Previous news story Next news story

Photographer uses Google Drive to share full resolution images on Google+

Mar 22, 2013 at 16:56:27 GMT

OTHER NEWS GOOGLE RESOLUTION

Pin It

Print view

Frustrated by size limitations when uploading images to Google+, photographer Trey Ratcliff discovered a way to get around the limitations, and upload original full-resolution photos. In a blog post, he has put together a step-by-step guide on how to do it, which involves using Google Drive - Google's cloud storage service - and sharing images directly from there to Google+. Click the link below to read about how - and why - he did it. Would you share full-resolution images on social media sites? Let us know in the comments.

Click here for the link to Trey Ratcliff's blog post

Photographer Trey Ratcliff has highlighted the Exif data in the picture above illustrating that uploading via Google Drive enables users to share full resolution images on Google+

Comments

Total comments: 37

Professionals usually spring for a service such as Dropbox or add and ftp to their website's server using an application such as Fetch. Both work well.

1 upvote

Original Size does not mean original quality. I have been using Picasa for years (still do) and used to upload original sizes. I have looked into every possible setting so the file would look its best online. The compression process when uploading reduces sharpness and brightness even when using Lightroom.

I have looked at many online albums (fee and free ones) and I have not seen any I would consider high resolution. It seems like the equivalent of posting videos to You Tube or Vimeo.

0 upvotes

I have been using flickr for a while now, it does similar things, I have posted some wide pans and the quality is a bit poor. I had been thinking of looking elsewhere s,o i am glad to hear your info

0 upvotes

What do "full size" files look like on a 10" display or on even a very large 1920x1080 screen?

Easy. They look like more money spent on storage space and bandwidth, or else like more time and less capacity for fewer files.

1 upvote

I believe that sometimes people do things just because they can. Unfortunately that means waste just to be wasteful.

Are there that many people that *need* these size images from him (to view on a monitor)? OR, is he providing them for prints? Even so smaller files will do the trick too...obviously depending on what they are used for and where they are printed. If he were still in a time when 2, 3...6MP was the largest would he not provide them because they were too small?

He's comparing small watermarked images to these large files he "gives" viewers. Though there is nothing wrong with it, the comparison is no comparison; he can accomplish the same exact thing with smaller unmarked images if it is only for the viewers sake.

Again, some people like to do things just because.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

clever guy

0 upvotes

When a company rises so fast that it thinks it can do no wrong, that's the time to get ready to short-sell...

0 upvotes

Here's an idea, pay the $40 or so for a Smugmug or Flickr account and share whatever size you want without having to jump through some stupid hoops. And Smugmug looks about 50x cooler than anything Google has ever created.

4 upvotes

Trey already had that idea:

http://stuckincustoms.smugmug.com/

He's had the smugmug site forever with original download sizes so I don't know why this is important to him.

0 upvotes

People finding a Google's product useful? That's a good sign that Google would soon shut it down.

6 upvotes

well said!
they're shutting down igoogle although it's the best start page ever

0 upvotes

...because there is something better.

0 upvotes

Man, he's got nice images. I, almost, can't believe he's sharing them full resolution. More power to him.

2 upvotes

Can't you simply use picasa?
My 12 MP Images are full resolution there and show in G+ anyway.

2 upvotes

picasa is being shut down - it's all being transferred to g+ in case you haven't heard

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Mew, Tray Ratcliff, zzzzzzzz.....

5 upvotes

Ditto...

1 upvote

Same sentiment with Luna at first, but otoh it makes great backup alternative. If they offer same privacy option as G+, which I believe G drive does. Cmiiw

2 upvotes

Why in the world would I want to make full resolution images freely available to the public?

10 upvotes

...because no-one would pay for them?

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting

8 upvotes

From his site: "Basically, I want people to have the original-sized photo to enjoy! I know many other photographers disagree with me and they only want to share tiny images with huge watermarks using horrible fonts. That’s okay. This isn’t for them."

3 upvotes

Because he wants it!

1 upvote

Trey Ratcliff does it as a form of marketing. Photography sales is actually his primary source of income, according to his site. He's written long (and controversial, if you read the comments) posts about why he thinks photographers are shooting themselves in the foot by watermarking their tiny images to death.

