1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

For JPEGS Only, Is Picasa Enough?

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by hunyuan7, Feb 15, 2013.

  1. hunyuan7

    hunyuan7 Mu-43 Regular

    Aug 31, 2011
    In your opinion, if you shoot only jpegs, do you think using free Picasa is enough for handling your photos? Or, do you think you are better served with a purchased software?

    My photographic habit:
    • 1,500 photos/month
    • Hardly ever tweak photos

    Just curious about your experience.
  2. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    I love Picassa. It's free and some of their tools are great to use. Though I also use Photoshop to do more accurate processing.
  3. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    1,500 photos A MONTH?

    You do know that you don't need to save every shot, right?

    I took a fair number of photos last year. I may have saved 1,500 for the year, but I could easily prune that down to a couple hundred.

    If you don't like tweaking your photos much, Picassa should be plenty and for storage it's great.
  4. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Nov 7, 2010
    I shoot JPEGs almost exclusively. I use Picasa, but not exclusively. There are definitely times when Lightroom can do some tricks that really help a shot. I'm not talking advanced editing, just more subtle ways to control various parameters.

    Have you tried the Picnik feature in Picasa? It provides some of the advanced features you'd get in Lightroom. Downside is you do the work online then save the photo back to your computer, so it is slow. But it would give you an idea of some of the other things you can achieve beyond basic Picasa.
  5. Steven

    Steven Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2012
    I used to use Picasa only a while ago, so I don't know , it might have changed since then, but I switched to using Lightroom and I think it's much much better. It doesn't matter if you use JPEGs only, there's still a lot of powerful tools in Lightroom to use. Even if it's just some cropping, sharpening, contrast/clarity it's possible to greatly improve photos.

    I use Panasonic though. I understand Olympus Jpegs are better out of the box.
  6. WT21

    WT21 Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Feb 19, 2010
    Picasa is a step-up from the built-in Windows photo stuff, but IMO is not generally enough. I also get frustrated, because it's always trying to index everything else. The photo edit tools are good, but more global and universal. If I was on Windows and doing nothing but storing jpgs, then I might use Picasa, but PSE with Bridge organizer might still be a better choice, and it gives you a couple of editing tools.
  7. spinyman

    spinyman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 19, 2010
    San Diego
    I have used Picasa for years,still do,however, starting last year I run everything through Lightroom 4 first, then the computer auto transfers my pics to picasa and I may tweak them a bit more.
  8. InlawBiker

    InlawBiker Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Feb 1, 2012
    Seattle, WA
    I have used Picasa for many years, so many it's hard to escape from it. I still use it to import photos from memory cards, because I like the way it moves them into folders by year/month/day. If I want to process by hand then I do it separately in LR, after I've imported the card into Picasa. It like it for quick editing, tagging faces and keywords.

    Anyway that's an awful lot of JPEGs per month but I don't see why it wouldn't work. I think it's better at cataloging than editing, which is what you seem to be after.
  9. angusr

    angusr Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    Sep 21, 2011

    I used Picasa for years. It is in many ways a brilliant program, however I have since switched entirely to Lightroom and won't be going back.

    For cataloguing only, Picasa works very well, and it is simpler, more user friendly and considerably faster (in terms of flicking through images etc) than Lightroom.

    Unfortunately its processing tools are not a patch on Lightroom which is why I don't use it any more. If you don't process your images, then I can't see why you shouldn't stay with Picasa.
  10. WT21

    WT21 Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Feb 19, 2010
    LR will import photos directly into year/month/day folders. In the import dialog, under Destination, choose the folder, then "Organize: by date" and "Date Format: 2013-02-12"

    Keywording in LR is lightening quick, though it doesn't tag faces. You can also apply a tone curve upon import. I have a custom tone curve to make the tone curve more "s" than flat.
  11. davidzvi

    davidzvi Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    If it's just jpegs and you already use Google image galleries it's probably fine.

    But I do have to agree that it's no substitute for LR.
  12. davidzvi

    davidzvi Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
  13. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    I use Picasa a lot, and have used it for years. The picnic edit tool is great if you have a good internet connection. I also use FastStone viewer, also free. It does some functions quicker and easier than Picasa and does not "fight" with it. I have also tried Aperture, Photoshop Elements (old versions) and GIMP. They are all beyond my skills to utilize fully. GIMP is free and supposedly extremely powerful. But I cannot figure it out very well...

    I will say that Aperture has some neat and easy adjustments, but like all Apple products, it does not play well with others. It really screwed up the Picasa filing & storage system and changed many folder names to a gibberish of characters. It will also create thousands of duplicate folders in the Picasa system with only 2 copies of the same picture in each folder. Not only that, but it hid all my photos so well in the HD, that I cannot find them again to move them to other media or use FTP, etc. In my experience Aperture sucks in my Powerbook. Fortunately, I do have PC laptops and computers, so I'm not stuck with Apple.

    Just looked in the link, the price now is $124
  14. davidzvi

    davidzvi Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    It was a one day spacial only.

    I pretty much live in Lightroom and Photoshop. It's actually rare that I don't have one of the other open.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.