# Irista



## Frodo (Jan 25, 2017)

I was reasonably well served with Picasa for my photo hosting needs. But this was bought and killed by Google. There are many things I dislike with Google Photos, so I looked for something else.
I wanted Irista to work, but I struggled with:
- Inability to provide captions to images
- Very slow access to images.

I took photos at a friend's wedding a fortnight ago and posted the photos on Irista. Many complained how slow it was to access the photos. This killed it for me.

I'm now looking elsewhere for photo hosting. Will probably go to Flickr.


----------



## nda (Jan 25, 2017)

Have you tried 500px.com?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 25, 2017)

What do you want? Suggestions?

If so, you need to provide some information about what features you need. With Yahoo being sold, Flickr's future is a unknown. Free photo sites are big money losers, eventually, money gets tight and they go away.


----------



## LDS (Jan 25, 2017)

Frodo said:


> I wanted Irista to work, but I struggled with:
> - Inability to provide captions to images
> - Very slow access to images.



The caption appear and is editable when you open the info box (the (i) icon). I agree in gallery view they should be displayed.

What format an size did you upload? I don't find it slow - but I uploads only JPEGs, no RAWs.

Anyway, Irista still looks a work in progress. You can contact them at support (at) irista (dot) com with suggestions - but if and when they could be implemented I don't know.


----------



## Frodo (Jan 26, 2017)

LDS said:


> Frodo said:
> 
> 
> > I wanted Irista to work, but I struggled with:
> ...



Hi LDS

Thanks for your response.

Clicking the (i) icon opens up photographic information, but it is not possible add a caption relating to the subject matter, e.g. names of people in the photo, location.

One of the issues with Google is that the default image sizes are about 1100 pixels which is insufficient for most printing purposes. My default for sharing is 2000 pixels along the long edge as I find this a good compromise between file size and image quality. Depending on the end-use, I also upload 3000 and 4000 pixels (the latter for "clients" for enlargements). Uploading speed for Irista seems almost independent of file size and is significantly slower than Picasa and Google. I just checked - its about 6 seconds for a 2000 pixel photo on to my desktop - this is reasonably fast and I have very good wifi and broadband speeds.

Yes, I have provided feedback to Canon.


----------



## Frodo (Jan 26, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> What do you want? Suggestions?
> 
> If so, you need to provide some information about what features you need. With Yahoo being sold, Flickr's future is a unknown. Free photo sites are big money losers, eventually, money gets tight and they go away.



Hi MSP

What do I want? I noted two main features: speed of uploading and the ability to add captions. The rest is okay.

I turned 60 last June and now have more time for photography, something that's been a passion since I was the school photographer aged 13, but always been displaced by other things in my life. This will include more semi-commercial work and so I need a better photo-hosting site. Sometimes the best things in life are free, but clearly this is not the case with photohosting sites! All links I sent out for Picasa webalbums now don't work (they can be resent from within Google photos, but this is a hassle), so future proofing is important. This is one of the reasons why I went for a new site hosted by Canon and had reservations about Flickr.

Its clear that I need to move to a fee-paying site. I don't mind the cost - its small compared to other photographic costs and my own time.


----------



## LDS (Jan 26, 2017)

Frodo said:


> Clicking the (i) icon opens up photographic information, but it is not possible add a caption relating to the subject matter, e.g. names of people in the photo, location.



The caption of the photo can be changed in the photo information pane. By default it shows the filename, but you can change it to whatever you like (never tested its maximum length, though). The filename is kept, if someone downloads the image it is downloaded using the filename of the upload.

If it's not enough, you can use tags to associate other data to the photo. I usually use a tag for location. You can then also filter using tags. It's a beta feature and it's still limited, if you need to manage many metadata Irista is not probably the best choice today. You can also share Irista galleries through Facebook and Google+ - but not using either of them, I don't know if you can add there more info about the images.

It looks to me Canon is aiming for a very simple and uncluttered interface to give maximum emphasis to the image.

About upload times, I'm sure Google has put more resources into its applications than Canon (user images are another source of valuable information for Google...). AFAIK Irista too attempts to suggest tags for the image too, and analyzing it may take some time - I don't believe Canon built into Irista the same processing power of Google (it looks Irista runs from Amazon AWS).


----------



## Frodo (Jan 27, 2017)

Thanks LDS
That is helpful. The filename can be changed, I see, to the caption e.g. "John Doe in Washington DC". You do lose easy reference to the filename, but as you note, it is identified when downloaded.
The caption is not visible in the gallery or individual photo, only when the (i) is clicked.
Picasa provided the opportunity to display or hide the caption, something I would prefer.
In terms of tags, I find Lightroom functions fine for me to find images. A webalbum is primarily for friends and "clients".
I am setting up a webpage using Strikingly and will be able link photos and add captions. However, I will share photos more frequently through webalbums.
I take your point about photo access times. My first exposure to computers was by feeding in Fortran cards and getting a response 3 days later. However, my expectations have increased somewhat since then! If Canon is serious about Irista, they will have consider this.
Thanks again.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jan 27, 2017)

Smugmug is very good.
The interface is a bit clunky but it has a lot to offer, especially protection of your pics.
sek


----------



## Quackator (Jan 29, 2017)

How about your own webserver (can be hosted at a hosting service)?
Set up a wordpress gallery theme and you are done.

Upload depends solely on your internet connection this way.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 29, 2017)

I'm about to lose out to Dropbox culling all the links to the "public" folder for paid for and free accounts.. people are not happy.

I'm seriously concidering setting up my own site from which to host images or other stuff.. then if the hosting company decides to spit their dummy out I can simply change the host and all my links remain live.

The trouble with all these "services" (free or otherwise) is they're great until they're not, then you're totally stuffed.


----------



## Jopa (May 5, 2017)

I tried Irista yesterday. One big problem so far - viewing resolution. I noticed the max resolution (W or H) the server returns to the clients (web or mobile) is limited by 1620px. Not enough to view crisp images even on an iPad. On a 4k or 5k monitor it seems like a total joke. Even Flickr limit is 2048px.
What I liked - the filters by camera / lens / aperture - very cool.
But unfortunately because of the resolution issue it's not ready for prime time yet...


----------



## Frodo (May 7, 2017)

I tried Flickr and have decided to go for Smugmug. Will keep you posted.


----------

