Feature Request: Elegant integration with Google Photos

  • 16
  • Idea
  • Updated 3 months ago

Millions of your customers, including me,  use many Google products - Android phone, Chrome, etc.  I have 100K+ photos online with Google Photos.  I prefer adobe photoshop elements to manage my photos. 

Please add feature/management integration with Google Photos.   

But, a one-time connection/download/import would be undesirable.  

All pics from family member's phones are saved to Google Photos.  We don't want to have to do regular uploads or sync with Google photos when using Adobe products.  We want continuous, seamless integration into Google Photos with Adobe products including  Elements, Lightroom, & Photoshop.
Photo of superkevlar

superkevlar

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • desirous of seamless integrations with Google

Posted 1 year ago

  • 16
Photo of Steve Lehman

Steve Lehman

  • 619 Posts
  • 78 Reply Likes
Hello Superkevlar,  

Google is a cloud storage.  Not only is it risky but it's better to keep your photos at home.  Is there a reason you won't use your own computer to store your photos, like say, Adobe Elements Organizer?  In Adobe Elements 14 is the Organizer where you can store your own photos without Google.  Frankly, we think Google is cumbersome.  You may be using some other mode other than Expert Mode.  In the Expert Mode all your tools will load and at the bottom is Organizer.  Check it out.   You may be utilizing Guided Mode or another one.  Professionals use Expert  Mode.   Keep in that mode so you can really enjoy this robust program.   
Photo of Ptarmigan

Ptarmigan

  • 2 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
 I use Elements for storage/editing and Google Photos for sharing.  Elements already has Sharing options with Flickr, Facebook, Vimeo etc, but Google Photos is a glaring omission. It is this missing option that is stopping me from spending my money on an upgrade to Elements.
Photo of Michel BRETECHER

Michel BRETECHER, Champion

  • 1073 Posts
  • 226 Reply Likes
https://helpx.adobe.com/elements-organizer/using/whats-new.html
The nice thing about sharing with GoogleDrive, Dropbox or OneDrive is that those services manage to sync folders on your hard drive to the Cloud. You store your pictures on dedicated folders and subfolders and they are updated on the Cloud.
You can share and manage images or any document.
When shooting with my smartphone, I select files to send to the Cloud from the application (I have tried OnDrive and prefer DropBox). When I open my computer, the files are automatically added from the Cloud on my computer. No need to connect with a cable or card reader.
I don't trust Facebook or similar, I want full control over sharing and storing.                          
(Edited)
Photo of Selondon

Selondon

  • 147 Posts
  • 39 Reply Likes
I wouldn't have thought it was in Adobe's interests to integrate with Google Photos.

Because, when the great, but maybe limited, Adobe Revel (Cloud Storage with editing and sharing) closed, Adobe pushed users towards LrM and said that Cloud Storage would be coming.

I already have many GBs of photos uploaded through LrW and LrM (although also backed up on offline HD) and am waiting until hopefully it comes.

When Revel closed I tried other Cloud options but thought they were substandard to Adobe's offering (although cheaper!).
Photo of Steve Lehman

Steve Lehman

  • 619 Posts
  • 78 Reply Likes
Note to Michel Bretcher, Champion:  

I know we had a problem with slideshow brand, Icecream.  If you care to know, I found the host their website, and the company which hosts their domain and another host for its sub-domains.  They are well known major companies.  I have written to their CEO and VP about the Ice cream's technical conduct.   The CTO of Ice Cream has issued a refund and apology.   Just to let you know, we won't use that brand anymore.   This is just a message, if you care about this.  

For all others, Adobe's product for a slideshow is Spark although it makes the slideshow but does not play it, (like all of the others).  A slideshow can be seen on MS Media Player.   

Steve Lehman, MCSE   
Photo of Anthony Stagge

Anthony Stagge

  • 42 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
I love Google photos, and would appreciate some integration. However this seems like a heavy request. Adobe cannot integrate with every online photo storage option, and Google has a history of dropping products from support. Maybe Google Photos will be around for many years, but I sure am not counting on it. And if it does live a long life, surely API changes will make it a task to support for Adobe. Just my 2 cents.

