Sync images to webgalery

[ben]

Hi Mario,

i think it would be a great feature (in the long run) to be able to upload images to one of the bigger image hosters (flickr, picasa webgalery, ...).

You mentioned some ideas, how to do it with the current version:

Not yet. Usually you can just drag files from IMatch to the "upload" screen of whatever online photo gallery you happen to use.  Most allows for simple drag and drop, which makes it quite easy to directly upload files from IMatch. One problem with writing custom connectors is that each of the major sites (Flickr, pbase, smugmug, Facebook) uses a different interface. And some even want money if you want to use their interface. IMatch has the technology to handle all that, but I will check which sites are requested most often before I implement anything in this area.

But i can think of more comfortable ways of doing it:

• sync a certain category with the webgalery
• automatically resize the images before uploading
• ...

So let's see what other users think about it and which image hoster are requested most often.
I guess, one could even do it by the scripting functionality of imatch. But a built in function would be more convenient.

@Everybody:

• Would you like to use such a feature?
• Which image hoster would you like to use?

Nik

[RalfC]

@Everybody:

• Would you like to use such a feature?
• Which image hoster would you like to use?

IMHO: an export / sync feature for selfhosting would be more beneficial than an uploader for one of the "big" image hosters.

I was already a bit thinking if i try(!) to script something for my test-site which uses Koken (see koken.me). [I'm not sure, if I understand enopugh about the different systems to succeed]
Functionality could be to use categories which can be synced, maybe somewhat similar to the Lightroom plugin (which I can not use due to lack of LR)

Regards,
Ralf

[jch2103]

@Everybody:

• Would you like to use such a feature?
• Which image hoster would you like to use?

• Yes, I would use such a feature.
• I use Smugmug, which has an API that I haven't explored. I the meantime, drag and drop works fine for me.

By the way, the Simple Machines forum software has the ability to create polls (but I don't know how to invoke it here).

[pmbvw]

I would like such a feature like in my last DAM-Tool
and prefer an upload feature to FLICKR per RMT or Menuoption.
The only thing I need in the feature is a resize to 1600 pixel for the longest side.

[Jingo]

I think there are 2 different ideas to explore here:
  1 - an uploader to various galleries either via API calls (to allow the creation of galleries or upload to specific galleries and more) or a simpler FTP option to upload files to an upload directory which then feeds the particular gallery.

  2 - a "portfolio" which uses API calls to maintain images locally for the gallery.  Changes made in IMatch would be reflected in the gallery.  This is akin to services in LR, portfolios in photo Supreme and even exists in a different form in Zoner Photo Studio. 

[Mario]

1.  No special feature needed to FTP files. Just open the FTP folder in Windows Explorer and then drag and drop files from IMatch to that folder.
You can even batch process output to FTP that way.

[ben]

BTW, i forgot...

I would prefer picasa webalbum

[photoken]

@Everybody:

• Would you like to use such a feature?

-1

No.  Simply copy the files into a directory named, for example, "Upload" on your hard drive and use any number of methods to upload them anywhere.

[Ferdinand]

We have had uploaders in the past.  There was one for smugmug and another for gallery3. 
They were user developed and supported.  The trouble with these is that they stop working when the API changes, which happens all too frequently. 

I know that there is interest in getting the smugmug one working again.  The gallery3 one has been fixed and ported to V5, but not released yet (I could do so when I'm home next month).

I suspect that writing an IMatch app that encapsulates the API is NOT (edited) going to be the best way to develop uploaders for sites like smugmug.  I'm not sure it's a good use of Mario's limited time.  It's going to need an experienced scripter who uses these services (not me).

[Mario]

Problem is, there are so many protocols and interfaces to support. Every site uses different protocols to upload images, different concepts for galleries, user authentication.  Some of the protocols and APIs (Application Programmingn Interfaces) to support:

- FTP
- SFTP (secure FTP)
- Facebook API
- Twitter API
- Flickr API
- Smugmug API
- Instagram API
- PInterest API
- ...

just to name a few. All use different interfaces and often the documentation has 50 or more pages.

Another issue are "API keys". Using these API often requires a proprietary application key, which is then private to the company (me) using the API. I cannot reveal this key to others because I will be held responsible when it falls in the wrong hands and is abused, e.g. to flood Flickr or Facebook accounts with advertisements.

This means that it will be impossible or require some cool solution in order to allow writing export modules using IMatch scripts or IMatch Apps. I have thought about this and the solution would be a set of methods exposed by IMatch which setup the connection with the web service in a secure way, without exposing the private API keys I maintain for each of these services. Then the App or Script could use the connection and do it's thing.

Another issue is cost. Some of the big web sites charge money (Flickr being an example, did not check all others yet). I would have to pay annual fees so you can upload photos.

I have code which allows IMatch to upload files via FTP. That's for a planned FTP upload module.
But users are becoming more sensitive to privacy and security these days (good!). This means that on the same day I would release a FTP Upload module, users will request support for safe FTP (SFTP).

This is not only very different from a programming perspective, there is also no built-in support for it in Windows. I made a check to see if there is some open source code I could use, with a license that allows me to use it in IMatch. There is only one and it seems to be rather complicated to use.

The commercial components I could purchase to support SFTP in IMatch cost between ~200 and 1500 US$. Plus annual support fees.

