Pourquoi ne pas réel album structurer dans Google photos ?

Why not actual album structure in Google photos?

Avant de comparer un smartphone pliable, il faut absolument voir les différents appareils disponibles sur le marché. Lequel, permettra vraiment de lire les blagues tous les jours de manière gréable ?

ne serait-il pas agréable s’il y a véritable album de photos plutôt juste référençant des photos à un album ? En ce moment, il n’y a pas de moyen facile de trouver des photos non inclus dans un album. Imaginez si vous voulez classer sauvegardé les photos du dernier mois. Vous avez des captures d’écran, de meme que vous avez téléchargé, quelques photos des documents très importants et des photos que vous avez pris dans les sorties de dîner. Vous créez à la suite des albums pour organiser leur « meme », « doc important », « sorties » « screenshots ».

Vous organisez de quelques-unes des photos en albums. Après quelques jours vous organisez le reste mais vous vous souvenez des photos exacts que vous avez organisé auparavant ? Ne serait-il pas agréable si photos vraiment organisées en albums et photos onglet pour toutes les photos dans un calendrier ?


View Reddit by SrineshNisala

9 réflexions au sujet de “Pourquoi ne pas réel album structurer dans Google photos ?”

  1. I used to complain about the same thing. Now I just put all my photos in albums then archive them, so that the only photos that I see on the main page are the photos that aren’t in an album. (Everything you archive disappears from the main page)

  2. This is exactly the problem I find with Google photos. If I put photos in an album, I want them in that album only. I hate that they merely create a copy(reference link? I’m not sure what you’d call it) but still also stay on the main screen. Just means that there is no ability to impliment an organisational structure in my own photos, forcing a search through tens of thousands of photos to find the one I want. « Move to album », add that as an option, simple solution.

  3. I don’t understand. Aren’t your photos organized chronologically?

    How would digital photos be organized if you already didn’t organize them? By day? Then, chronologically. By location? Search a location to see photos you’ve taken there. By person? Search a face and see photos containing that face (even dogs). By event or subject? Search for « document » or « food » or something and see what you get.

    Do you mean a physical album? I really don’t understand what you’re proposing. I sort of understand your complaint (« no easy way to find photos not included in an album ») but don’t know what other tools you require to find photos aside from querying.

    Please elaborate on (1) what the current structure/problem is, and (2) what you propose as a solution.

  4. Personally I have to disagree. Google photos provides user created albums, automatically created albums and an AI powered search tool. Having a central repository of photos and links to whichever ones you want in as many albums as you want is, to my mind, vastly more convenient than a folder structure. I view the approach as similar to how email is organised these days. Who has the time or inclination to sort email into folders, and what if something is relevant to multiple categories? Just add tags, as many as you need (some automatic), and they’ll be easy to find. The whole folder structure approach feels to me like a relic from Windows explorer.

    As an example, yesterday I wanted to find a picture from a friend’s wedding. Couldn’t remember the date but just searched ‘wedding’ in Google photos and the day in question appeared immediately. I do have an album from that event but this approach was even quicker than scrolling through my list of albums. I accept that for very generic pictures this might be more difficult but there’s also the option to search by location and, most of the time, I’d have a fair idea where the photos I was looking for was taken. All of these options provide much greater flexibility and convenience, IMO.

  5. So Google photos should add an optional standalone app for desktop so the organization used in the photos app can be used the same way when you are offline for photos you have downloaded to your computer?

  6. Are you an Outlook user?

    Gmail tags and Google photos albums work the same way. You can have multiple tags applied to an email, and multiple albums that a picture belongs to. You can archive the picture from your gallery but it should still be in the album you assigned it to.

    It’s better for sharing and space, e.g. want the same photos in different albums? Your way has people copying the picture to each folder, duplicating it.

    Even Microsoft is moving away from folders in the Enterprise space. SharePoint now recommends using metadata, tagging and search. Yes folders are how how it’s always been done, but the paradigm has shifted to search and tags.

  7. This is why I have yet to use google photos, I want my photos in the albums I store them in, so I just backup on my pc about once every week or two when Im charging my phone, should something happen to my phone, I have my same level of organization

Les commentaires sont fermés.