:22:16 PM EST

Wow, the seed pod on your site is really amazing. But anyway, I am leaning toward the idea that you suggested... Is there an easy way to set up MT so that I can add per-photo comments ? I realize I sound like a newbie schmuck, but my MT experience is a bit limited.
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]
MoveableType (none / 0) (#46)
by phliar on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 08:37:43 PM EST

Is there an easy way to set up MT so that I can add per-photo comments ?
Make each image an entry; then users can comment on them. More usefully, make a thumbnail the entry, linked to the full-size image.

Is that not what you had in mind?

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

except that can take forever. (2.00 / 1) (#41)
by joshsisk on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:52:33 PM EST

I take lots of snapshots with my digital camera, almost every day. I'm not about to go home and write a new gallery from scratch in notepad every night.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
Volume, volume, volume! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by phliar on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 08:34:33 PM EST

... why not just do a nice html page with links to your pictures and thumbnails.
This is fine if you only have to do it once.

Of course, I share your feelings about prefab sites and their visual clutter. What I did was to write a little shell-script that creates thumbnails and generates an HTML page. It takes enough parameters so I can specify boilerplate like titles; and I use CSS2 for layout so it looks good while staying human-readable. (Of course using CSS2 means people out there running outmoded broken browsers might get a sub-optimal experience... they need to just get a real browser.)

(And if someone wants to suffer through my images, don't say I didn't warn you.)

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

Pbase (none / 0) (#14)
by godix on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 08:37:05 AM EST

Pbase seems to fit most of your requirements


"A disobedient dog is almost as bad as a disobedient girlfriend or wife."
- A Proud American
www.fotopic.net (none / 0) (#15)
by Builder on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 09:16:25 AM EST

Rocks!

You can have it answer as your own photos site (photos.yoursite.com) and it does pretty much everything you're asking with the possible exception of nested stuff.
--
Be nice to your daemons

JPEG bug (4.00 / 1) (#16)
by coryking on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 11:19:12 AM EST

That friggin photoshop JPEG thing bit my site in the ass big time. Actually, I stole the fix from photo.net. There is a spiffy unix util called jpegtras that will stip out all the meta crap (EXIF, thumbnails, etc) and leave nothing but pure jpeg goodness. I now run that on all uploaded pictures before processing them. Seems to have fixed the issue.

I dont know what kind of image processing photo.net does, but I'm rather suprized that they would outright ban such images. If they can detect the data, then they can easily strip it.

As far as Gallery goes, the instructions say that because it's easier for a newbie to do a chmod 777 then chmod 664 + chown user.somegroup. The key is to make sure your apache proc can write to the directory where you keep the images. Thusly you want to do a "chown username.apachegroup" then a "chmod 775" on the directory and a "chmod 664" on the files inside.

Trust me on this - there are a *lot* of web software packages that like to blanket 777 all their inside directories. Again, it's because it's the easiest to explain to a user.

On a side note - I really dont get why most people care about EXIF data. Besides knowing what apature and shutter speed you used, is there any reason for it?

Using PS7 (4.75 / 4) (#25)
by 90X Double Side on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 04:52:13 PM EST

It is kind of understandable for them to ban the images, because in the long run, it's better for people to learn how to use the program properly, which will ensure that the graphics keep working even if PS changes.

Just put some big bold instructions on your site: any graphic that is going to be used for the web should be saved using the File>Save for Web... command, which will ensure that no previews, metadata, etc. are ever saved, ensuring full compatability and smaller file sizes. I think sometimes people don't use Save for Web because they think it's only useful for doing optimization, and they want a full-quality image, but I think it's actually much more efficient to have a full-quality preset set up in Save for Web, which saves you from having to set JPEG options and remembering to unckeck previews, etc. everytime you save.

“Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity”
—Alvy Ray Smith
[ Parent ]

Save for Web (none / 0) (#60)
by Astral Masquerade on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 03:43:48 PM EST

the File>Save for Web... command, which will ensure that no previews, metadata, etc. are ever saved, ensuring full compatability and smaller file sizes.
Absolutely. Check the files sizes between a straight Save and a Save For Web. We're not talking "close"; we're talking 150K vs 20K.

If it's going on the Web, it should be saved with Save For Web.

--
"The UK government still seems to think that there is a shortage of IT professionals. They may even be right but there's no shortage of people who think they are IT professionals." -- Arron Rouse, The Inquirer
[ Parent ]

jpegtran (none / 0) (#49)
by swr on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 01:52:40 AM EST

There is a spiffy unix util called jpegtras that will stip out all the meta crap (EXIF, thumbnails, etc) and leave nothing but pure jpeg goodness.