PS  Google Photos has very limited organganization tools. I wish it did more like what LR does!
Photo of Viga Studios

Viga Studios

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Hello Anthony, 

I've created a new plugin that integrates Google Photos into Adobe. It makes uses of Google's awesome search and automatically fetches a high resolution image into your workspace. 

https://exchange.adobe.com/addons/products/19277 

Hope this helps for now. Video showing it's working is here https://youtu.be/pWZJGH3OlsU

Viga
Photo of Steve Lehman

Steve Lehman

  • 619 Posts
  • 78 Reply Likes
Okay, I guess if I chime in again, all of you will gang up on me but here goes:  
Am I the only guy who still uses a hard drive for storage?   

As a tech, I know storing online in clouds is risky as they can be hacked.   So I have 5 computers here.   Each have external drives to store millions of photos we work with in our company, and then our server has 2 external drives for storing all of them altogether because two storage places is better than one, and actually I think we should use three.   Just my rule of thumb:   As a tech, we always did that at Microsoft and it worked out for us.  

Thing is, someone thought of the cloud when external drives began to sell because a few companies wanted to make money on their software which would include a cloud.   I don't need a cloud for anything.   So I guess I am the exception here.   Still, my advice is get out of the cloud and use a real hard drive.  (real drive is mentioned below)  This is my reason:  

By storing stuff in a clouds, you'll never see it again.  It becomes a junk heap.  It's like storing your stuff in a storage company.  You will never clean it out and you will forget what it has.   When we cleaned out our storage company bin just recently.   I found my old square end-pipes I always wanted to put on my classic GTO.   Now I'm happy.   But I won't use that storage anymore.  I forgot what was in it.   I hadn't seen it for years.    

On a real external drive, preferably Seagate, with a real disc that turns at 7200 rpm, (or 8400) you can plug it into the wall to keep it warm, disconnect it from its USB, and it doesn't get viruses.   And nobody can hack it.   When you send photos to the cloud, if one photo has a virus it infects all that's in the cloud.   Also, with a real drive I can clean it out with an auto-clean-up, and I can regularly see what's in it, by looking at my file manager.  

I'd like to make mention about the so-called "portable" external drives, there is not a real drive.  Like a thumb-drive, they are silicon.  They need to be charged up every 3 to 6 weeks through its USB power connector, otherwise, your data goes away.   It's (cheap) silicon, unlike a magnetic disc.   Silicon is cheap material from a high intensity manufacturer in Japan, where quality is not there.   So, use a real drive.   In my book, a cloud just does not cut it, and it's just not safe.  

I can buy Elements as a stand alone, and I don't need to buy Photoshop CC for the cloud.  
I have my own cloud right here on many external drives.  And I don't need to rent it.  

Steve Lehman, MCSE responding   
Photo of Selondon

Selondon

  • 147 Posts
  • 39 Reply Likes
I don't think you are Steve. Most people on the Lr Forums and places like dpreview laugh at Cloud Storage. I think use whatever suits.

I was fed up with managing photos on my mac that I never saw again, so it suits me.

On dpreview there was a comment once "Why would I want my whole Photo Library in the Cloud?". Most agreed but one response was something like "Well, it's not like you would want to look at your photographs is it?"

Which are well as the Sharing aspect, is kind of my view.
Photo of Marc Chiarini

Marc Chiarini

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I hope you're still following good backup distribution policy.  Keeping everything on hard drives is convenient but it becomes inconvenient when you're trying to protect yourself from disasters because you should be keeping *at a minimum* one copy offsite.  Cloud storage providers (especially something like Amazon Glacier) are a good alternative to secondary or tertiary backup.  I agree that you shouldn't keep your primary anything in the cloud but sharing and instant access to a second copy of your media from anywhere in the world is a convenience that can be had for pennies a day. 
Photo of Mick Studer

Mick Studer

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Ok so I just bought a New Computer and received Photoshop as a Xmas Gift - all my photos are either on the Old Computer or Google Photos - this is exactly why it makes - No Sense to Store Everything Local or for Photoshop & Google not to Interface - I hate Cliches but you got to either fight them or join them and my Photoshop gift is just going to sit here unused because I'm not manually downloading a lifetime of photographic memories just so I can use Photoshop
Photo of Ptarmigan

Ptarmigan

  • 2 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Like you Steve I primarily "store" my photos on a hard drive, and I back them up to a network server. However this is not mutually exclusive with using a cloud service to share photos and albums with friends and family. (I do not want to open up internet access to my network machines to share my photos.)

