Trouble Posting Photos from Google

[nscaleSPF2]

Am having more than a little difficulty posting photos using Google Photos and/or Google Plus Photos.  Both will generate a URL, but the URL does not include a jpg extension. 

I last used Google to post here about 6 months ago, but they have apparently made some changes to their system.  Is anyone else having the same problem?

Any other thoughts?

Thanks.

[Chris333]

I still use Picasa web albums as Google Photos only works when people are signed into Google.

[nscaleSPF2]

I'll try Picasa, Chriss333.  But all of the photos that I have posted to date used either Google Photos or Google Plus Photos.

[Missaberoad]

On the page you are sent to try right clicking on the image and selecting "view image" or "show image" and that should take you to a page with a .jpg ext.

Jason's comments below are correct and it appears the only way to get a direct link in google images is to use the method outlined in this blog post
http://www.rainsberger.ca/2016/02/19/direct-link-to-image-in-google-photos-for-html-image-tag/

[nscaleSPF2]

Oh, that could be my problem.  I'm using an OSX (Mac) machine, rather than a PC.

It looks like Picasa has been discontinued, so I guess I can't go there, either. 

[Missaberoad]

On a Mac ctrl + click should bring up the right click menu.

[wcfn100]

Oh, that could be my problem.  I'm using an OSX (Mac) machine, rather than a PC.

It looks like Picasa has been discontinued, so I guess I can't go there, either. 

You won't get a .jpg extension from Google Photos no matter what machine you use or how many buttons you press, so don't worry about that.

Picasa has been discontinued but that's the desktop application.  What you want is www.picasaweb.com.  It's not supported anymore, but still works fine. All your pictures and albums should be there.  You may need to change some permissions on the albums to link to the pictures but I'm not sure on that.

Jason

[nscaleSPF2]

OK, I'll give that a shot, Jason.  Thanks.

[nscaleSPF2]

That did it, Jason.  Thanks again.  It works the same way that Google Photos used to. 

I hate Google.  They seem to change their system, remove functionality, and not tell anyone.  Hard to understand how they remain in business.

[peteski]

I hate Google.  They seem to change their system, remove functionality, and not tell anyone.  Hard to understand how they remain in business.

It's their search engine (and ads) silly!   

It is not just them that change things. Photobucket's new (well, the latest) interface stinks (I preferred simple view without all the fancy effects). Actually, all of the photo hosting services have evolved from how they worked couple of years back.  Yahoo changed their email system and their groups few years back. I still hate it and I visit there much less often than I used to. They all call it progress and improvement.

[nscaleSPF2]

Okay, Mr. deSnarkski, I have an assignment for you.

If I'm not using Google to host photos for this blog, then what should I be using?  Huh, huh?

Give me a recommendation and I'll try it and let you know if it's any good.  It should be cheap and easy to use.

[peteski]

Well, the cheapest and easiest would be to just have the photos locally hosted on the Railwire, right in your posts. It is free and easy - you just upload the photos as attachments right into your posts. But make sure to select "Inline full-size image" every time, so it shows up correctly in the post (so every reader of your post doesn't have to click a thumbnail to expand it. I find that very annoying and usually don't even bother to do it.)  Another good thing about this method is that the photos will be available for viewing for as long as TRW is around. This cannot be said about using 3rd part photo hosting sites which can disappear in time or change the URL to your photos making your write-up useless without photos.

As far as free photo hosting sites go, in the last few years all the ones I visit became complicated and cumbersome to use.

[nscaleSPF2]

Wow, that couldn't be any easier or cheaper.  Thanks, Peter.  Will use this feature from now on.

[Missaberoad]

Well, the cheapest and easiest would be to just have the photos locally hosted on the Railwire, right in your posts. It is free and easy - you just upload the photos as attachments right into your posts. But make sure to select "Inline full-size image" every time, so it shows up correctly in the post (so every reader of your post doesn't have to click a thumbnail to expand it. I find that very annoying and usually don't even bother to do it.)  Another good thing about this method is that the photos will be available for viewing for as long as TRW is around. This cannot be said about using 3rd part photo hosting sites which can disappear in time or change the URL to your photos making your write-up useless without photos.

As far as free photo hosting sites go, in the last few years all the ones I visit became complicated and cumbersome to use.

Downside to this method is the more photos posted as attachments the more Bandwidth and storage are required to host the Railwire.
John and now Tom have been kind enough to provide us a place to exist on the web and using a free third party photo host helps keep costs down...

[peteski]

Downside to this method is the more photos posted as attachments the more Bandwidth and storage are required to host the Railwire.
John and now Tom have been kind enough to provide us a place to exist on the web and using a free third party photo host helps keep costs down...

But where do we draw the line?  If it is the Weekend Update thread with some snapshots taken of something you did during the weekend, or some silly pictures in the Crew Lounge, then I wouldn't choose to use local hosting. But it  the thread shows some instructional stuff (like how to install a decoder in a specific loco, a detailed review of a new model, or an informational information on some custom-built signal system) then I would have no qualms with using the local hosting for photos.