You're probably talking about "jpegtran", which is part of the IJG libjpeg distribution.

There is a windows port. Google for "jpegtran.exe" if you want to run it under windows.

Another interesting thing it does is rotating JPEG images losslessly. Not sure how that works, but it does.



[ Parent ]
lossless cropping/rotation (none / 0) (#50)
by BenJackson on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 03:52:34 AM EST

jpegtran can rotate (and crop[1]) losslessly because JPEG images are made up of many small squares of coefficients. Cropping works by chopping off an even number of them (avoiding re-encoding the rest). Rotation is accomplished by moving the entire blocks around and then transforming each individual block so that it produces a flipped or transposed result (without changing the magnitudes of the values, only their signs or locations).

The downside to all this is that once you know it exists you will feel compelled to use it despite the fact that it is not widely available in fancy GUI tools.

[1] Yesss I know that cropping is always a lossy process, I'm refering to compression loss.

[ Parent ]

jpegtran (none / 0) (#58)
by coryking on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 02:44:57 PM EST

Yea yea... I'm not going into my code just to find the name of some util for a lousy K5 post, am I?

[ Parent ]
why... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Suppafly on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 03:12:26 PM EST

so you ended up using fotki even though it has that same problems as the php gallery program which would probably be a better solution for you..
---
Playstation Sucks.
Learn some PHP first? (none / 0) (#51)
by Martinofka on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 06:30:39 AM EST

Gallery really does not have such problems, try running it under PHP safe mode, everything goes under your own account then, and not that of web server..... or at least, you could ask first?

[ Parent ]
Learn PHP, get web hosting (2.00 / 4) (#29)
by omegadan on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 06:55:29 PM EST

Said requirements are relatively simple to implement.

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley

Right (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by bugmaster on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 07:19:24 PM EST

I know a bit of php (very little bit), and I already have hosting. However, as I mentioned in the article, I simply don't have time to implement my own gallery right now, not even in Zope.

I realize that I am a lame newbie who is too lazy to learn things, etc., but I also need to pay those hosting bills somehow, which means that most of my time is spent working for my employers.
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]

You's be Suprised... (3.50 / 2) (#31)
by LittleZephyr on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 10:15:32 PM EST

While you say you don't have the time to really learn PHP or write your own system, you could be very suprised what you could do quick with tutorials like the ones at webmonkey.com a just a bit of referance at the all important php.net

Barring that, you could install the phpBB forum system and put on the Smartor Photo Album Addon v2 for phpBB2
(\♥/) What if instead of posting that comment,
(0.-) you had actually taken a knife and stabbed
("_") me in the eye? You murderer. ~ Rusty

[ Parent ]

Amen (none / 0) (#61)
by Josh A on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 07:23:01 PM EST

PHP has the best online documentation I've ever seen.

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
requirements are the thing (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Estanislao Martínez on Thu Jun 19, 2003 at 10:32:27 PM EST

I use swiggle, mostly because of its .description files. I don't care much about adjusting the look, but the program lacks two features that I would like:
  1. Arbitrary ordering of picture galleries. I'd like to order my photos as a narrative sequence, and the only way swiggle allows that is by naming your files so that they sort in the order you want. Filename and ordering should be separated.
  2. Templates for adding more text to the various generated pages.
I certainly want to avoid EXIF (photography is about making pictures, dammit, not about advertising your aperture, shutter speed, camera model, flash usage, etc.), and don't care at all for viewer comments (what's wrong with email anyway?). Oh, and I want purely static pages.

Thus I've been toying with writing Yet Another Picture Gallery Generator

--em

EXIF (none / 0) (#54)
by hbiki on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 11:04:13 AM EST

I certainly don't get the need for EXIF metadata amongst amateur digital photographers - most of them are attracted to digital photography because of its highly automatic nature. They like pointing and shooting and letting the camera to the work and then upping it into their computers for some final (often tasteless) tweaks :)

What the hell do they care about iso, shutter speed and aperture for?

They don't. They simply want to jerk off on their camera models. Like me! I took this on a Canon EOS D10 with a 28-128mm macro.

Though, I'm sure there's digital photographers out there from a film background who actually care about those things and the way they related to the final image. (Oh, like, say overexposing by 1/3rd to get a denser negative, less grain and more saturated covers).

But seriously, the attraction of shooting on digital (from my own experience) is just not having to think much and doing the image tweaking in PS7.

