The folder structure may not matter to every gallery user, but its definitely a crucial missing feature for me.

Ok — What is the detailed method of converting image galleries with multiple albums/images/thumbnails/comments to channels? How does one convert one with numerous images? So far, there has not been -any- method discussed to make the conversion.

Arbinshire - 08 February 2010 10:02 AM

Ok — What is the detailed method of converting image galleries with multiple albums/images/thumbnails/comments to channels? How does one convert one with numerous images? So far, there has not been -any- method discussed to make the conversion.

As mentioned here:

Ingmar Greil - 20 December 2009 02:22 AM

An update script, to convert your 1.6.8 galleries to 2.0 channels will follow, though.

Steve Abraham - 08 February 2010 10:08 AM

There is far more flexibility using Channels in 2.0 than the Gallery Module in 1.6 - the only missing feature that I found so far is batch upload

As mentioned here:

Ingmar Greil - 20 December 2009 02:22 AM

An update script, to convert your 1.6.8 galleries to 2.0 channels will follow, though.

So you previously said there is far more flexibility in the new system, but you won’t specifically say how to use this flexibility? That’s encouraging.

Sarcasm isn’t an endearing feature.

OK, one quick example, I’m in the middle of building a website just now for a photographer - he has a number of categories that he would like to upload photos under (people, architecture, etc).  Some of these photos belong in more than one category - without uploading more than once - how do you currently accomplish that with the 1.6 gallery module?

You are currently arguing about the feature set of a beta product.  2.0 is not gold released yet and parts of the system, such as this, are still being worked on.  If you’re not happy that 2.0 can do what you need at the moment, stick with 1.6 (as I am, in many cases), no one is pushing you into using 2.0.  Wait and see what 2.0 Gold brings before throwing too many of your toys out of the pram.

I think the issue is that the Gallery offered ease of use. I am all for a 2.* solution that combines flexibility with ease of use, but its no wonder if people are upset about losing the ease of use. Yes, a script is said to be forthcoming for the conversion, but nothing has been said about whether any of the features that provided the ease of use will be added to channels. That is what concerns me.

The problem is I have several clients asking about the upgrade possibility — This can’t happen until I know exactly how to convert their existing sites to 2.0, and telling them that I have no idea isn’t exactly what they want to hear. Sure, it’s a BETA product, but they generally don’t care; It’s a matter of newer/better and out with the old. Telling them to stick with 1.6.8 cuts off a portion of my income stream.

Steve Abraham - 08 February 2010 04:54 AM

There is far more flexibility using Channels in 2.0 than the Gallery Module in 1.6 - the only missing feature that I found so far is batch upload.

So the main thing missing is the batch upload?  I have no problem teaching my client how to use FTP for that.  However, I’m looking for an easy way to create galleries on the fly.  I’m looking for a way to create a folder (or in some cases, a subfolder), upload 50-100 photos to that folder, add a title, date, description, and have a new gallery added to the site.  I can’t have them calling me to create a new channel for each gallery.

Everything that I’ve found on creating a gallery in 1.6 was through add-ons, and those aren’t available in 2.0 (yet?).  So it seems there is much more missing than just the batch upload. 

I feel like I’m really forced to use Coppermine or something like that to accomplish what I need. 

Am I missing something?

Todd