Photoshop Elements supports cloud sharing for third parties like Facebook and Smugmug but not for Google. Consequently I have to do my Google uploading outside of Elements. I would prefer to do it within Elements and have Elements update the shared version if I edit a photo.

In reply to Selondon, I agree that Adobe must have decided that it is not in the interest of their own sharing solutions to work with Google, but then why do this offer support for SmugMug, Flickr etc. Since they have this mechanism for customer feedback I am keen to tell them my views and to explain that they are getting less money from me as a result of their policy. If enough people speak up they may realize that they can make more money by selling upgrades to Elements.
Photo of Viga Studios

Viga Studios

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I love storing my photos on Google because of their excellent image search engine running deepminds algos. It's so much easier sifting through a million photos in seconds instead of searching for that date and folder on my hard drive. 

I went ahead and made my own plugin to help me use the best of both worlds. The plugin uses Google Photos search to find the picture I want and then automatically finds the highest resolution image available. 

https://exchange.adobe.com/addons/products/19277 

Video showing it's working is here https://youtu.be/pWZJGH3OlsU

Hope this will help all the Photoshop fans who love Google Photos. 

Viga
Photo of mike cass

mike cass

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hello Viga, To be clear, this works in Elements also? 

(On a side note, what is your solution for having Plug-in's "Automatically" saved and moved into a new version of Elements. For example, I am tired of (and sure others are also) having to manually re-load our 3 party Plug-in's (Like Topaz) every time a newer version is purchased.  

We do not encounter this problem and do not have to re-load the plugins when an "Up-Date" is released (I.E. Version 14.0 to 14.3 or what ever) so it seems that should be do-able with an "Up-Grade" purchase also.

The key word is "Automatic"

Thanks,

Mike
Photo of Steve Lehman

Steve Lehman

  • 522 Posts
  • 57 Reply Likes
Viga Studios, 

Mike Cass is asking you.  Only you know this answer.   
Photo of Steve Lehman

Steve Lehman

  • 619 Posts
  • 78 Reply Likes
Hello Viga, Anthony, Selondon, Ptarmigan, Michel;  
RE: Google photos   

I reviewed Viga's add-on for Google integration with Adobe, and it look like what we need.  Thanks Viga.  It's only my opinion but, I think Google has a whole set of applications its getting people to use, and most of them appear to be a stripped down version of a Microsoft app or another brand. It could be that most companies don't know what to do with them.  Hopefully a few might warm up to this new plugin Viga sent to us.   It looks promising.   

Steve Lehman, MCSE   
Photo of mike cass

mike cass

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
To be clear, this works in Elements also?
Photo of Steve Lehman

Steve Lehman

  • 619 Posts
  • 78 Reply Likes
Ok, now I am totally confused.  I have a reply from Dennis Dwyer and his comment-link tkes me to here, but his comment is not posted here.  So I will reply to him here and run his letter-copy below, and I hope he will see it and recognize it.   

In this reply to Dennis Dwyer, I have the greatest respect for his comment.  To answer his question: no, I am not kidding about maintaining photos at home.  I think clicking on two different systems is cumbersome (initially as said before).  I use my own external drives.  I do not use a mobile drive which only has silicon like a USB flash drive.  It will lose data unexpectedly.  But I do use a Seagate external drive with a real disc (not silicon) and it uses AC for power (not USB power), and I have a good reason for this.  I use AC drives then disconnect the USB to guard from viruses on a clean backup, and I do not use the Windows backup utility which makes it impossible to copy files to a new computer.  Instead, I use the old copy/paste onto a folder in the external drive so I can use that copy on any computer I happen to plug the external drive into.   

