Talk:Picasa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mac iPhoto plugin

"There is also a Mac iPhoto plugin or a standalone version available for OS X 10.4 and later." Since when is Picasa available for OS X? There are only very rudimentary tools available for OS X, so this passage seems a bit misleading. --83.129.18.119

The purge of links from the external links section also removed the link to the Documenting Picasa site. Can we restore that? There are very few non-Google resources about Picasa (and too few Google ones for that matter), so I think linking to this serves a useful purpose.

Is Hello still a separate brand or is it now simply Web Albums or Picasa Albums? Chrisabraham 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Picasa Linux version is downloadable from google, and it worked OK on my Fedora Core 5 system - 3 June 2006.

Don't you think it would be lovely to be able to use Picasa to upload pics directly to Commons? //Halibutt 15:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Does it really make sense to still say Picasa is a company, or should it be changed to just deal w/ the software and say it was originally made by a company with the same name that was acquired by Google?

Programming language

Can we say what programming language was used to write Picasa? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.81.240.93 (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

MSVC++ 83.159.9.78 18:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Linux screenshot

Arghh, that's terrible - it's a photo editing application, not a text editor. Could someone upload a better screenshot? MrBeast 23:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Name?

Is there any reason for the Picasa name?

Throwing a guess at the air, I say "Pic" stands for picture, and "Casa" for house (in spanish); the icon is a cross between a house and a camera obturator(?).

Tordek 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been named after Pablo Picasso —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.197.190 (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have talked directly with the Picasa developers at Google and it is indeed "Pi" (for Picture) and casa (for "house"). 72.211.195.129 (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Don Lind

Competition

Should someone discuss the danger of their market share and competition with the windows equivelant included in vista - Windows Photo Gallery talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 07:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Link proposal

This is a basic workflow to get pictures from the memory card to the web quickly. Does anybody think it would be of use? http://redphotocourse.googlepages.com/howtousepicasa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redfax (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

That webpage describes a fairly straightforward process that does involve Picasa, but it's not about Picasa, per se. So, I wouldn't include it in this article, except to leave the link here in this discussion page. - Bevo 15:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOWTOs might be relevant to this kind of material's place within Wikipedia. See also the {{howto}} tag's page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Howto - Bevo 20:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

These are two video tutorials on how to use Picasa, part one covers the basics, part two covers FX and sharing. Both can be found here: http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/videos/Google_Picasa_2_video_tutorial_news_257232.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.80.62 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hello.gif

Image:Hello.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Terms for using Picasa

Should there be a discussion on the page about the terms of use when using Picasa? Section 11 is quite broad regarding the license you need to give to google for the use of your content, including reselling and modifying.

Section 11 from the license: (I don't know if I'm allowed to copy from that, but this is fair use, isn't it?)

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, organisations 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.

The term I have a problem with is section 11.2, where google gets to distribute the content to its partners, without explicit agreement from the copyright holder.

I used to not care very much for these EULAs, but especially Microsoft has ruined the neglectability of these kinds of terms. Now Google is also a big player, it seems to have acquired the mores of a big corporation as well. The argument that you get the product for free isn't quite enough to accept these terms without further thought. Does anyone have examples that these terms were actually used by Google to use content without the explicit consent of the creator/owner of the copyright? (And I don't mean accepting of the EULA).

I don't think this WikiPedia page should be a kind of manual or advertisement, but a balanced look at the Pros and Cons of using Picasa software and services.

(BTW, I don't like the way the quote from the license is rendered, anyone able to fix that?)

-- Simon update 82.93.201.105 (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

--- Fixed layout 62.49.215.243 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There should be mention of the terms of use. In regard to the terms quoted above, they seem pretty standard, and better than some. I seem to recall that Snapfish take over ownership of all uploaded images, but I can't find a link to confirm this, and the WKP entry doesn't mention it. Centrepull (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Picasa-specific TOS has changed recently. It now states "We will not use any of your content for any purpose except to provide you with the Service."[1] Sounds neat? :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but the terms of use still has the offending section which allows them to pretty much do whatever they want with the photos. I don't think this resolves a thing. Ceresly (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Picasa web album - can I search my uploaded pictues on www.google.com (Image search)?

Picasa web album - can I search my uploaded pictues on www.google.com (Image search)? Will google find them? No. But how can we do that? My uploaded pictures can see on the http://picasa.google.com, the www.google.com can't find them.. Why?

http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=72400&ctx=pwa

"What is Public Search?

The Public Search feature lets Picasa Web Albums users (and you!) find your public photos on Picasa Web Albums, Google, and other services.

Some of the services integrated with Public Search include: Google Image Search Picasa Web Album's Community Search Google Maps' My Maps feature Services using the Picasa Web Albums Data API"

Google Image Search - It isn't truth. Somebody: do you know?--Monthhunder (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Picasa 3 released

Just in case someone is actually maintaining this page. Google put in facial recognition software. --68.81.70.65 (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny, there's no mention of it in the feature overview. GregorB (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a "experimental feature", but it comes with the program.----Occono (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick question; Does anyone know why Google's webpage for Picasa says (beta) when it isn't anymore? Not sure if that is of any relevance. --Opt05 (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not saying (beta) for me at moment that I can see. Maybe they fixed it? mmj (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Compression controversy

There seems to be a caveat to retrieving your 'original size' JPEG images from Picasa Web Albums. The pixel dimensions are preserved, but to save space, compression is increased. This must lead to some loss of image quality in a lossy format such as JPEG. So it's inaccurate for the article to state in the Picasa Web Albums section that 'the original photo can be downloaded', as the image downloaded is materially different from the original. Centrepull (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The current version of Picasa (Picasa 3.6) no longer adds "extra" compression to a JPEG that is loaded up at original size. Even in the case of an edited and unsaved JPEG, a new on-the-fly JPEG is created and that JPEG uses the sme compression settings as the original. I just did a quick test and a 4.6MB JPEG on my PC, with edits, ended up as a 4.8MB JPEG at the web albums site. Quality was maintained (although there is the unavoidable extra JPEG generation - the uncompress/edit/recompress that is required of all edits to a JPEG). A default upload is 1600x1200 or so pixels in size, so it is not at all the "original" size. The web albums site is primarily for sharing, not a backup.

If you upload a photo right out of the camera at "Original Size" you will get that same photo back on a download (bit for bit). No extra compression is added on the upload or download. If you have edits against a photo and you upload that photo, the edits will be permanently applied to the uploaded copy of the photo, but there is no "extra" compression at the "Original Size" upload setting.

72.211.195.129 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Don Lind

The current article states that

In Picasa 3 versions of the software, using the 'original size' upload option, pixel size remains the same, but JPEG compression is increased significantly during upload to PWA. As JPEG is a 'lossy' format, some picture information (and quality) is lost. Picasa 3.6 added an option to preserve original JPEG quality.

This is not true, or at least not accurate: I just verified that when I upload a large photo in Picasa 3.0 (I use Linux...) and then download it back from the site, I get *exactly* same file I put in - byte for byte identical - with no changes and certainly no recompression. Is it possible that some later 3.* version, but not 3.0, started with this "trick"? Or maybe this whole statement is completely false? Nyh (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing is needed in any case, especially before this can be accurately classified as a controversy. Doniago (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the "Release History" information

I have always found that information useful. Apparently, it was deleted a couple of days ago. People (in the Picasa Forums) ask about older releases, and I have always come here to get the release history of the older versions of Picasa. I miss that info.

Seems like an encyclopedia could record the history of a product, including releases? Just my two cents worth.

72.211.195.129 (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Don Lind

Picasa is not so much an image organizer and image viewer as a frontend for google's photo share site

Having downloaded Picasa for use only on my own PC (there's no way I'm sharing my stuff for free on google), I was very concerned at privacy issues so came here to look. But to be honest the description in the first sentence doesn't adequately describe this software. Because it doesn't really fully indicate just how much the user is pushed to use Google's online site. The whole interface is filled with unwanted tags that you will sooner or later mistakenly click and end up going to their online site, and it is impossible to use it with a normal ftp client. It really should say: "this is designed as a frontend to google's image sharing site".

As for the software. Why can't I use it with gimp? (Except gimp loose IPTC information). And what's this advert for "blogger". And, I'm very concerned about privacy. Google isn't exactly known for it's honesty or openness and it isn't at all clear reading this where I stand. How much information does google steel from my PC when I use this? Does it know the the location of pictures, their number, or worse still, can they effectively treat my own pictures on my PC as a stock of photos for them - hopefully not - but whose to stop them doing so by some sneaky change in the future? And to be honest the software sucks if you have more than one place you store photos and more than one folder. If e.g. you have all your photos from 2010 in daily folders for that year, all you get is a list of individual folders and no indication which year they are from. So I get "family holiday" ... but no idea which year it is without searching the list of folders and/or opening up a picture and looking at the properties. The only real benefit over the Canon software I have been using is that it does display pictures from network drives, or at least it tells me it is searching them, because I've yet to find the actual pictures cause the listing of folders is so useless85.211.136.181 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This really is terrible software. I clicked on a folder selected "rename" ... nothing happened to the folder but all the images names got changed - everything is renamed, I've lost the key image number, no "do you really want to destroy 5 years of work", just changed and no way to revert.85.211.136.181 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Face Recognition on Picasa Web

The face recognition function which is mentioned in the article is not working any more and is phased out by Google without an offical press release. But in the forum section Google employees describe the discontinuation. I think that should be suffient as a source for an information. If not, discuss it here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.127.131 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you are a bit confused. Picasa 3.8 (the client program that runs on users' own computers) still has face recognition (called "nametagging" or "facetagging"). What Google discontinued was on Picasa Web Albums (the online service), not Picasa (the client program). And even with Picasa Web Albums, it didn't totally discontinue face-tagging, you can still do it manually on each photo; it just discontinued batch-facetagging. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)