...

Just a few infos from my site. And while I ponder all this and look at various APIs to support, emails are piling in, bug reports are made, community posts need answering etc.

The best route from my perspective would be to write some basic classes and methods which could be use from scripting and Apps. Scripts and Apps are easy to maintain and change, and users can write them too. But the ever-changing APIs and the requirements of per application API keys and potential cost are to be considered as well. If an IMatch user writes a script which uses an API, it is not commercial use for example. If I do it, it becomes commercial and may fall under annual royalties policies.

And, not to forget, most web sites allow you to upload files via simple drag and drop anyway. So you can just drag files from IMatch to your browser to upload them. And if you need to run the Batch Processor, just drag from Windows Explorer to the Browser. Or include the Batch Processor output folder in your IMatch database and then drag from the File Windows.

Most of the functionality is all there, and all what we could add with uploader scripts is to add more comfort or a couple of extra features. And then, which of the various photo web sites to support first?

[Ferdinand]

Note the word "NOT" originally missing from my post and now inserted.

[photoken]

If a user is unwilling to use a special "Upload" directory as I described earlier, then the best solution is for the users who want an uploading application for their favorite site to encourage a developer to write one as a stand-alone application.  Then it's merely a matter of adding that application to IM's Favorites panel. 

This is the fairest method, too -- it means that:

• I won't have features I never use cluttering up my IM program.
• When it's time to purchase the upgrade for the next version of IM, I won't have to pay part of the licensing fees for features I'll never use.  If a user wants that uploading application, he'll pay the developer of it, if necessary.

[sinus]

So let's see what other users think about it and which image hoster are requested most often.
I guess, one could even do it by the scripting functionality of imatch. But a built in function would be more convenient.

@Everybody:

• Would you like to use such a feature?
• Which image hoster would you like to use?

Nik

For me this is not necessary. A lot of webgalleries does allow simple drag'n'drop or ftp or whatever.
In the past we had some scripts, and think, that also here will some users create some great scripts, and a lot of these scripters are willing to share these.

[Ger]

Also a negative one here, reasoning as given by Markus, Ferdinand and Photoken.

Ger

[Menace]

And, not to forget, most web sites allow you to upload files via simple drag and drop anyway. So you can just drag files from IMatch to your browser to upload them. And if you need to run the Batch Processor, just drag from Windows Explorer to the Browser. Or include the Batch Processor output folder in your IMatch database and then drag from the File Windows.

Most of the functionality is all there, and all what we could add with uploader scripts is to add more comfort or a couple of extra features. And then, which of the various photo web sites to support first?

That is alright. I mostly use Koken and with them, a simple drag & drop work well. But, to be honest, a small Button for f.e. facebook which upload the currently selection with the right solution, size, metadatas would be nice too.

It depends, which kind of customers there are. How about a poll: With Yes and No and than, which side should be supported (if there is one far day enough time to develop).

[Jingo]

For me this is not necessary. A lot of webgalleries does allow simple drag'n'drop or ftp or whatever.
In the past we had some scripts, and think, that also here will some users create some great scripts, and a lot of these scripters are willing to share these.

I think we are talking about 2 different things as outlined in my post above.  The FTP module would be nice - but uploading to a gallery folder is not really that big a deal since, as mentioned, most galleries offer drag/drop to upload.  The bigger item is maintaining the gallery directly from IMatch which is what many other DAMs offer within the software.  ALL changes to an image that is stored in a "portfolio" linked to an online gallery is then mirrored automatically on the gallery.  So, if I add a keyword and sync it to the file, it will be uploaded to the gallery and that metadata is updated as well.  Same for deleting an item from the portfolio, making image corrections, ratings, etc.

I'm not saying that IMatch needs such functionality... but when it is nice to have within the program (I use this for LR with my Slickpic gallery).

[Mario]

Until now I haven't even know that something like Slickpic exists...
Since I don't have the financial and human resources of Adobe, I don't think I can compete with them, re-implementing any plug-in they have written, or written for them. And if you have the functionality in LR already, why duplicate it in IMatch?

[Jingo]

Because I'm moving away from LR to IMatch.. 

SlickPic was just one example (BTW - this plugin was written by the gallery developer... which I guess is an advantage if you are a big software company like Adobe).  I know other programs also allow this for Flickr for example.  I think IMatch is targeted to a different audience and perhaps this isn't a feature needed.. but it is an interesting option and many users find it useful in this day/age of sharing.

[ben]

I think the simple solution with drag & drop works quite well to upload images once to the online gallery (didn't think about that before).
But:
  - i wouldn't know how to rescale the images before upload, without actually creating a local copy, which just eats space on the hard drive
  - the nice thing of an automatic sync function is, that it updates all changes in the webgalery (files added to selection, metadata changed, ...)

[Erik]

I think drag and drop works well in most cases.

I know that for my own workflow, I'm more happy with using the functionality wished for in LR or other RAW editors.  I generally have to process my files before they could end up online anyway, and I kind of like that I can edit my photos in LR and not have to output a JPG specifically for web use.  It saves a few steps.  I haven't even felt a need upload from IM in quite a while. 

Of course, I imagine the ability to upload to web services diminishes greatly if you aren't using LR.