Heh. I"m such a pratt :)


---
I take all knowledge to be my province.
- Francis Bacon
biki.net/blog/
[ Parent ]

Re: EXIF (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by coryking on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 02:53:17 PM EST

I can see the need for EXIF for intermediates to pros. Say - you bracketed a shot and can't really tell which one is which. Or you are doing studio work where it's somewhat easy to reproduce a shot. But for point & click pictures of your cat, or outdoor photography you sure as hell ain't looking to repro a shot - you'll never get the lighting the same!

I think the only reason an point & click would need it is because it's yet another geeky gaget. Oooo - Apature & Shutter... I dont know what they are, but I know their values! Whats this "Pixel Density" thing? Hmm...

[ Parent ]

actually EXIF is very useful (3.00 / 1) (#63)
by hbiki on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 11:28:34 PM EST

I wasn't saying EXIF isn't very useful. It is. For the reasons you list above and for that reason I am interested in seeing the EXIF metadata for pro-photographers - from it you can learn alot.

I do do some photography in my profession (I'm a video editor mostly, but I also shoot and direct stuff) and EXIF data is useful for, as you say, matching conditions.

Its interesting that metadata is becoming VERY popular with video cameras cause the posties love it. You don't have to worry about the camera assistant recording all the data manually, its right there on the track.

I just edited a corporate that was terribly underexposed and when I graded it up it got noisy as hell. I thought it might be due to lack of light but when I checked the metadata it was shot at a stop of 5.6! I understand the advantages of shooting at 5.6 but not to the point where it introduces serious chroma noise.

Consequently, I knew who to blame when the producer asked me why it was so noisy after I graded it! :)


---
I take all knowledge to be my province.
- Francis Bacon
biki.net/blog/
[ Parent ]

You're missing my point. (2.00 / 1) (#73)
by Estanislao Martínez on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 03:58:03 PM EST

I don't mind having EXIF metadata in the images generated by a camera, and it would definitely be useful in plenty of circumstances; saves you some note-taking. But, the key point is that I don't want any of it displayed automatically in a table under any of my images in my online galleries. The point there is to display images, and the images should stand on their own, not on terms of which camera model was used and the settings at the exact time down to the second.

--em
[ Parent ]

I want EXIF ! (none / 0) (#67)
by Fred_A on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 10:24:52 AM EST

I know I extract EXIF metadata in my galleries. Much of the information isn't really needed but there is a lot of interesting stuff there. For my images date and time (both my cameras are set to UTC to allow for travelling) are especially important.

But all the technical data is also interesting to me, whether the camera is digital or analog, knowing what the focal length, aperture time, etc. were set to is always interesting.
The only reason I use one of my cameras as a point and shoot device is because custom settings are not readily accessible. On the other (Canon G3) I almost never use the auto mode, I set my aperture or speed myself depending on what I want to achieve.

To me the main point in switching to digital from my analog cameras (which I don't use that much any more except when I need a very long focal) was to get rid of paper prints. Now I can store all my images on disk without having to spend ages scanning them. It is now easy to find an image or to browse a collection. No more dusty albums or shoe boxes for me. :)

Fred in Paris
[ Parent ]

Date and time (1.00 / 1) (#74)
by Estanislao Martínez on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 04:03:18 PM EST

I can see how date can be important information to display in a gallery, but I find it harder to see how time is so, at least anything more fine-grained than {early|late} {morning|afternoon|evening|night}.

Well, maybe unless you're a forensic photographer.

--em
[ Parent ]

falling for it (none / 0) (#68)
by PigleT on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 12:42:12 PM EST

"What the hell do they care about iso, shutter speed and aperture for?"

Balancing choice of depth of {field,focus} against avoiding risk of motion-blur; that seems to be a logical reason to have control on your digicam.

"the attraction of shooting on digital (from my own experience) is just not having to think much and doing the image tweaking in PS7."

I probably am from the opposite end of the spectrum. I favour digital as a medium for the simple reason of it being a heck of a lot cheaper and more convenient - I delete a few shots on-camera per session, offload, rescale and upload with as little tweaking in Gimp as possible (ie, 90% the time, none at all). I'll maybe use a filter on the camera to ensure some aspect comes out right on the CCD, but after that, if it's a crud shot, it's a crud shot, and it's my fault.
Also, given that I design each photo at point-of-snap with some care, I find it invaluable to be able to look up what settings I chose for a given shot, retrospectively; obviously film doesn't give me that in any shape or form, while at least with EXIF it's a possibility to say "oh yeah, damn, I left it in ISO400 emulation, must take it off quick next time".

