PDA

View Full Version : Coppermine vs Photopost?


cognaccola
February 7th, 2005, 07:06 AM
Hi,

Because of your legal dept was blabbing about a 2nd install of photopost on our server and a customer of mine needing to have a 2nd photogallery for his local domain, I didn't want to even think of using his first copy so I told him to save the cost (they are non profit organisation) and we would try out a FREE install of Coppermine gallery instead. I've never used this gallery before.

Ok the admin area isn't all that tumbling and turning switches but it has everything a photogallery should have.
Now they've seen what it does, they want me to use it for their international site too and throw off the Photopost license they just bought.

:confused:

For example why does PP not use the same slideshow effect as coppermine which is a smooth fade over of the pictures in slideshow done without click refresh of the whole page itself. If you wanna see yourself click here (http://www.childsupportfund.be/photos/displayimage.php?album=1&pid=37&slideshow=5000)

For me PP is ok, but now when I see this and I'm getting somewhat dissapointed.

Yours faithfully

nexia
February 7th, 2005, 07:15 AM
the title of this thread suggest you want comparaisons, not dissapointment...

btw, there is no comparaisons between the two... clients may need to have commercial support on a gallery, what coppermine does not... and yes, most features may be compared, and photopost is not a mimic of these other galleries, so that's why there is differences...

photopost can't provide the best solution for everyone, that's why there is "others" products...

cognaccola
February 7th, 2005, 07:26 AM
Yes I understand that, but I think when making something use the best from the rest you know. When you enter the photogallery segment they're all mimics, they are galleries to put up photos on a website. period. Of course every program has its own pro's and con's we understand that too. But it was just my first impression after using it for a few minutes, and I think compared to a free product. Btw I saw that coppermine has a forum community where like here ppl help ppl, just the makers don't fully support their built that's all, and ok when you install something Public license you never know what you get, but in this case....

So again, if I was a non PP user and was looking to put up a gallery, why use PP? I can put up 100's of coppermine galleries without paying a dime. But I can only put up 1 PP gallery per domain. I'm a bit startled. I don't wanna say PP isn't cool, cause I use it for a few years now and I'm very happy with it. But in my opinion if one pays $129 it should stick out on all fronts, even on the small gizmo's. That's what I wanted to say.

Michael P
February 7th, 2005, 08:03 AM
Features, support and a history of developing features that others copy. FOr example, just to name a couple:

PhotoPost was the first gallery to integrate directly with forums.
PhotoPost was the first gallery to use the "filmstrip" previews (copied poorly by Coppermine).

There are many more.

PhotoPost continues to raise the bar with features and integrations.

There are always free alternatives to just about everything - we aren't trying to compete against the free galleries, so you should do your research and make the choice that is best for you.

b6gm6n
February 7th, 2005, 08:30 AM
Hi cognaccola, seems your first post was all about the 'slideshows' feature not having a fancy transition...so what? - I've used CPM, supplied & made skins (bundled with distro now since 2002) made mods for it... i'm a 'contributor' on their forums... all very nice, but remember, most if not all other gallery softwares will always look towards photopost to see the latest developments in this field, it does raise the bar and you certainly get what you pay for IMO, i don't think i could use anything else after PPv5!

-T

iphoto
February 7th, 2005, 08:48 AM
Hi just add my few cents here. I too had been hopping around and had chacked virtually all available free scripts including Coopermine, though it is one of very very nice scripts available I do not think it is comparable to Photopost in any regard
1. Customer Support
2. Definitive improvement path. Since I purchased there have already been 3-4 upgrades happened. I do not know if any freeware can improve with such a speed
3. Best Integration with VB, I would rate it at TOP on this. If you have VB and need a professional gallery there is no one else who comes near to VB

Apart from all these comparions it all boils down to what *your* needs are and what features *your* site requires.

cheers :)

cognaccola
February 7th, 2005, 08:48 AM
Hehe yes Toney, you get money's worth, the software is almost zero bug, the support is magnificent, but I use CPM for the first time and see what it does and it strikes me.

Isn't this a signal? I hope that the PP team values my input here. Let's not hope they are too arrogant to say, hey we're the best F*** the rest.

In other words, to quote you "most if not all other gallery softwares will always look towards photopost to see the latest developments in this field"...this can be true, but like I say, let's hope the PP team also watches what others do...

I cannot say if for example the smooth slideshow transition was present in earlier CPM versions, but this is maybe one of the few examples I mean that PP could use for its customers. Since it's more clean to use instead of a browser refresh. Also Thumbnail previews of a category (something like xp does with image folders), why isn't this in PP?

I think this is a very good signal to say, yeah that ones good let put it in ours too, let's shift out the good things from others and implement it, to stay ahead of the competition. They do a great job and yes they work hard, but so do I. Lol

And PP5 maybe da bomb, but still I can just tell you what my first impression is, and again I DO hope PP appreciates this input.