BUT there is another reason I won't use a cloud for photo storage.  It's because I am an old tech from the 1990's when we first used encryption and within the first month, hackers had the key to our encryption code.  Sure it got better as time went on, but since then I won't trust cloud storage which has had complaints about susceptibility, hacking risks, and it's someone else's server which has their own rules (not mine) and I am at their mercy for storing my private photos, without my own control over it. 

There may be billions of photos in cloud storage all over the place, but I will never make my private photos available on another's server.  I won't run a risk with someone else's server.  How good is it?  How infallible?  Sure it's a mainframe, but who's in charge of it?  Is data being moved around so one mainframe can work freely then moved back?   Is there a backup to my backup?   Are my photos in two different places as a backup slo I  will never lose them?   How can I be in charge of my oen storage?   How can I store them on a computer in one State and another computer in anotehr State?   That what banks do with their transactions, as they keep their backup data in 3 different Sates in case of a nuc-attack.   How can I make my life easy to live?   THAT'S why I use MY external drives.   
I am self-employed in business and my business has lesser risk than any cloud storage.   

Okay, I will run his last letter sent to me today 5-29-18:   Thanks for reading.   

Dennis Dwyer commented on a reply to this idea:Feature Request: Elegant integration with Google Photos
I do not mean to offend, but in my opinion the argument you are making is ridiculous. You stated that you think that Google is `cumbersome` and that it's better to keep your photos at home. Are you serious? I have a four year old USB external drive that I use for backup, do you think this type of solution is more reliable than Google Cloud? It's not. You may feel that Google Photos is cumbersome, but for the rest of us 500 million+ users, it's how we store our photos (In May 2017, Google announced that Google Photos has over 500 million users, who upload over 1.2 billion photos every day. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Photos). This type of response is not informed or adequate.
Photo of Marc Chiarini

Marc Chiarini

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Steve, do you keep a separate updated copy of your photos anywhere else except your home?  If not, why not?  If so, where?
Photo of Steve Lehman

Steve Lehman

  • 619 Posts
  • 78 Reply Likes
Yes.  I keep most photographs on our company server at work.  Then I have been saving photos from my photography shoots on a laptop, and for a customer, I run a USB flash drive for their copy.  Then I have second laptop with more photos from another photography shoot.  I have a third laptop which I try to avoid because it still has XP but it is perfectly sound and sometimes we run that when an external drive has filled up.  Then, when I want to backup everything altogether, I backup all of it, (copy/paste) on two or more external drives.   I can select any two/three of five external drives at home and at work we have four.   At work, we keep photos spread over 7 computer workstations and our employees know what to do with them for their backup duties. 

It's been my #2 rule since I received my technical certifications in engineering - at our University we had an our engineer-rule (#2) to never backup on just one drive.  Always have a copy on two or more external drives.  There has been events heard about one drive being corrupted as accidents happen.  And since 1998 when Microsoft was working on the Japan piracy problem, where Microsoft software was being duplicated (exactly) down to the wrapper, Windows was programmed to reject discs whenever there is a print command or work being done on a stand-alone portable disc, alone in the D-drive.  The disc always converts to 'read-only' so its content can only be copied to the hard drive.  But at least it saves the content and allows the content to copy.   For that reason, we have a sticker on our disc cases that tell our customers (who receive discs) to copy their photo content to the hard drive before printing, and to only print from the hard drive.   It's much more stable than a portable disc in the D-drive.  I have had my hard-fast engineer-rule #2 rule to backup on two or more external drives, or drive that are not related to the computer that is being backed-up.  I always make it a copy/paste so I can buy a new computer and the copy will always copy back onto the new computer.  That has been my #3 rule.      