"Heh. I"m such a pratt :)"

They say the first rule of being a Samurai is "Know Thyself" ;8)

~Tim -- We stood in the moonlight and the river flowed
[ Parent ]

missing the point. (none / 0) (#72)
by Estanislao Martínez on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 03:54:06 PM EST

Balancing choice of depth of {field,focus} against avoiding risk of motion-blur; that seems to be a logical reason to have control on your digicam.

Well, yes, that's why you care about being able to control it. But the question is why would you want your web gallery software to advertise this information, along with your camera model and the date and time of the shot down to the second, to the whole of the world.

--em
[ Parent ]

why... (none / 0) (#88)
by PigleT on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 06:11:53 PM EST

"why would you want your web gallery software to advertise this information, along with your camera model and ..."

Saves me having to write it out "I used a..." longhand in the webpages surrounding the shots, or in emails "please d00d, what was..?".

No, I agree, it doesn't have to be reiterated same info for every shot. But some compromise that permits the net-wand'ring vagrants we like to call the next generation to pick up some advice "don't do it like this kids!" is probably advisable.

Then again, if all the exif info says is "Adobe Photoshop v7" then it's back to square 1.

Small wonder I didn't automate production of this gibberish for every pic on my site ;)

~Tim -- We stood in the moonlight and the river flowed
[ Parent ]

Digitial encourages (but does not cause) sloppines (none / 0) (#78)
by hbiki on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 07:13:52 AM EST

Balancing choice of depth of {field,focus} against avoiding risk of motion-blur; that seems to be a logical reason to have control on your digicam.

Sure it is. Shame then, that a lot of the mid-range cameras don't even give you control of your aperture - especially when they often produce lens abberation at the wider focal lengths.

To me most of the people that are attracted to digital photography don't know about and aren't interested in 'having control of their digicam'. They lack the patience and the discipline to really get to understand the principles of photography.

The pleasure of digital photography is its instant gratification. But that same instant gratification breeds sloppiness.

I'll give an example (not digital photography, but video, but the principle is very much the same):

I was camera assisting on a music video being shot on a Sony 709 digibeta - the top of the line digibeta - with a really nice Canon EFP lens. Its an amazingly kickass camera with a beautiful range of manual controls - you can tweak the toe and the knee of the image manually, the skin detail matrix... everything. Its a great piece of kit. Good cinematographers will work the stop* and tweak it with an inch of its life and get great images.

The director was also shooting it (and had the gall to call himself a dop). We were down at a beach shooting amongst waves - without a underwater case OR even a mattebox with a clear optical filter (he didn't even know what one of them was). And, of course, salt was getting all over the lens. Me being first AC was trying madly to clean it and I thought I did a pretty decent job and the director started bitching at me that it still looked dirty! I checked through the view finder and sure enough, it was dirty, but then I saw his f-stop... F16! I checked the dial-in ND. No NDs. As 1st AC I recommended putting on a .6 or a .9 ND and opening up to reduce the effect of the salt. He said no. He said the auto-iris of the camera would do a better job than me (WTF?). Dumb ass.

I ended up 1st ADing the Directors next clip (he's a nice guy and does good work but shouldn't call himself a DoP) which was shot on Super16mm. He didn't even bother using an incident meter to judge exposure. He used a stills camera (with an inbuilt spot meter) and was all proud of his low-budget way of judging exposure.

Then the negs got back from the lab.

ALL the interiors were underexposed. And I don't just mean by a stop or two. They were at least three stops under. he ended up making use of them after cinelooking them to make it look or deliberate.

Its certainly not an isolated incident. A lot of photographers/cinematographers from a digital background don't seem -get- the need for good exposure or for working the stop or for controlling your shutter speed/angle. They've never had to think about it before, why should they now?

Obviously there are people like yourself who DO think about it and consequently DO do better work. But you're not forced into it.

*Cinematography speak for chosing an f-stop/t-stop (t stop = transmitted stop) and sticking with it through a production to maintain consistent depth of field and negative density. On lower formats like 16mm and video it produces great images.

Also, given that I design each photo at point-of-snap with some care, I find it invaluable to be able to look up what settings I chose for a given shot, retrospectively; obviously film doesn't give me that in any shape or form, while at least with EXIF it's a possibility to say "oh yeah, damn, I left it in ISO400 emulation, must take it off quick next time".

