Jump to content



Photo

Best free photo organizer program

Answered Go to the full post

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 AR556

AR556

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 07-August 03

Posted 15 June 2014 - 03:23

Would someone recommend a free photo organizer application for Windows that is simple to use and will auto import pictures from a digital camera? I know of DigiKam and Picasa. Does Picasa allow local manipulation or does it shove Google down your throat, forcing account creation/sign-in? I attempted to go to DigiKam's site, but it keeps timing out.

 

This is for a client's PC. They aren't tech-savvy and often hose their machine by clicking yes to everything that pops up on the net. They recently Eff'd up their PC by downloading some photo management software that came with a bazillion garbage programs and a rootkit for good measure. ###### me off too, cause I just installed it for them a few weeks ago. I imaged the damn thing this time.



Best Answer +BudMan , 15 June 2014 - 14:24

Valid point about the integration of other services..  But collage is part of picasa and quick look blows photo galleries collage options away with choices of what to do, how many photos to include, etc etc...   As to calling it more powerful - that really depends on what your looking to accomplish.  If the feature set it not there that is needed, then its not more powerful ;)  If I wanted to do collages with the pictures -- sorry it would be hands down picasa as winner for example.  Now if wanted to do fusing or panoramic - then yeah gallery hands down better choice to be sure.

 

They are both free - and can use the same folders..  Install them both and use the one that best suites what your doing, etc.  If after a while you find not using the other, then just delete it.

Go to the full post



#2 Aletheia

Aletheia

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 30-June 09

Posted 15 June 2014 - 03:43

I really liked "Shotwell" program in Elementary OS. I think it has for Windows as well.



#3 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 106
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 15 June 2014 - 11:43

There is no shotwell for windows.. Picasa does not require google account..  That would most likely be your best bet.



#4 Ambroos

Ambroos

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 7
  • Joined: 16-January 06
  • Location: Belgium
  • OS: Windows 7 + 8.1
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z2

Posted 15 June 2014 - 11:50

Picasa is easy and simple and doesn't force any Google-stuff on you - it just has the integration if you want it (for exporting to online albums etc).



#5 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 15 June 2014 - 11:59

I honestly think windows live gallery is a much better option than picasa. It doesn't slow down on large collections, it has much better edition options, whereas picasa always makes things brighter. And it connects to all kinds of services, not just googles own services.

 

But just speed and ability to handle larger libraries make it better



#6 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 106
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 15 June 2014 - 12:59

What do you consider large collection?  I have not see any slow down with picasa.. So your talking about photo gallery from windows essentials 2012 http://windows.micro...allery=overview

 

Yeah that would be a simple option as well.. 



#7 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 15 June 2014 - 13:13

How is Photo gallery not a simple option ? it's just as simple as picasa.

 

displaying hundreds of photos picasa can't handle nearly as well as Photo Gallery. thousands.... then you're talking to hell with it for picasa.

 

Besides that with all the limitations Picasa has compared to Photo Gallery, while Photo gallery is faster and more efficient and at least as easy. I see no reason why anyone should use Picasa for any reason. 



#8 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 106
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 15 June 2014 - 13:14

Who said it wasn't - I agreed with you

 

"Yeah that would be a simple option as well.. "

 

I just asked what you consider a large collection..  Since I have not seen any slow downs, etc.

 

But now you got me curious on these limitations you think picasa has as well.  Could you give an example?  They sure look comparable to feature set to me from a quick overview, with just in general picasa looking more robust in features than gallery.  As to why someone would use one over the other - right out of the gate one integrates with google, the other with MS.. So right there would be clear cut when one would be used over the other.. If your a google person picasa, if your a hotmail/outlook/ms user then photo gallery would be the logical choice if after online integration vs just local use.

 

Again who said anything about it not being a simple option??  But I think a simple discussion of the differences between them might be beneficial to the OP making a choice.

 

Couple of quick things I see different - is the photo editor seems easier to use than gallery and more features - with easy batch features.  Maybe I am missing it - but I don't see batch features in gallery?  While this might be considered a more advanced feature that the audience of OP.  It seems that might be reason to choose one over the other, etc.



#9 Pam14160

Pam14160

    Lee

  • Joined: 12-November 07
  • Location: Idaho

Posted 15 June 2014 - 13:26

Fastone. . .one of the best of the free options.  Been using it for years and have yet to fine fault with it. . . :D



#10 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 15 June 2014 - 13:40

Who said it wasn't - I agreed with you

 

"Yeah that would be a simple option as well.. "

 

I just asked what you consider a large collection..  Since I have not seen any slow downs, etc.

 

But now you got me curious on these limitations you think picasa has as well.  Could you give an example?  They sure look comparable to feature set to me from a quick overview..  As to why someone would use one over the other - right out of the gate one integrates with google, the other with MS.. So right there would be clear cut when one would be used over the other.. If your a google person picasa, if your a hotmail/outlook/ms user then photo gallery would be the logical choice if after online integration vs just local use.

