Picasa 3.5 - I'm impressed!

I installed the newest Picasa, version 3.5. I must admit I'm impressed. I liked Picasa 3, but the newly added features brings it closer to what I want and need.

The face recognition works quite nicely (they had it online already, but now it's on PC), tagging and geotagging - good!

Negatives / wishes:
- no Linux version (oh well, there are ways to install / use, the previous 'Linux' version used wine anyway, so I made it working in Linux as well)
- cannot read Unicode EXIF comments properly (garbage instead international characters)
- no hierarchical tags
- no picture versioning (ie the way to show that I have the same picture in few crops / different P&P, but shared description, tags, etc)
- no multilingual / different sets of titles (ie I want to share the same picture in different albums for different audiences - I need different titles for them)

But I have to say - it is really good product, and very helpful - makes pictures organising much easier.

PS. No, I do not work for google, I just like it

One more potential negative... Read Section 11 of the Terms of Service.
This may or may not scare you from using their service.

It is quite standard for these types of "services" but it can be a dangerous hole to dig yourself into if you are not aware this is there and if you are not comfortable with the rights you are giving them.

Anything with the words "...perpetual, irrevocable..." make me question their motives.

-------------

11. Content licence from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this licence shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.

So basically google get a free images library to sell as they want, passing no royalties they get back to the original photographer.

Even if you remove things from the site they can still sell copies they 'backed up'

It's clauses like this, buried in waffle that encourage me NOT to use on line storage, I'll take my chances with DVDs and hard drives thanks.

OT, I've tried Picasa in the past, but didn't like. I'll give the new version a look.

We'd need legal opinion to explain it, but I suspect it may be something to do with the complex laws governing copyright across the world.

If a supplier like Google has to resize your image for transmission it's changing it, for example, so the licence is needed to allow them to. Can they show in in every country for you or are they "publishing" it and do they therefore need permission?

There could be so many perectly reasonable reasons for the wording as well as the ones that make people suspicious. Most contracts would scare you off totally if you read them carefully.

Just a quick check of the TOS and the wording - this relates specifically Picasa Web Albums. So, if you upload (using Picasa desktop tool) to their web based hosting then they have the right to use the images.

I use the desktop tool, and not the web albums.

Goodness me, I have well over half-terabyte of images. I'd like to see Picasa try uploading that just to "steal" my images

Matt

I'm going to try the desk top tool.

I already use Photobucket for images I post on this site so I don't intend uploading to Picasa Web Albums.

It just seems that the lawyers write this stuff just to baffle lesser mortals!

Out of interest, what is the advantage of using (desk top) Picasa (or the like) to organise your images?

I had an older version of Picasa on my previous computer and was often bemused by the way it arranged my files.

Because I find it a lot simpler to just create my own folders, I've subsequently avoided using any organisers including those incorporated in image manipulation software such as PSP (R.I.P.) and Elements.

But perhaps I am missing something ?!

Picasa (now) allows viewing folders as they live on the HDD. You can sort them according to creation date, filename etc.

Personally I find it an excellent way of managing a large collection of images on either PC or Mac. It's also very good at creating "gift CDs" with multiple albums on and an auto-start slide show.

Picasa is also extremely easy to use for simple editing.

Matt

To get images off my cards, I use the downloader that came with Elements 5, and have it create a folder with the download date (not the shot date) in the name, as a sub-folder of 'My Pictures'.

Then I tell Picasa 3 (now 3.5) to monitor the 'My Pictures' folder and everything underneath it, and that's all I do. You can create subfolders, move pictures around, and it keeps track of them all virtually in real time.

I think it's excellent, and so fast that I can scroll through the library faster than I could type in any text tags to search on.