My bad. I should've been more clear. I don't think EXIF is a bad thing. I think its a good thing. Metadata kicks ass.

But is it necessary for an online photo forum? I have serious doubts because most of the people perusing those kinds of forums aren't going to be really interested or really know about the meat of the issue.

Then again, if you could post metadata for movies I wouldn't have to answer a hundred e-mails everyday on cinematography forums about getting somethign to look like gladiator or saving private ryan. But, that said, they wouldn't know what they're looking for in the first place. "What's a shutter angle?"

*All that said, I don't shoot film as a cinematographer. I've learnt how to work video well and its a niche market I'm happy to work in for the time being. You can see an offline-sourced trailer the director did for the latest thing I've shot: Reubens Trailer. Its pre-magic bullet, pre-colour grade, pre-field interpolation, pre-everything. It was shot on digibeta, but this version is sourced from the mini-DV offline. All in all, I think it looks pretty good - but I approached it *exactly* like I was shooting film. I worked my stop, I had two ACs, a gaffer, a best boy, and an army of lights, gels, and filters. <-- See, pratt! <p> They say the first rule of being a Samurai is "Know Thyself" ;8)

Know yourself and you know your enemy.

:)


---
I take all knowledge to be my province.
- Francis Bacon
biki.net/blog/
[ Parent ]

Uninspiration (none / 0) (#89)
by PigleT on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 06:18:00 PM EST

"To me most of the people that are attracted to digital photography don't know about and aren't interested in 'having control of their digicam'. They lack the patience and the discipline to really get to understand the principles of photography."

Possibly, although a quick wander around your local photo-store will adequately demonstrate that the film world is far from innocent in this regard.

Me, I have a tendency to recommend the "which camera for me?" wizard on Fuji's UK website. Can't fault that as an approach.  No, I'm nothing more than a very happy customer :)
~Tim -- We stood in the moonlight and the river flowed
[ Parent ]

proven wrong. (none / 0) (#90)
by hbiki on Thu Jun 26, 2003 at 03:57:13 AM EST

" Possibly, although a quick wander around your local photo-store will adequately demonstrate that the film world is far from innocent in this regard. " Of course. The appeal of compact cameras is the fact that they are simple point and shoot devices. I was probably being very fectious for the sake of argument. i don't think its a bad thing that digital is so easy to use - in fact, I think its a good thing. It does 'democratise' photography (and music and video) but i don't think it needs to necessarily better standards, it just means you don't have to be a genius to have some fun. Then again, I stood corrected today on the advantages of a site which does parse EXIF data... a person on a digicam forum posted a message asking why his images looked so noisy. A guy took a quick look at his setting and diagnosed his problem very quickly (high ISO) so yeah, I was wrong :)


---
I take all knowledge to be my province.
- Francis Bacon
biki.net/blog/
[ Parent ]
Digital vs. film (none / 0) (#75)
by Estanislao Martínez on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 04:15:26 PM EST

But seriously, the attraction of shooting on digital (from my own experience) is just not having to think much and doing the image tweaking in PS7.

The only reason I envision using a digital camera is having instant feedback on whether a film shot will come out good (kind of like people used to use Polaroids). Digital camera images, to my eye, just look ugly; even on a computer display, scanned film looks way better (art-fag mode ON: film looks "dramatic" and "technicolor"; digital looks "stark butt-ugly"). Even though it's a pain to get right most of the time (god I hate twiddling with Unsharp Mask), there is one advantage to it in my book: it does not look butt-ugly.

Couple that with the following facts:

  1. A digital SLR costs at least $1,500 for the body.
  2. Said body will be obsolete in 3 years.
  3. You need to deal with printers. Ugh.
  4. Nothing ever looks better than a slide on a light table. If you're shooting for yourself, you only have to please yourself, and this is the top.
All in all, I think I'll stick to shooting slides on my cheap used 6x6 TLR.

--em
[ Parent ]

How the hell do we archive digital photos? (none / 0) (#77)
by hbiki on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 06:43:00 AM EST

The only reason I envision using a digital camera is having instant feedback on whether a film shot will come out good (kind of like people used to use Polaroids)

A lot of cinematographers are beginning to use digital slrs and powerbooks in the field to get a rough feeling of a scene and, more importantly, to show the director what a scene is like. This has become so commonplace that Kodak has stopped production of their preview system (which is a shame, because it had a number of advatages - including a more accurate rendition of various stocks' exposure curve)

Some cinematographers, however, are still using black and white polaroids because they feel it has a more accurate rendition of exposure.