Michael P
February 7th, 2005, 09:12 AM
I wish I could say that I did keep on eye on all the "free" scripts out there to see what they are doing; but I'm pretty busy with keeping PhotoPost development going. Besides, most of what I see is knock-offs of features we developed first. ;)

I looked into slideshow transitions a while back and there were some browser issues and load issues for setting up a slideshow (with permissions) on large systems. It's easier to get away with features that "kinda" work in a free gallery since you can just say "well, its free, what do you expect?"; but when you have a responsibility to your paying customers to provide features that work in *their* enviroment sometimes you have to make judgement calls that won't upset your customer base.

You know, there is a Suggestions forum and if your beef is about the slideshow transitions you can make a suggestion and when we can we'll look into it.

Michael P
February 7th, 2005, 09:16 AM
// (C) 2000 www.CodeLifter.com
// http://www.codelifter.com
// Free for all users, but leave in this header
// NS4-6,IE4-6
// Fade effect only in IE; degrades gracefully

// $Id: slideshow.inc.php,v 1.6 2004/07/24 15:04:09 gaugau Exp $

Another benefit of being "free" is borrowing someone elses copyrighted code. :)

But it is something to consider...

cognaccola
February 7th, 2005, 10:14 AM
Hello Michael again you're right so please don't let me keep you from your work.

Yes they can get away with a lot of things under the what-you-expect-its-free thing. I'm just pointing out and no I don't have a beef with the slideshow lol.

I know PP is your baby and I'm not diminishing (damn my english isn't what it should be) it. ..I mean I'm not saying it's bad or sumtin, otherwise I wouldn't be a loyal user since 2 years. It's just the experience I just had with first encounters of CPM that I couldn't think of a reason why you didn't implement some stuff from theirs.

But probably as you point out for the slideshow it had it reasons for browser issues.

Anyway if you feel this thread to be in the suggestion forum I'm not opposed of moving it

Still a fan...:D

Michael P
February 7th, 2005, 12:06 PM
And I didn't take your critism as anything but a little venting. :)

Our pricepoint is necessary to support our organization - if we were just a one man operation (cough*), we could get away with charging alot less. But we have support staff, developers (me) and other people to support. We do run specials (as we did in December) and we might be doing another one soon.

Glad to have you as a longterm customer - it is your contributions, and those of others, that make PhotoPost what it is today.

cinq
February 12th, 2005, 04:28 AM
Besides, most of what I see is knock-offs of features we developed first. ;)


It shouldn't matter if even all ( not saying they are ) the rest are 'knock-offs'.
End of the day, to the potential end user and/or existing customer and user of PP, they are going to ask themselves, what makes PP better than others / worth the money they paid compared to other cheaper or free alternatives.

And a 'most of the features that the others have are just knock-offs of features we developed first' would not cut in when it comes to decision making time I'll bet. End users want end users options. Most don't bother about who came up with what first, as long as the product HAS the features. And when 2 products are lined up side by side, comparisons are bound to occur when one is free/much cheaper and another isn't and yet both products have highly similar features.

Just my own thoughts.
I'm not a software developer nor a marketing guru but I think what i mentioned is plain common sense. Please do not take it negatively, I just want the developers to continue to view this product from another perspective again, that of the potential customer instead of the product developer. :)

It's all about the packaging a'la marketing, and more importantly, PR. You've got a solid product, "package" it well, you'd blow competition to bits.

Michael P
February 12th, 2005, 07:31 AM
Development has always been focused on our customers suggestions coupled with our ideas; many come from my own heavy use of the product. Ask anyone who participates in the BETA and they'll tell you that a vast majority of their suggestions end up in the product.

cognaccola
February 12th, 2005, 07:35 AM
Yes Michael a product does like this does not need to stand on the ideas of just the maker, but is also a community driven project. And photopost definitely reflects this.

Michael P
February 12th, 2005, 07:47 AM
Thank you, I work very hard to balance the needs of a few with the needs of thousands of customers. I think that's what seperates us from many other products - the comfort of knowing that there are paid staff here to answer questions, a long track record of development (we've seen one-man shops close up and leave their customers hanging) and a history of being the first to introduce new features.

That people look to PhotoPost for their "ideas" shows just how influential PhotoPost is in the marketplace - something I work hard to make sure we don't forget. And that's not to say that if we see someone doing something better than us we won't look at it and consider changes ourselves.

We've been developing PhotoPost for more than three years now and while some people are critical of our releasing new versions veery 3-4 months; I think the vast majority of our customers appreicate the hard work that goes into PhotoPost.

cinq
February 12th, 2005, 08:58 AM
And that's not to say that if we see someone doing something better than us we won't look at it and consider changes ourselves.