In case you're interested, my engineer-rule #1 is "never delete" - which is the rule taught to use in technology at the University and we were told to get that in our heads as a rule.  It's especially a rule for the REGedit data area.  Recovery can be a major problem there.  Deleting cannot be reversed - sometimes even if you have recovery software.   Deleting is a bad habit for some people.   We don't need to keep everything, but use discretion.   Think before you click your mouse too fast.   
Photo of Dennis Dwyer

Dennis Dwyer

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
As I understand, you are a very competent technical user and have in place a backup strategy that works for you. I do not wish to argue as your concerns on susceptibility, hacking risks, ownership of data, etc. are all well addressed with minimal research online. If such a cloud service does not meet your requirements, then so be it, you are free to use any method you choose. Adobe should support Google Photos  (and other cloud services) in my opinion.
Photo of Marc Chiarini

Marc Chiarini

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
There are several highly secure methods of backing up to the cloud that don't involve the cloud provider having cleartext access to content OR metadata.  There are even solutions such as Stablebit CloudDrive (Windows only) that do full client-side encryption before storage in the cloud yet deencrypt blocks/files transparently and on-the-fly from/to a local cache.  While this particular approach is not yet portable, other solutions such as Cryptomator and Boxcryptor are.  But generally speaking, the full convenience of Google Photos is not available without handing over important aspects of one's identity.  I'll take this opportunity to also say that Google Photos is a substandard "product" when compared to, e.g., Picasa.  God help you if you forgot to geotag your photos before uploading!
Photo of Steve Lehman

Steve Lehman

  • 619 Posts
  • 78 Reply Likes
I can't speak for Adobe, whether they are in favor of cloud storage.   I am pretty sure they are not neglecting the service but leaving it to the user instead of having a contract with any particular cloud storage, for if they did, there would be talk about that as well, of whom they should be in favor of.   

As for my backup methods, I know more than some, that encryption is like a locked door where a thief can find a way to unlock it.  Hackers work for government with the  same talent and they are there to teach the government.   Likewise, I know that government servers, especially IRS, the military, the Federal Reserve to name a few, have several layers of encryption and security but there's still hacking.  We hear it all the time about big stores being hacked yet they have more security than the government.  My concerns are with merit.  I stand my ground.   I use my own.

That way, I don't need to rely on a stranger's server to maintain my photos.  People have the same belief, that money in a bank is the responsibility of bank personnel to maintain it.  Actually it's your money - you are responsible.   That's why I maintain my own photos on my own backup devices.  I won't pay monthly for a cloud storage to "maintain it".   I have my own system, and it's paid for.   
Photo of Michel BRETECHER

Michel BRETECHER, Champion

  • 1085 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
This may be a very interesting and useful discussion, but in this forum, it looks totally 'off topic', at least as a 'feature request'. As a way to give feedback about the mood, of course, it's ok for me.I won't add anything to the debate about cloud or local storage, about 'syncing' or about the advantages of Photos versus other Adobe image editors and organizers.
The problem is that 'elegant' integration needs to be explained. Wishing 'elegant' integration can mean anything, and for me I can't imagine which precise features are missing. And the purpose and rules of this forum are to deal with a single feature in a discussion, not several ones or ... none in the present case. This enables discussing the feature in detail and voting for it to prioritize it.
So I would be very interested to know which feature (or which features in several posts) would be 'elegant'and possibly not only a dream.
Photo of Steve Lehman

Steve Lehman

  • 619 Posts
  • 78 Reply Likes
Michel,  
You may be late to this, everything has probably been answered by now.  I've only been answering their questions as the topic was about cloud backup, to pay monthly, and how safe it really is, and then, whether a external drive backup is better.   Happy to bring you up to speed butI think we've run it out now.   
Photo of Brian Wong

Brian Wong

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Totally agree with this feature request.  I used to use Jeffrey Friedl's old Lightroom to PicasaWeb plugin before Google broke the PicasaWeb API. Apparently, Google now has an API for Google Photos, but it's very limited in functionality.  So for the time being, third party integrators with said API are going to be relatively limited in their functionality as well.  It would be great to get Adobe and Google talking about either expanding the existing API, or granting a special partner API that broadens the functionality available.