(art-fag mode ON: film looks "dramatic" and "technicolor"; digital looks "stark butt-ugly")

Not to mention that some companies [cough sony cough] have a slightly more 'accurate' colourmetiry that results in harsh looking images. Thankfully their Cybershots all do TIFFs so doing uncomrpessed 16bit colour correction is easy :)

Still, it doesn't replicate emulsion.

Oh, and toe. Most digital stills cameras clip like buggery.

Other than the facts you've listed, the most important advantage of film over video is -archiving-. Sure, you might think that having CDs of images is an advantage of digital, but what the hell are you going to leave to your kids? These same CDs? Do you think they won't deteriorate to the point of being unreadable? (I've had CDRs die after three-four years) Do you think they'll even know how to read them in the future... formats are always constantly changing thanks to the consumerist imperative.

At least with a film negative you can hold it up to the light and see what the hell it is. With digital photos all I see is fucking pits on a CD and not a clue how to read them.

In sixty years time, Biki decides to give his grandkids a whole bunch of happy snaps:

"Here kids, have a spindle of cds of all the photos of me as a kid. I've been keeping them locked up safely for you"

"What's a CD?"


---
I take all knowledge to be my province.
- Francis Bacon
biki.net/blog/
[ Parent ]

Archival (none / 0) (#84)
by grahamsz on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 11:41:03 PM EST

The answer is "do it properly"

Several companies like iron mountain provide data archival and i'm sure it wont be long until they start offering services geared towards individuals.

So long as you maintain a proper backup routine and ensure that your data is always on at least two current formats (preferable in different locations) then you should be good.

Sure it's more effort but i still suspect it's easier than keeping colour negatives in an optimal temperature and humidity controlled environment.
--
Sell your digital photos - I've made enough to buy a taco today
[ Parent ]

excuse me for being a skeptic (none / 0) (#85)
by hbiki on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 01:50:06 AM EST

"Should be right" Hmm. I'm not sure if I'm entirely comfortable with 'should be'. I had enough trouble moving files from my Dad's old Centris to the G3 I gave him. Floppys, old versions of Clarisworks. Pain in the ass, and there was probably only 4 years between them in age. Compare that to me being able to go to any photo album in my house,opening it up and seeing my family's recent history visibly documented. i've got floppy disks from the 80s that have mould on them. They can fuck up a drive if they're not cleaned. Yet not only is there storage issues with digital media there is also the problem of being able to read it. And most of the time, what's really interesting from a personal historic perspective is exactly what hasn't been properly archived.


---
I take all knowledge to be my province.
- Francis Bacon
biki.net/blog/
[ Parent ]
proven wrong... (none / 0) (#91)
by hbiki on Thu Jun 26, 2003 at 04:00:38 AM EST

" I certainly want to avoid EXIF (photography is about making pictures, dammit, not about advertising your aperture, shutter speed, camera model, flash usage, etc.), and don't care at all for viewer comments (what's wrong with email anyway?).  Oh, and I want purely static pages.  
"
As mentioned elsehwere, I actually found myself proven wrong over the benefits of EXIF data in amateur websites.

I was looking through some digicam forums and people often posted messages about why their shots didn't look so good, then they'd include a link to their piccies (with EXIF data).

The semi/pro's could then take a look over the shots and make recommendations about settings and so on.

So in some ways EXIF -encourages- good shooting practices, cause these newbies begin to learn the impact of various controls over their image quality... AND it helps people diagnose their problems.

So yeah. Me wrong. :)


---
I take all knowledge to be my province.
- Francis Bacon
biki.net/blog/
[ Parent ]

Well it's funny you mention this (1.78 / 19) (#37)
by Tex Bigballs on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 09:09:27 AM EST

because it so happens that I've recently taken an interest in digital photos myself. Not because I'm some hormone-addled horndog like you seem to be, but because I am conducting a scientific investigation of epic proportions.
You see, somone told me that with asian girls, the shit slants sideways. Now, naturally I'm just as curious as you are, bugmaster, that's why I'm tediously sifting through thousands of oriental poon pictures. Don't worry about me, though. Although it's exhausting work, I'm taking frequent breaks and remembering to stay hydrated.

Zoph (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by PhadeRunner on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:08:11 PM EST

http://zoph.sourceforge.net/

PHP/MySQL based, multiuser; it is your friend.  Use it.  

