Photo Gallery & GPS Geotagger

A short note to all photographers.

Photo Gallery Software

Many peoples have thousands of photos saved on local storage disks. They don't know how to publish them without too much effort. Many also want to retain control over their photos. This is exactly why I programmed this web software. It makes it possible to publish large collections of photos with very minimal effort.

Photodir - Photo Directory Gallery
A very simple Photo Gallery.

cost free, public domain, Open Source.

Beginners level:
- install it (webhost, server).
- upload photos (SFTP).
- ready!

Further levels:
- use album thumbnails.
- use IPTC and EXIF.
-- IPTC: title, description, copyright, ...
-- EXIF: GPS, ...
- Customizing possible.
- Plug-ins possible.

- not for portfolios.

More infos on the info page.

Photo Directory Gallery
Photo Directory Gallery - photodir.de


GPS Geotagger

Archives today very often have the problem that they don't know where a photo was taken. Nowadays, GPS coordinates can be saved directly in digital photos. There is already software for this. The one programmed by me is very simple and focuses on modifiability. This is not possible with most of them.

GPS Geotagger Simple (exiftool/ExifReader)
» View and edit EXIF GPS Data in Photos.
- very simple.
- possible to use it local (download).
- fully modificable (Open Source).
- cost free.

More infos on the info page.
GPS Geotagger Simple

Infos for the moderators: No bad intentions. Purely private (hobby). Non-profit. Based on interactions with photographers. It's not a promotion. It's only a information to all.

 

Perhaps we need the term control to be explained.
If a somebody looks at a photo in their browser, it will be stored in their browser cache. This mean they can view it any time, online or offline and, indeed, post it anywhere else on the Internet.
In turn, that means the original publisher of the image has next to no control over the image from the second they publish it.

 

Hello Bazz888, thanks for the question and the hint.

"Control" means the managing of the photos. The Gallery is constructed to manage the photos local and put only copies on the server. Maybe with a hardcoded watermark (recommended for copyright holders).

Apart from that ... The software is designed so that the "originals" (copies) are not directly accessible if they are larger (pixels) than the set size for the visible photos. So, if the "originals" are larger than the lightbox image dimensions, then the "originals" will not be accessible. However, it is recommended that you only upload photos that are no larger than the size of the lightbox images. Or if the lightbox plug-in is deactivated (deleted), then only as large as the image on the single photo page.

And yes, everything that is put online is like putting it on the street. Anyone can save a copy of it.

The software is very ingenious in the individual details and in the "depth", but simple.

I hope I have answered your question. However, I cannot and will not provide any support here. Please use the email address provided for support.

 

So what you mean is that control is qualified and limited. I only wanted to highlight the issue for those less software or internet savvy.
I'm not asking for support because I wouldn't use such software because it doesn't offer any meaningful control, once an image is published to the software.
Once in the software the image could end up anywhere, with the owner having no control.

 

I am not aware of any web software that does not publish the content when it publishes it. How should that work? Please give examples.

I am aware of the ambitions of some people who want total control. It's similar to people who equate control with reach. They want to control the internet so that their content gets the widest possible reach and at the same time control who saves this content. In other words, control over all devices. They call this total control the freedom of the internet. An interesting sci-fi scenario. As sci-fi i like it. On the other side peoble publish their content under public domain.

Perhaps your expectations of my programmed gallery are simply too high. Or I misunderstand your intention.

 

I think we have different meanings about the word control.

Let's not forget; 'Control' is the word you used to try to sell your software.

Apologies if this next bit sounds harsh but, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the term, 'control'.

The owner of the photos will only have control if only they can determine what happens to those photos once they are published.
Of course, once they are published they do not have control. That's why photographers I know do not put their valuable copyright online - anywhere*.

*unless they have been paid to do so.

I have no expectations of your software so my expectations aren't 'too high'.
I think you did not so much mis-understand my intention but, more, you haven't acknowledged my justified criticism of the concept of your software and more specifically, your sales pitch which is misleading.

Your software does not provide any control over the published photos as I have already explained.
Once the photos are seen in another browser, whether that's a user's browser or a spider/crawler, the control is gone.

Also:

A copy of a photo surely is the same as an original, so I don't understand that comment.
Watermarking can be removed in seconds* which means it offers zero protection.

*if they are competent in Photoshop or other image-editing software.


For clarity; I tip my hat to you for being so creative and developing software. Keep going, I suggest. But you shouldn't over-sell your creation.
Each of us is vulnerable to online sales exploits from time to time, where our lack of knowledge/experience is key to such sales/rip-off successes.
I will always call out anything which I see as being along those lines and mis-selling the issue of control is one of those, imv.

 

Sorry, their scam is really wrong. They bite on the word "control" to badmouth the software because it can't do the impossible. An answer to my question "How should that work? Please give examples." does not come from you. That's typical. Badmouthing everything, but not doing anything better yourself. Your criticism is in the wrong place here. And you badmouthing the software is also wrong.

I've already mentioned it, but you're not interested because you're following a doctrine. "Control" means the managing of the photos. Compared to company portals where photos can be published. Consider this urgently!

Think about what you write here and in what context. The use of "sell" and "sales" and "over-sell" and "mis-selling" alone is so extremely wrong. You have misunderstood the word "control" that I mentioned and are clinging to it. Even after I explained it, you won't let go of your misunderstanding.

Please stop badmouthing the software because it can't do the impossible. That is my last appeal. Please do not disregard it. If you're a troll and can't stop, then please leave me alone. Retreat to your cave and think about the damage you are doing here. "Control" means the managing of the photos. Please consider it urgently.