That's the spirit, that's the whole point I am driving at :)

mjm
February 14th, 2005, 02:20 AM
Michael wrote... I work very hard to balance the needs of a few with the needs of thousands of customers...

Much appreciated! ... and many customers benefit from the suggestions of a few.
Many are too busy managing software programs and website operations etc... This is the norm I would think.
I find it a task enough if I spend any time away from this site just to catch up with ongoing development.

This is a good sign.
Thanks to every one for your efforts!

Looking forward to v5 upgrade

Mark

rcsmith
February 22nd, 2005, 08:57 PM
Hi just add my few cents here. I too had been hopping around and had chacked virtually all available free scripts including Coopermine, though it is one of very very nice scripts available I do not think it is comparable to Photopost in any regard
1. Customer Support
2. Definitive improvement path. Since I purchased there have already been 3-4 upgrades happened. I do not know if any freeware can improve with such a speed
3. Best Integration with VB, I would rate it at TOP on this. If you have VB and need a professional gallery there is no one else who comes near to VB

Apart from all these comparions it all boils down to what *your* needs are and what features *your* site requires.

cheers :)


I feel like i've been a paying beta tester from the start. I've found that Photopost is better for your end users, and coppermine is better for a webmaster to upload photo shoots and event coverages etc.

When I first found coppermine, I liked it a lot better than photopost. I had already been running photopost for 2 years already though. So I just kept it and keep paying the fee's due and doing the upgrades. I'd say that photopost is getting better, but I really think they should hire someone to do a good layout structure.

The problem with photopost is it's so computer nerdy looking. Take Gallery for example. A program I could never run because it uses a DBM file, but the layout is so hot. I would so use gallery over anything else, if it used mysql.
http://gallery.menalto.com/index.php

It really depends on your needs. If your want users to upload their own pics and galleries etc, Photopost is good.

If you want to upload your own galleries and not let users upload pics etc, coppermine is good.

If you want the nicest looking gallery, and are not going to run a large site, use Gallery.

Now I hope i'm not making you photopost guys mad, but these are my findings. I just wish Photopost looked better IMO.




Now if Photopost had the XP Internal webpublisher like coppermine does, then I think I would like photopost more.

b6gm6n
February 23rd, 2005, 04:29 AM
If you want the nicest looking gallery, and are not going to run a large site, use Gallery.



I hope your kidding! "nicest looking gallery" PM me i'll show you the nicest looking gallery...and btw it's photopost :D

-T

cognaccola
February 23rd, 2005, 07:01 AM
lol :D

Chuck S
February 23rd, 2005, 10:58 AM
Gallery looks absolutely horrid EWW

http://gallery.menalto.com/modules.php?set_albumName=samples_misc&id=aal&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

I guess thats why people have opinions but I could never see why anyone would think that showphoto page looks better than photoposts

Michael P
February 23rd, 2005, 01:03 PM
Compared to this (http://www.viperalley.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/5/cat/504/page/10), I think PP has it beat hands down. But, thats just my opinon.

Chuck S
February 23rd, 2005, 01:44 PM
Exactly

http://www.reeftalk.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=916

b6gm6n
February 23rd, 2005, 02:03 PM
I think we could make the point even more with this (http://www.lillysworld.co.uk/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=605&size=medium&cat=509&page=1)
(Age15+ images) you have been warned.

-T

Michael P
February 23rd, 2005, 02:19 PM
Great skin/layout, Toney!

Chuck S
February 23rd, 2005, 03:54 PM
Watch out for Lilly

rcsmith
February 24th, 2005, 03:42 PM
how would you set it up to look like viperallery.com's? His layout is pretty clean looking.

Michael P
February 24th, 2005, 03:49 PM
I'm running PP5 and virtually no customization. I've turned off the last comments/last photos columns on the Index page and everything else is just standard display stuff.

rcsmith
February 24th, 2005, 04:04 PM
i'm running 4.86 vB3 Enhanced and I don't see the options to turn that off. I just can't get the site to look good for some reason. I've got quite a few categories. should i upgrade to 5 beta to get the small images with the categories etc?

Michael P
February 24th, 2005, 04:06 PM
The small images is part of PP4.86 - they are category avatars which you can enable in the Admin Options and then use the Make Index Thumb option under a photo.

The options to turn those columns off are new to PP5.

rcsmith
February 24th, 2005, 04:14 PM
thanks for the info. i'll see what I can do with mine. I just feel mine looks so messy
http://www.sromagazine.com/photos/index.php

Michael P
February 24th, 2005, 04:25 PM
I think it looks fine - you might consider upgrading to PP5 when its released (final is expected around March 1st) so you can turn off those two columns (anotehr option is to modify the categories.tmpl template and remove them yourself).