(not associated etc. just a satisfied user)


i think the fark photoshoppers (4.50 / 2) (#39)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:37:27 PM EST

are the definitive experts on photohosting on the web

they got to get their photoshops up in seconds and then get about a hundred thousand hits

go to fark, see what i mean

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

most of them (3.50 / 2) (#40)
by llimllib on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:45:57 PM EST

use photoisland. But they all bitch about it. I personally use my own webserver, but I think this guy wants gallery software more than hosting.


Peace.
[ Parent ]
no thanks (4.50 / 4) (#43)
by Estanislao Martínez on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 01:03:14 PM EST

the surgeon general has advised that reading the comments in fark makes your IQ drop by 100 points.

--em
[ Parent ]

And your comment (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by Hillman on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 02:53:04 PM EST

makes your ego grow by 100pts

[ Parent ]
it can't grow (none / 0) (#80)
by ucblockhead on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 12:23:29 PM EST

Because INF+$X == INF.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
Gallery. (4.00 / 1) (#42)
by joshsisk on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:55:14 PM EST

Gallery also has a bug where, if your hard disk is full, any gallery that anyone LOOKS AT will be deleted.

Now, agreed, you should never let your hard disk get full. But sometimes it happens, and that is just too obnoxious of a bug for me to deal with.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn

Gallery G2 (none / 0) (#57)
by joeberk on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 02:08:04 PM EST

Gallery is in the midst of being re-written. I think among the things being done in G2 are fixes for the bugs/security holes you mention.

[ Parent ]
good to know. (none / 0) (#81)
by joshsisk on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 01:04:21 PM EST

thank you!
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
IDS (4.00 / 1) (#52)
by piranha jpl on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 10:08:55 AM EST

Take a look at IDS (Image Display System). It's a Perl CGI program that isn't very hard to set up. It supports nested galleries, thumbnail creation, image resizing, viewer comments, but no ratings. It was a bit of a pain to customize the style, last time I tried it. No security-related atrocities that I remember. =)

- J.P. Larocque
- Life's not fair, but the root password helps. -- BOFH

Another vote for IDS (none / 0) (#82)
by odds on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 03:05:12 PM EST

I've been running a customized version of IDS for a while now. I've set up multiple "narrative tracks" using symlinks, added support for a panorama Java applet, and added a bit of custom metadata to each photo (country, region info).

It's far from perfect, and hasn't been updated in a while now, but it did the trick for me. My gallery is up here if you're interested.

- David

[ Parent ]

picpix.com (none / 0) (#55)
by naru on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 11:11:17 AM EST

try fotobilder, written by brad from livejournal.com fame and using the same advanced style system. if you have mod_perl on your hosting arrangement, I'm sure you'll find it very nice. find it at picpix.com.

Problems (2.50 / 2) (#56)
by Nurgled on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 01:24:35 PM EST

A few things should be noted about FotoBilder and PicPix.com:

  • You can't currently create an account on picpix.com. It's there for known testers/developers only.
  • FotoBilder requires mod_perl, which requires that you are running your own server, since you can't install perl modules in the server in a virtual hosting environment.
  • FotoBilder is functional, but could hardly be considered a finished product. Although everything the original poster listed is planned and designed, several items remain unimplemented and the project has stalled since the few contributors to FotoBilder are also LiveJournal contributors and have got bogged down with that recently.

If you don't mind doing a bit of hacking, and have your own server, then by all means give FotoBilder a try!

You can see an example set of gallerys in the form of Brad's photos (Brad being the guy who runs Danga, LJ's and PicPix's parent company), albeit using a template which only exists for testing, so it's not incredibly pretty. There's also an example of another almost-finished template made by some other guy I don't know - but it'd work better with wider pictures.



[ Parent ]
Moveabletype (none / 0) (#64)
by khalido on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 08:13:11 AM EST

I am using MT as a photo display system for a 4x4 Club over here. It is heavily customizable, and tons of plugins for almost everything are available. If you want, I can email u the templates I am using. The look is mostly through css, and easily changeable. As for exif data, if you have php or perl running on your host you can easily extract that info. it just requires a line or so of php. Go here for a list of the 6 best picture galleries. I think Coppermine might just be what you need.
Gallery requires you to have chmod 777 directories under your webserver.
Go here for an explanation on how to fix that. However I agree with you, gallery is a complete mess. I tried using it and gave up on it.It's easier/better to customize MT.
A safer approach is available if your web server supports suExec. With suExec, CGI scripts execute with the permissions of the owner, rather than with the permissions of "www". So, if "you" own the MT CGI scripts, and suExec is in operation, you can have the blog directories set with permissions 755 and files with permissions 644, and still be OK because the MT CGI scripts execute "as you" instead of "as www".