 

The solution does not require extra software. You even mention it yourself. You never post up original images, only downsized ones. So then you can prove copyright as you have the original. That is the best thing to do that I have found.

Btw, most websites will downsize images if they are too large. So yes, your images can be copied at the risk of copyright violation.

 

That's a very childish response and because of that I shall add just one more post/response to this thread.
BTW the way; you have no idea what I have or have not done but having over 25 yrs as a software engineer, I have learned a thing or three.

You may have your own opinion on what control means but the dictionary definition means otherwise especially in the context in which you used the term control.

WTF?

You *are* mis-selling if whatever you say may mislead the potential user.

First; I am not bad-mouthing the software - I am criticising that which you wrote about it in your OP in that you are mis-leading and mis-describing it.

You specifically said it *can* do the impossible, which is the whole reason for my criticism!
You said:

Control means control; managing means managing. Two very different things.
You should read a dictionary some time.



If you can't take criticism when you put up a post that is misleading, especially when people may pay money for it, then, you're in the wrong business.

 

You can't stop and you're disregarding my request. You are misusing the topic I created to indoctrinate your delusion. Your "control" has nothing to do with the web software. You are making something up to spread your crazy ideas. It is not possible to control the viewer of the published photos. It's horrible to even think about something like that.

The web software is for publishing photos. It is not a copyright protection software. For something like that, you need to find a thread about generating watermarks. There is not only hardcoded, but also softcoded. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the web software. Absolutely nothing.

Nobody but you thinks of copyright when they think of "control" with web software. Also and precisely because it is not possible!!! You're in the wrong topic. Find one for watermarking software. If you say my web software is bad because it can't do that, then that's very disgusting.

A distinction must be made between controlling the photo files and controlling the copyright of the photos. You do not do this. Users of the web software have full control over their photo files in terms of uploading, synchronizing, arranging, managing and using IPTC and EXIF. Furthermore in the use of meta tag robots: noarchive, noindex, ... They can completely delete the photos with all data at any time. Nothing is saved as with some platforms. Furthermore they can "control" the pixel size of the published photos. There are many many "controls" and only you think only at copyright and no more. Read a dictionary.

The web software is secure. Users have full control over their photo files as far as arranging the photo gallery is concerned. No matter what you say here.

You now have a real problem because you can't get out of this number. You can't change or delete your comments. You have no control over them. That's exactly what is meant by "control". With the photo gallery web software you would have this control over your content.

Take an example from @Toker (thanks). He doesn't take it as stubbornly as you do.

Now list the advantages of the web software if you already know so much about it. Your character comes to the fore here. But, the absolutelly horribleness is, that you don't have any interest in the web software. That is absolutelly crazy - superhero save the mankind.

 

The troll
needs control
over visitors
via backdoors.

You don't understand how the internet works. Each person becomes a copy of the content. That is how the internet works. You say, by this I lost the control over my content and this is bad - the internet is bad. That is a little bit idiotic as a critique over a photo gallery web-software who is intended to puplish content.

It seems like fanatic. Have you interest to destroy the internet and also revoke the lost of control? Go in your cave and close the doors. Many security cameras and satellits makes photos from you, every day. Don't write here furthermore, because every visitor becomes a copy of this.

The Ugly American. The instrument of Control.


Your evidence of security risks are so old as the internet and comes from the anti-internet liga. It was a little bit formed to a good meaning hint, but is furthermore a anti-publishing ideology - as you wrote. The photo gallery is NOT for persons wich will control the visitors.

All other understand "control" not in a fanatic sense, but in a context. With my photo gallery web-software have the users/publishers many controls.

 

You really aren't listening.
There are people who have put photos into software to publish it in a specific context, in a specific website, for example.
Later it appears online in places they never would have wanted it to be.
So, once they posted it, they lost control over where it would be seen.

Your OP included the sentences:

Those sentences are the only aspect which I have criticised.
Once images are put online, there is no control over where they may end up because even if they may be deleted from where they were published by the owner, they may have later been copied to places elsewhere, by others.

So that means control, an absolute term, doesn't exit once they are online.

All of that is fact.
On the other hand; you seem to be so keen to take offense that you are missing the concern that many may have when considering your software as an option.
Were you to step back and described it as managed software, it would be much more appealing as well as being accurately described.

That you have jumped to name-calling rather than addressing a genuine concern shows much more about you than it does defend or promote your software.

That is my final post on this matter because you seem overly defensive and extremely reticent in addressing that concern, which means any future engagement would be futile.

 

And for whom? Only for you, who have no interest in the Gallery anyway. So forget it! Dream on in your abstract world. Nobody dances to your tune.

You don't have to play the teacher here, because everyone knows that these days. You come from an antiquated time and are raging here with the whip. If it wasn't in my thread, it would be amusing. But as it is, it's just annoying.

 

It's quite revealing about someone that, when they are wrong, they attack the other person rather than arguing the issue.

However; Finally; you agree with the basis for my comments but still argue.

That photos may end up anywhere online is wholly incompatible with your OP statement saying

If you were trading in the UK, Trading Standards would be paying you a visit so, regardless of where you are, instead of being so defensive, you should have taken the opportunity of that learning curve.

You might learn to differentiate between someone calling you out and someone criticising your software. Two wholly separate things.


At least now; we've got to the stage where anyone else reading will know there is a limitation to that control, something which you deliberately omitted when you linked to your page asking for donations.