The new .Mac Gallery feature is certainly impressive but would you subscribe to .Mac for this feature alone ? Personally I have been a Flickr subscriber for over 2 years now mainly to “backup” my photos online, and for this the service is perfectly adequate. However if I wanted to produce a showcase of my best photos ( and videos ) it seems as if .Mac would be a much better choice, albeit a slightly more expensive one.
Obviously there is more to .Mac than the Gallery but this feature alone has certainly got one Mac user considering subscribing again…
[tags].mac, iphoto, ilife[/tags]
The Gallery's link with iPhoto makes it the fastest way to get photo's on-line.
We've had mac.com accounts since they first came out. After our holiday this year we wanted to put the snaps on-line for our kids (who live in Chicago and London) to see what the old farts have been up to. Usually that meant making a website with Mac.com's on-line software, so we used iWeb instead. It probably took about an hour for a not too good site.
Tried again with RapidWeaver and made a lovely website but it took another hour.
Then I noticed the Me Gallery link in iPhoto, clicked on it and made the first Gallery folder in a few minutes – the time it took to upload the files. So our poor kids got the works, about 4 years of iPhoto libraries uploaded for them to laugh at. That took another click or two and the upload in the background. The Galleries are synchronised automatically with iPhoto as well.
We use our .Mac Public Folders extensively to send and receive large files and folders of hundreds of hi-res images (we are designers). It's a lot easier than using our in-house ftp server because we don't have to leave a Mac on 24/7.