Various other sites... (none / 0) (#65)
by bigbtommy on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 08:21:12 AM EST

Mark Goldstein of PhotographyBlog.com did a series of reviews of many different photo sharing / critique websites...

Here's an overview. Included were WebApeture (review), WebPhotoForum (review), PhotoForums (review), ShutterCity (review).

All in all, PhotographyBlog is quite good if a little gear-headed at times.
-- bbCity.co.uk - When I see kids, I speed up

I gave up on searching for gallery software (none / 0) (#66)
by Fred_A on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 10:01:23 AM EST

I too have looked long and hard at gallery generation programs when I started my web site and I never found anything meeting my requirements.

Here's what I was looking for :

  • Support for several image sizes (I don't want to default to VGA size not to impose huge files on low bandwidth users, let them decide what they want)
  • Static pages (at the time I figured they'd be easier to maintain and edit... Drawback, adding an image to agallery is a pain).
  • Exif support. Mostly to extract the time, date and focal length from the photo.

Since I couldn't find any package that met these requirements, I wrote a quick Perl script to generate galleries. You can find it here if you're interested. It's not very good but it's at least fairly close to what I need.

Soon I expect to start from scratch in PHP (to support adding images to an existing gallery). I'll have to relearn it a bit though, haven't really looked at PHP since v. 2.0 :)

Fred in Paris

GThumb (none / 0) (#69)
by chbm on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 01:06:26 PM EST

Just use Gthumb to make the albums and a simple regular http server to serve them.
I never did understand why photo albums must be dinamic pages.

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
A simple, complete solution (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by daveola on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 05:12:12 AM EST

It sounds like you might want a website that hosts as well, but many are posting options here.

Might I recommend the very easy to use but powerful and themeable script "album"?

It's one of the most used photo album scripts on freshmeat and the web:


-- Dave Madison
Slooze (none / 0) (#79)
by fraise on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 08:24:54 AM EST

Surprised that I haven't seen this one recommended yet, it's a little old, but small and very nice: Slooze. Written in PHP, data can be stored in text files or any major RDBMS (as per the website). I use it with a MySQL database, on two sites: photos.fraise.net and La France by fraise: photos. You can see that it's easily customizable with an existing site design (mine are pretty simple, but that's cause I like simple).

You can have nested albums, visitor comments and ratings (no need for visitors to register, either), it's free, Open Source, accepts all common file formats, and as long as you know CSS, you can customize it quite easily.

The one thing I know it doesn't do is to automatically create thumbnails and "mid-size" versions of the photos. However, you can specify a thumbnail prefix/suffix that it will automatically look for when you upload images, and it will match it with the appropriate larger version. Multiple sizes it doesn't do, although you could probably write a hack pretty easily. Re parsing EXIF metadata, I'm not sure - check out the forums, they're still active.

Easy Thumbnails (none / 0) (#83)
by p3d0 on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 08:35:46 PM EST

For thumbnails I use Easy Thumbnails. I haven't tried any others, so I don't know how it compares, but it does just what I want with minimal hassle.
--
Patrick Doyle
My comments do not reflect the opinions of my employer.
[ Parent ]
Typo 3 (none / 0) (#86)
by craigtubby on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 09:32:16 AM EST

Although not specifically a gallery more a conetent management system, you could try typo3.

It uses image magic to resize images, so may meet your needs.  You can also give each page a "guestbook" and a "rating" item.

It's not easy to learn, but once you've started things work quite well.

try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die.

* Webpage *

Coppermine is *almost* perfect for me... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by joshwa on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 09:09:38 PM EST

Coppermine does almost everything both you and I need, except:

  • you: requires 777 - see this post about how suexec is the answer to this problem
  • me: supports keywords/categories on a per-image basis-- coppermine only lets you assign categories to albums. I want to be able to have multiple references to the same image (e.g. have a picture appear in both the "1999" album and the "Portraits" album). But AFAICT, this is as close as we're going to get!

  • Another Option (none / 0) (#92)
    by daviddisco on Thu Jun 26, 2003 at 11:00:10 AM EST

    There is a hard to describe site at http://www.redtailcanyon.com/ that allows you to make photolbums. You get thumbnails, rating, and comments and then you also have the option of assigning geographic coordinates to the images and then viewing them on a clickable map. May be useful to some people.
    ##I run a geography related site at globalcoordinate.com##
    Adventures in Photo Publishing | 92 comments (80 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!