Shared publicly  - 
Andy Garcia's profile photoEric Slifer's profile photoSusan Gort's profile photoMario Aguila's profile photo
As a photographer, I always felt dirty sharing photos on facebook alongside all the mirror gazing cam-hos. Same may happen to g+ as soon as it's open to the masses.
I agree with you. I use Picasa for a long time in several of my projects and satisfied with the its capabilities. G + is a good way integisan with Picasa and overall G + offers many opportunities for visual expression. Thank you for good systematization G + benefits compared to Facebook.
+Jon Winters The nice thing about Google+ is when I share my personal photos, I can share them only with my friends, so people in my photography circle won't even see those. That's a nice feature, I think... not that I consider myself mirror gazing or a cam ho.
+Jonas Nordlund Google+ does resize your images when uploaded through Google+. It will not resize you photos if uploaded through PicasaWeb, but those images will count against the storage limit in PicasaWeb, as the ones uploaded through Google+ will not.
+Jon Winters But people can follow your photos without you ever having to read their (mine) mundane ramblings. And if they don't deserve your kickass photos, don't publish to their circles (I know, won't work very well since photos, at least in this category, tend to be public). Would actually have been fun to be able to post to public, except specifc users/circles ...
Great article on your blog Tom, amazing figures of reaction to your photos... It's exciting to see something this good come to the social network, I'll be looking to upload images as well too... I've never been involved with Facebook I didn't trust it for some reason. It's a great time to be into photography these days what with all the new developments and ease of showing your work... Oh to be 21 again!
+Katie Wright I'll want to show my best photography to +Public. The scene kids will be showing their best mirror portraits to, you guessed it, +Public.

I can see restricting my personal family photos to +Family, so there is benefit.
+Jon Winters The great thing is, if you don't want to see things from certain people, you can neglect to circle them, thereby keeping your stream relatively cam ho free. :)
+Jon Winters But now you assume that you have these scene kids in any of your circles.A feature I've really been hoping for, is to be able to configure the main stream to omit certain circles, say the "Prone to post mirror portraits"-circle. You can always find that particular circle further down in the list.
+Lars Ivar Igesund Not if you post to specific circles. Say for example you were planning a surprise party for Susan, you could post party plans to +friends -Susan. Then you just have to trust that your friends can keep secrets.
I'd love a Stream that excludes circles, too. For the mirrors portraits and emo shots.
+Rob Woodruff
No, I wish. That was a theoretical example. You should "send feedback" (down in the lower right corner) and suggest the feature. If enough people suggest/want the feature, Google+ developers might add it. It's the best way to get your ideas/wants/needs known to the developers. I understand they're pretty receptive.
+Katie Wright , I use "Plus Minus" in chrome, it lets you set the main stream to only include the circles you want. It would be nice to create groups of circles, so that I could have multiple photography circles, and see all, or just some.

BTW, plus minus also adds a favorites ability to posts
For me, your #5 entry is the single best reason to join Google+.
Loved the article but what about image theft is it more or less of a concern on + vs fb?
+Robert Owens your point regarding the structure of the two systems is a good one but overshadowed by the enormity of the differences. In a little over a month I have over 10x people following my work here vs. Facebook. With Facebook I automatically approve all friend requests so it's still only a one action (their decision to friend me) process.

But even on other networks where no friend confirmation is required (like Twitter and Flickr) I still have vastly more followers and more importantly interaction here. I have over 2x the number of Twitter, which has a similar follow model and almost 2x the number of Flickr, also with a follow model. I've been very active on these other networks over a much longer period of time.
+Andrew Dillon - I too have wondered that very thing. I personally have been a victim of copyright infringement in the past, so now I put an obnoxious watermark on my fotos (square center) - I know it's not fool proof. However, at least it's some sort of deterrent; I hope. ;)
That the good thing with fb is their upload quality is not good at all and you can do super low res resulting in little to no usable theft.
You are absolutely right about this.
I miss in G+ the integration with Zenfolio, where I take my photos to export to Facebook, with watermarks included.
+Andrew Dillon image theft can take place on any system that publicly displays your photograph whether it is Google+, Facebook, Flickr, Tumblr, your blog, wherever.

This is not something that I personally concern myself much with. Each photographer has to weigh the pros and cons of posting their photo online vs. locking it up in a safe at home where nobody can see it or steal it either.
+Vince Dang That is nice that G+ allows this. I think photos on Facebook are unlimited and free too. Does Facebook resze them less than 2048?
+Thomas Hawk , while they are completely unlimited and free, they are definitely resized smaller than G+ does.
hmmm.. anyone know what facebook resizes your photos to? It would be good to add that into the article.
+Thomas Hawk You're right that FB allows unlimited uploads. Even though FB doesn't resize the resolution, it compresses significantly. The same 1.84MB 2048x1365 on G+ gets compressed to 364KB on FB (even with FB high quality upload option). A 240dpi is reduced to 72dpi.
+Steven Hall I like that, too. Flickr gives more information than Google+ does, but I think what G+ has is sufficient. A lot of the exif info on Flickr is superfluous, and you have to dig through all the extra stuff to find the 3 pieces of info that matter the most.
i never used facebook to show my photos -- well, other than a few silly ones... i always linked to flickr. by hand, because the auto-thing was terrible, as +Thomas Hawk says.
excellent read and thanks for sharing!
+Steven Hall I do like that Flickr gives camera data, though. Usage information on every camera used to take photos on Flickr. That information is endlessly fascinating. I love to sift through the photos taken with the same kind of camera I have.
... and tags. these images will have to be searchable.
Couldn't agree more about the benefits of Google+ over Facebook but I do have a few minor issues with Google+ and I was curious to hear your thoughts.

The first is the lack of a photo description option (when the simple caption won't work). Currently any description that you add to your photo is connected to the post and not the photo so once it goes into the Stream it's lost forever. The other issue is the photo/folder management which you've brought up in the past. And the last issue is metrics, here you have no clue if or how many times an image has been viewed.

Also, any thoughts on 500px or other photo showcase services?
Almost anything is better than facebook
Very very nice read. Even as only a hobbyist you can tell that the image quality are better on Google+ compared to facebook which adds noise to most of the images when re-sizing.
Great post.

Since I bought my first DSLR last year I have tried to find and follow photographers on their blog or Twitter. That has been really inspiring, but most of a one-way-street. I have almost never left any comments to blog posts or tweets. But with G+ it is much easier to get involved and to comment on inspiring work that you and a lot of others are publishing.
Another Google+ feature I really like is that when I upload 4 images into an album they are all visibile in the post. Facebook albums show only one, sometimes two, maybe three images at most, which they control.
I've actually used G+ as a social networking site and stuck with it. I am not on Facebook. I post 1-4 photos a day to G+ with a little writeup on each photo. It's kept me engaged and I've been following other folks who I never would have taken the time to find on Flickr. I gave up on consuming new photography on Flickr when my monitor quickly outgrew what they were willing to show. I never picked it back up after the Flickr lightbox, either.
Thanks +Andy Garcia. The article covers my biggest complaint "For the rest of users, it looks like most images will get a few views and then sit. Even if they’re really great." Which seems to be the case as I've look at some of the "recent additions" which were really good photos but I was the only one to view (let alone "like") them while others had a long standing position on the "popular" list despite being inferior photos.
Add a comment...