 

Again who said anything about it not being a simple option??  But I think a simple discussion of the differences between them might be beneficial to the OP making a choice.

 

limitations, unless things have changed very recently Picasa is locked to google services. while Photo Gallery by default plugs into Facebook, One Drive, Youtube, Flickr, Vimeo and a few more, and with standard plugins it connects to anything. Lots of nice batch functions, it uses windows own libraries, it supports local printing companies all over the world(though generally one should use their own web services for this anyway), blog post your photos to supported blogs directly.

 

 

Then there's the limited editing functionality where Picasa has had this weird thing where when you edit a picture it can only increase brightness, not reduce it. which was weird when adding contrast and such. hopefully they've fixed that in one of the latest version, but they've never bothered to before so I doubt it.  Then youhave the lsightly more advanced features that uses Microsofts research teams baked in functions, like Panorama,, Photo Fuse, and Auto collage. You can download new tools into the program from the research team too, like ICE(which is what powers the other ones as well) and even a Picasa web publisher. 

 

It's just a more powerful tool while retaining simplicity and ease of use. automatic face recognition/tagging is neat to.

 

As for speed, it's not that Picasa can't to it, it just loads pictures/thumbs more slowly when scrolling through a newly opened large collection. which at least for me is annoying. granted I don't use either of them for much anymore since I use the adobe photography subscription for Lightroom, which can't do all the neat tricks Photo Gallery can, but it's a lot better for DSLR Raw shooters like me :) and I can run Photo Gallery on top of it again for it's features.


Fastone. . .one of the best of the free options.  Been using it for years and have yet to fine fault with it. . . :D

Faststone is more of a viewer than a manager.



#11 OP AR556

AR556

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 07-August 03

Posted 15 June 2014 - 14:00

Will photo gallery auto import from camera? I guess its either gallery or picasa.

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I looked up gallery. It seems to do what is required. I've never seen someone infect their PC so much that doesn't browse porn.....



#12 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 106
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 15 June 2014 - 14:24   Best Answer

Valid point about the integration of other services..  But collage is part of picasa and quick look blows photo galleries collage options away with choices of what to do, how many photos to include, etc etc...   As to calling it more powerful - that really depends on what your looking to accomplish.  If the feature set it not there that is needed, then its not more powerful ;)  If I wanted to do collages with the pictures -- sorry it would be hands down picasa as winner for example.  Now if wanted to do fusing or panoramic - then yeah gallery hands down better choice to be sure.

 

They are both free - and can use the same folders..  Install them both and use the one that best suites what your doing, etc.  If after a while you find not using the other, then just delete it.



#13 OP AR556

AR556

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 07-August 03

Posted 15 June 2014 - 14:41

Thank you all for your suggestions :)



#14 Pam14160

Pam14160

    Lee

  • Joined: 12-November 07
  • Location: Idaho

Posted 15 June 2014 - 19:54

limitations, unless things have changed very recently Picasa is locked to google services. while Photo Gallery by default plugs into Facebook, One Drive, Youtube, Flickr, Vimeo and a few more, and with standard plugins it connects to anything. Lots of nice batch functions, it uses windows own libraries, it supports local printing companies all over the world(though generally one should use their own web services for this anyway), blog post your photos to supported blogs directly.

 

 

Then there's the limited editing functionality where Picasa has had this weird thing where when you edit a picture it can only increase brightness, not reduce it. which was weird when adding contrast and such. hopefully they've fixed that in one of the latest version, but they've never bothered to before so I doubt it.  Then youhave the lsightly more advanced features that uses Microsofts research teams baked in functions, like Panorama,, Photo Fuse, and Auto collage. You can download new tools into the program from the research team too, like ICE(which is what powers the other ones as well) and even a Picasa web publisher. 

 

It's just a more powerful tool while retaining simplicity and ease of use. automatic face recognition/tagging is neat to.

 

As for speed, it's not that Picasa can't to it, it just loads pictures/thumbs more slowly when scrolling through a newly opened large collection. which at least for me is annoying. granted I don't use either of them for much anymore since I use the adobe photography subscription for Lightroom, which can't do all the neat tricks Photo Gallery can, but it's a lot better for DSLR Raw shooters like me :) and I can run Photo Gallery on top of it again for it's features.


Faststone is more of a viewer than a manager.

Hate to say this, ableit you are wrong.  That is all I have to say at this point.



#15 Ice_Blue

Ice_Blue

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 02-February 09
  • Location: The Den Of Zen
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64
  • Phone: Nokia N8 Belle

Posted 15 June 2014 - 20:28

Fastone. . .one of the best of the free options.  Been using it for years and have yet to fine fault with it. . . :D

 

I agree. Faststone is top notch. And free.

It has basic image editing, which might be enough for casual use.