I'm not saying I totally agree, but he has achieved economic self-sufficiency through photography and some measure of fame.

3 upvotes

Motivations to deliver full resolution images for free:
a) Teaching
b) Show potential customers the quality of the full resolution image and then offer sales of prints. Almost nobody has a 24" printer at home. And your license can be made so that printing is not permitted.

1 upvote

I guess if you want to distribute your high resolution images for free that is great. I am unsure why I would want to do that.

2 upvotes

to share them with your family so they can edit & print them for example

0 upvotes

Uh, if I share it to the public I'm not just sharing it to my family. You don't need Google+ to share hi res pics with your family.

I guess he wants to share it to the public and he does use a Creative Commons Non-commercial license. So that's good. You don't want ambiguous rights for everyone when you share your work to the public.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

You can make albums private, so only people who you specifically choose can view the album, not the public at large. That would be a valid reason for wanting full resolution images.

2 upvotes

@psn - I have a private picasa web album where I share full resolution pictures with my family. Only specific google accounts can access this album, and they receive a notification whenever I add new pictures.

0 upvotes

@Mollysnoot2, @wlad: Sharing your albums privately is just that. Not public.

However, as already said, the photographer really wants to share his work publicly and he's put a license on it with explicit usage terms. So, it's all good.

0 upvotes

Folks actually use google+?

5 upvotes

Huh? This, if you noticed, is about publishing your photographs on the Net. I would be surprised to find someone who's NOT using Google+ for that purpose.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

11 upvotes

Where have you been these past 2 years?

7 upvotes

Photographers are one of the largest and most active communities on G+. I don't spend much time on there and don't have a lot of contacts but my feed is overflowing with photo posts daily.

2 upvotes

lol the photography commutative on g+ is huge.
Time to wake up and stop hating.

6 upvotes

Well, you could already do this pre-Drive since forever by uploading directly to PicasaWeb and then sharing it to Google+. I suppose because Picasa is being retired or merged with G+ & Drive, they're introducing this Drive-based method of doing the same thing.

And as mentioned earlier, uploads via G+ are rescaled to 2048px (largest axis), but on the plus side those don't count against your quota.

0 upvotes

OK great!
The main difference here is that when you do the normal posting, it doesn't count towards your drive quota, hence the limitations. By sharing from your drive, it does, but allows you to share larger ones. Makes perfect sense. I'm only puzzled that google+ hasn't publicized this in the form of tips.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Total comments: 37


Report zooms in on giant camera resolution test charts throughout the US Feb 18, 2013	Aesthetics versus truth: DW Akademie examines ethics of retouching May 10, 2013	Leica exec speaks to Forbes.com about digital medium-format strategy May 9, 2013	UK Intellectual Property Office responds on 'abolition of copyright' law May 8, 2013

	Samsung NX2000 May 1, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V Apr 24, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Apr 24, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Apr 24, 2013
	Ricoh GR Apr 17, 2013
	Samsung NX1100 Apr 11, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6 Apr 9, 2013
	Fujifilm FinePix S8400W Mar 22, 2013
	Fujifilm FinePix XP200 Mar 22, 2013
	Canon EOS 100D (EOS Rebel SL1) Mar 21, 2013
	Canon EOS 700D (EOS Rebel T5i) Mar 21, 2013
	Canon PowerShot SX270 HS Mar 21, 2013
	Canon PowerShot SX280 HS Mar 21, 2013

Recommended Photoshop Alternatives?	96
Adobe is WRONG!	88
Are we fooling ourselves?	75
From first effort at street.	68
Not completely satisfied with my X100S	57
Sold my RX100 - this is why	54
Lenses, sharpness, and image quality	52
All this Adobe flaming	51
M43 and DOF with a fast lens	45
24mp sensor for m43? 3.2micron pixel pitch!	44
When I increase the aperture my screen goes ...	42
Anybody out there who does not use Photoshop ...	42
Primes vs Zooms	41
A99 Short Film "Survival of the Fittest" Hi-ISO	41
Nikon 1 lens road map...anyone?	37
Alternative to Adobe software	35
Nikor 24-120 F4	32
Tempted by the price of the SAMYANG 14mm f2.8 ...	31
Colors in B/W!!!...	29
Is the GRD IV still a viable choice?	27

Your email address:
Your name: