Choices are sometimes good to have. On the other hand, too many choices can even create havoc.

Take for example, online photo storage. Right now, I have two options, one of which is storing my photos locally, on the paid web hosting package which I have. For one thing, it’s good as all the photos are stored locally. Not that I don’t trust some sites, but some of them have rights and ownership issues. More often than not, they are not stated upfront, but are all embedded in the fine print. There are some of which ownership still belongs to you, but you’ll probably have to sieve thru the T & C. One downside to this method would be the amount storage available since I only have a certain amount of MB to play with. That being the case, I can’t have too many pics, or too big a picture. One other thing is that the photos will only be viewed by those who know the link. Thus far, I don’t think Google, or any of the other search engines will return the url of my webalbum even if relevant search parameters are entered. Of course, this can either be a good or bad thing, depending on whether you want the photo album to be an open one, or closed one.

Then I found Flickr. Well, Flickr was good, and interesting to use. Furthermore, I do believe that ownership of the photos upload remain the property of the originator, which is good, of course. However, when I first started using Flickr, it had some limitation of only being able to create only two photo albums, being a limited free account. They call it sets. Thing is, it appears that now they do allow more than two photo sets to be created have a maximum of three photosets. Then again, maybe they allowed more than two sets all along, just that I didn’t figure out the way to create more than two. Anyway, it’s long gone already. Right now, my main use for flickr was for moblogging. I didn’t use it often, but the fact that I was able to do it was cool, until I upgraded to WordPress 2.0. The moblogging API didn’t appear to have been upgraded in line with wordpress, and now, my moblogging link is broken. I considered migrating my photo albums to Flickr, not only to free space on my webhost, but also to give my photos more web-presence. However, the thought of migration, of uploading every single photo which I already have into Flickr is putting me off the actual process. Also, I don’t think it’ll be possible for me to migrate the comments too. Not that I have many, but …

Now comes the third contender – Picasa Web Album. Right now, it’s in beta stage, and in the same method of Gmail, it’s by “invitation” only. Let me rephrase that – it’s open for limited trial only. So, all I needed to do was to enter my gmail account details and presto, the next screen invited me to download the Picasa Web Album version. I started using Picasa in the first place simply because it was free. I’ve tried Adobe Bridge to manage my photos, but it seemed sluggish on my computer. I have Olympus master, but it too was slow. I didn’t really have time to play around with it’s settings and as it turned out, it automatically stored the photos in my login’s user files area. Not exactly what I would prefer. Then when I tried Picasa, it looked cool. It started up rather fast too and I like the fact that I can point it to a directory which I define as my photo directory and it’ll observe it for any changes / additions / subtractions and update it’s databse accordingly. It is limited in it’s photo touching-up functions, but of course, you have to remember that it’s more of a photo management program rather than a photo manupulating program.

So, as of now, I’ve got three options. The way I look at it, I doubt my webhost will have enough of space for all my photos, and it’s fast being used up. One solution would be to remove the old ones, or to resize the big ones in order to accomodate more photos. The other alternative would be to migrate my photos to either Flickr or Picasa Web Album. Already, the Flickr solution isn’t perfect in the long run, as it’s limited to 3 photo sets. Flickr only allows 20Mb of transfers per month, but doesn’t have any limitation on total webspace taken up, which is good. Still, the limitation of 3 photo sets isn’t working to Flickr’s advantage.

Right now, based on the FAQ, Picasa’s Web Album doesn’t appear to have a monthly limit on uploading, but it does have a storage limit, fixed at 250MB. It’s quite affordable too, to subscribe to the service, with the cost being an affordable USD $25 for 6GB! Another plus point too, is that it’s a one touch uploading via Picasa. Such convenience is nice to have, but I don’t wish for it to come to a time when we’ll all take it for granted and the convenience becoming something bad. Until that time comes, if it ever does, I think Picasa Web Album is a good option. I’ll probably have to do my maths first, but if it ever works out ok, I can probably consider downsizing my paid hosting and use the saved funds to subscribe to the Picasa Web Album. Either that, or the Flickr option, since it also costs USD $25 and better still, it offers unlimited storage of photos!

I guess that right now, it all boils down to interface and usability. I kind of like the Gallery software I installed on my server, but it still has it’s downtimes. Getting a plug-in to work, or getting some of the settings right. Still, it’s an interesting process to undertake, with learning points too. Apart from that, the Gallery software itself takes up space, which could have been put to good use.

Another alternative would be to spread out my photo albums. At the start, it’ll probably be a huge mess, as I think it’ll be a good idea to spread them out based on category. Either that, or spread them out based on upload date. Either way, it’s still a little on the early side now, to think about it. When the time comes, the solution will make itself available, conveniently. It usually does.