I just tested it and my original photo that was 2.3 MB has been downscaled to 1.2 MB. For me its not worth losing that much of the original using compression. Obviously none of my photos are more than 16 MP but it still compressed it a good bit. It is very misleading to say if its less than 16 MP, it won't be downsized. I probably will stick with iCloud/Photos.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google's Free, Unlimited Google Photos Service Now Available on iOS and Web
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just tested it and my original photo that was 2.3 MB has been downscaled to 1.2 MB. For me its not worth losing that much of the original using compression. Obviously none of my photos are more than 16 MP but it still compressed it a good bit. It is very misleading to say if its less than 16 MP, it won't be downsized. I probably will stick with iCloud/Photos.
I just uploaded the same 20MB file to iCloud Photos and it gave me back the exact same file, 20MB.
They look and run better than the apps they make for Android. And even better than Apple's apps in most cases.
Darn. I'm still looking for a free service that will upload my photos and videos in their original quality, rename them according to date and time (instead of IMG0001), automatically download them to my computer at home, allow me to view all my photos and videos from anywhere as well as edit tags and descriptions, and have changes automatically sync back to my computer with all metadata saved as sidecar xmp files.
Right now I can kind of do this but it's very convoluted. I use 5 different applications and it's not completely automatic.
Right now I can kind of do this but it's very convoluted. I use 5 different applications and it's not completely automatic.
Surely you don't think Apple doesn't look at your data and sell it to 3 party companies? I hope not because all companies do it.
----------
Yeah sure for unlimited data.
----------
Its so funny the uninformed about Google and Apple is very scary. Both Apple, Google and others look at the users data so they can sell ads and make extra money.
I was reading through most of the comments here and seen a few similar to this so I'm not trying to single you out, but wanted to clarify this. Sure, most professional and advanced amatures or passionate photographers shoot RAW. In most cases it would be ideal to back up the RAW file as well as the processed JPEG (Amazon lets me do this). The difference is, Flickr is designed to showcase your photos and display them. You cannot process the RAW and save it back as a RAW. You generally save it as a JPEG or if you want to skip the compression save it as a tiff. RAW files are pure sensor data and contain no sharpening or color correction and need to be processed in order to be displayed. Additionally, most mirrorless or DSLR cameras are 16MP or higher now. Canon's new 5Ds is 50.6MP.
As you mentioned, Google's new service is clearly geared towards mobile consumers and not photographers. So for all the comments stating "why do you care about the 16MP limit?" Some of still buy actual cameras.
It was a targeted attack on a user, not Apple or iCloud. Let's not go over all this again.
Are you saying you display all your work in RAW format? Have you even held a D4? Most of what you said makes little sense.I hope you were joking, Because that is a stupid comment: "real photography"
I have taken as many beautiful published photos with the Nikon D50 (6 megapixel?) as I have with the Nikon D4 (I don't know how many megapixels - cause its NOT IMPORTANT!). Joe McNally with an iPhone will out shoot me (most days
An expensive camera does not a good photographer make.
Many megapixels does not a good photographer make.
Google lets me put my photos in albums. iCloud won't. iCloud lets me auto upload, but I can't organize them. Drives me nuts.
You can't add pics in albums? I can do so on my iPhone and iPad..what are you trying to do??
You couldn't be more wrong. The hackers used social engineering to trigger her security questions and then google the answers. That's not Apples fault. Same thing was done on Android with the few celebrities that actually use Android
----------
Um you do realize you're completely wrong right? Apple doesn't sell your data and never has. That's the difference between the two companies. You get google products free because they sell your data. You pay for Apple products because they don't.
As far as iCloud breaches, there were some exploits and lack of some security features that certainly were on Apple's side and could have easily been involved in it all.
As for personal data, where's the evidence to show that one does and the other doesn't?
For once, I'd love to see Google come up with a unique icon instead of completely ripping off Apple on that front. They're offering unique features, so why not try to differentiate their app instead of making it look like an Apple copycat?
Nooooooo!
I miss the old Picasa Web Albums. With Web Albums you could see all your folders and rows of thumbnails, and easily manage photos, such as renaming folders and moving photos to new folders.
I hate the trend (Apple and Google especially) to massive redesign with less functionality and pointless layout styles. I especially hate the random variation in thumbnail size with the Google Plus layout.
Don't get me started on thin fonts and the flat look.
Last edited:
Google's Picasa has had a circular multicolor icon for a long time. One can extrapolate some conclusions from there as well if one wanted.
Yeah, but if what you are doing is displaying photos on a screen, do you actually need a file bigger than 16M?
When I first saw this I was very impressed and questioning why Apple can't offer it. Then I thought why I was paying $100 a year for my Amazon Cloud Drive, then it occurred to me there's no free lunch in this world, so how is Google able to pay for it and offer it free? Well yeah it is only free in that you don't pay, in fact you are their currency and that worries me. This and the drama last week on how google maps knows where you are, where you've been and remembers everything makes me very cautious about using all their free services. The new photo service doesn't just store your photo, it starts analyzing them for locations, subjects, dates and in reality, Google is the machine that churns information into cash. You're feeding the machine and in return you get a 'service' It's amazing but also scary how accurate the recognition software is.
I'm happy to just stick with my paid services for now.
I'm happy to just stick with my paid services for now.
Actually, you might be doing something wrong....
I just signed up and checked the first photo that uploaded. The copy on my phone says 2.95MB, while the copy that I shared to my email says 3MB (received by Apple Mail).
So it's the same size, at least for an 8 megapixel photo.
I am pretty happy with Google Photos so far and it is a better deal that iCloud.
I still really like SmugMug though, where you can get unlimited photo and video storage for about $60 per year, less with a discount code.
Last edited:
You typed 5 sentences. Every single one of them is wrong. You went 5 for 5. Perfection
edit: correction. You went 4 for 5. You were right about Apple not selling your data. They don't. Neither does Google, but that sort of spoils your narrative.
Dude, just to scare you some more, you are tracked EVERYWHERE!
Your credit card company does it for every purchase, many of the stores track you, your browsing is tracked, I'd be surprised if virtually all paid services do not at least aggregate your information. Yep, Apple does it too, your online newspaper does it, you magazine subscription is being tracked, as is you credit score and car purchases....
Most of it's anonymous and it's what really keeps the web free. Much of it is not sold, except as aggregated and generally anonymous behavior patterns. BTW, some of your more private data is probably sold by your friendly local government
Last edited: