←back to thread

Self-hosting my photos with Immich

(michael.stapelberg.ch)
659 points birdculture | 1 comments | 30 Nov 25 09:11 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
WD-42 ◴[06 Dec 25 03:02 UTC] No.46170203[source]▶
Self hosting used to mean conceding on something. I can honestly say Immich is better in every way than Google Photos or whatever Apple calls it. The only thing is having to set it up yourself.
replies(8): >>46170508 #>>46170879 #>>46171072 #>>46171096 #>>46171210 #>>46171919 #>>46172322 #>>46175671 #
ptk ◴[06 Dec 25 03:50 UTC] No.46170508[source]▶
How does sharing an album with others work on Immich?
replies(3): >>46170576 #>>46170670 #>>46170681 #
jasonjayr ◴[06 Dec 25 04:04 UTC] No.46170576[source]▶
You get a link and you can set read or write permissions on it.

Whoever gets that link can browse it in a web browser.

I've used this to share albums of photos with gatherings of folks; it works very well. It does assume you have your Immich installation publicly available, however. (Not open to the public, but on a publicly accessible web server)

replies(2): >>46171665 #>>46171693 #
cromka ◴[06 Dec 25 08:34 UTC] No.46171665[source]▶
OK. Then you concede your security, as I can't imagine any single person self-hosting can be better at keeping their public service more secure than engineers at Google can. Especially with limited time.
replies(3): >>46172147 #>>46172227 #>>46173816 #
1. kristjank ◴[06 Dec 25 10:36 UTC] No.46172227[source]▶
You definitely have a dull imagination. If the software itself is secure, containerized version of Immich behind a containerized version of nginx proxy manager is probably as secure as you can get. Also google security tends to be mainly leaning towards securing google and less towards securing google's (non paying) customers.