Self-hosted Gallery vs. Flickr Pro

November 22, 2005

Dilemma. I have an installation of gallery on my web server and I am also really digin’ my new Flickr account. My sense of aesthetics will not let me rest peacfully with both; there’s gonna be a showdown at the OK corral, pardner. Your input is welcome! Meanwhile, here’s the breakdown as I currently see it:

feature Gallery Flickr
cost free $25/year for pro
have to install/host/upgrade yourself yes no
can host lots of photos yes with pro
supports multiple sizes yes yes
links to professional printing yes yes
sophisticated permissions yes yes
can show latest photos on blog no yes
can publish photos sent via email no yes
can receive camera phone pics no yes
can blog photos sent by email/camera phone no yes
integrated creative commons licensing no yes
supports notes on pics no yes
can link to friends no yes
makes awesome use of metadata tags no yes
is a great way to find other people’s photos no yes

No comments yet

  1. I dunno. The choice looks pretty clear. Flickr has more benefits, but with a cost.

    I’d pay.

  2. Well, I broke down and went “pro” over at Flickr, so at least that decision has been made. Whether I truly shut down gallery or not is an open question. At this point I’m leaning towards it.

  3. I pay for Flickr pro. I love it. Much better than Gallery, Coppermine or that wp-gallery (or whatever it was called)


  4. I just added you as a contact and it’s pretty obvious you’ve chosen the correct route in going with the pro. Flickr is such an awesome service. I upload a hell of a lot of pictures to that thing…

    btw, the awkward teen picture was awesome…

  5. Photoblog.net is awesome too. i just found it so I don’t know if anyone I know is there, but it’s like Flickr and Fotolog merged.

  6. I’m mulling over the exact same issue, and I’ll probably end up going with Flickr after using Gallery for a few weeks.

    The two issues that are pushing me over the edge are Tags and control over sizes in a blog post. So far, Gallery only supports the pre-set thumbnail size for the blog post size. This means that if I want a 250px wide pic in my post, the thumb in the main Gallery page also must be 250px. Totally lame. Someone will eventually write a plug-in so this won’t be an issue, but it sucks right now.

    The things about flickr that turn me off the most are a. having to pay when I already have gallery for free, and b. depending on someone else to host my pics.

  7. I too had the same problem. I realized that the more photos I add, the more of my bandwidth would get sucked up and the more patching of php and other apps I had to deal with.

    There is no maintenance or hassle with flickr and $25 a year saves the trouble and time of patching and backup/recovery.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: