<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Mossberg Solution &#187; high resolution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://solution.allthingsd.com/tag/high-resolution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://solution.allthingsd.com</link>
	<description>from The Wall Street Journal</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:25:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>How the Big Photo-Sharing Sites Stack Up</title>
		<link>http://solution.allthingsd.com/20070801/how-the-big-photo-sharing-sites-stack-up/</link>
		<comments>http://solution.allthingsd.com/20070801/how-the-big-photo-sharing-sites-stack-up/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Katherine Boehret</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Katherine Boehret]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Mossberg Solution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Walt Mossberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[album]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EasyShare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[email]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Flickr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hewlett-Packard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kodak Gallery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photobucket]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shutterfly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slide show]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Snapfish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://solution.allthingsd.com/20070801/how-the-big-photo-sharing-sites-stack-up/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With Yahoo closing its photo division, many people will have to find a new photo-storage and sharing service. In an effort to help users make the switch, Katherine Boehret outlines the pros and cons of five major photo-sharing sites.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yahoo&#8217;s recent announcement that it would be closing its Yahoo Photos division on Sept. 20 forced its users to decide what to do with their photos. The site&#8217;s photo-storage and sharing service, which has been around for about seven years, is bowing to its hipper counterpart, chart for more details.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Kodak Gallery</strong><break/><br />
(<a href="http://www.kodakgallery.com" rel="external">www.kodakgallery.com</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p>This is a solid site for sharing albums with friends in a few straightforward steps. Though its options for editing photos tend to feel a bit clumsy, they&#8217;re probably the best out of the five sites. Most sites expect users to edit images before sharing them. Earlier this year, Kodak introduced a new version of its EasyShare desktop software program with richer editing features, such as images that expand to almost the entire screen.</p>
<p>In addition to its $25 a year Gallery Premier account, you can opt to pay twice as much for the account and a discount on Kodak prints &#8212; 10 cents each rather than 15 cents. Paid accounts let you download high-resolution versions of each photo and give you a unique Web address for sharing photos that can be password protected. But the other four sites offer personal Web sites as free features, rather than just with paid accounts.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Shutterfly</strong><break/><br />
(<a href="http://www.shutterfly.com" rel="external">www.shutterfly.com</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p>Shutterfly seemed to be the simplest site, though it isn&#8217;t the most attractive or user friendly. All of its features are free. Shutterfly does away with two conditions that Kodak Gallery and Snapfish have: It doesn&#8217;t require any purchases in order to keep your account from being deleted nor does it ever require your friends to sign in before viewing a shared album.</p>
<p>But Shutterfly&#8217;s simplicity can also be a hindrance. It doesn&#8217;t let you upload videos to share, nor can you download high-resolution versions of each photo or send photos to the site via email or mobile device; the other sites do these things either for free or with a paid account.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Snapfish</strong><break/><br />
(<a href="http://www.snapfish.com" rel="external">www.snapfish.com</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p>Snapfish is <a href='http://online.wsj.com/quotes/main.html?type=djn&#038;symbol=hpq'>Hewlett-Packard</a> Co.&#8217;s photo-sharing site, and it stands out because it has the most restrictions. Along with its requirement that you purchase something at least once a year to keep your account, guests who view your albums must always sign in; you can&#8217;t change this setting like on the other sites. To skirt this issue, Snapfish emphasizes its Group Rooms, or personalized sharing Web sites that users view with a specific URL and a password (if you choose to have one).</p>
<p>Snapfish and Shutterfly both have Web sites on which photos appear too small for my taste, though Snapfish does offer generously sized images in photo slideshows &#8212; a plus. I&#8217;d prefer the site itself showed larger images in other instances. High-resolution version of photos can be downloaded for a fee of 25 cents for one and five cents for more than one.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Flickr</strong><break/><br />
(<a href="http://www.flickr.com" rel="external">www.flickr.com</a>)</li>
<li><strong>Photobucket.com</strong><break/><br />
(<a href="http://www.photobucket.com" rel="external">www.photobucket.com</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p>Of the two community sharing sites, I preferred Flickr over Photobucket. The site felt cleaner, with fewer distractions and one less advertisement than Photobucket. For people who aren&#8217;t used to these more progressive sites, Photobucket and Flickr may seem extreme. They offer things like tagging and use terms that can be confusing. Flickr uses &#8220;sets&#8221; in place of &#8220;albums,&#8221; and photos are organized within &#8220;batches.&#8221; Photobucket organizes albums, but then lets you create sub albums within an album.</p>
<p>Neither site requires annual purchases, and both allow free high-resolution downloads of photos. Instead of one-time sharing, the sites use photostreams, or constantly updated photo blogs that friends can check.</p>
<p>Flickr and Photobucket make it easy to post photos to blogs in one step, including Blogger and Typepad. Photobucket also lets you post to MySpace and Facebook in one step.</p>
<p>In Flickr, you can meet people who have interests similar to yours by searching through Groups. I joined a group that shared photos of tennis courts around the world. Digital photos suddenly offered ways to socialize online without chatting or leaving overused messages for strangers.</p>
<p>Among other things, Photobucket lets you create a Remix &#8212; a presentation made of your photos and/or videos after they&#8217;re dragged into a storyline and mixed in with music, transitions and graphics. The result was entertaining and professional, though it took just seconds to make.</p>
<p>Ideally, I&#8217;d like to combine a favorite feature from each of these sites to make one great photo-sharing Web site. I found something wrong with each one, but Kodak Gallery and its EasyShare software program offer a good combination of editing and sharing. Flickr was my preferred community photo site, though it and Photobucket both offer fresh ways to share digital photos.</p>
<p class="tagline">Edited by Walter S. Mossberg</p>
<p id="CHART">
<div class="media-CENTER" style="width: 380px;"><a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/PJ-AK667_MOSSBE_20070731183636.gif" rel="external" title="Click to enlarge graphic"><img src="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/PJ-AK667_MOSSBE_20070731183636.gif" alt="Mossberg" height="301" width="380" /></a></div>
</p>
<ul style="clear: both;">
<li>Email: <a href="mailto:MossbergSolution@wsj.com" rel="external">MossbergSolution@wsj.com</a></li>
</ul>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://solution.allthingsd.com/20070801/how-the-big-photo-sharing-sites-stack-up/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>