I am currently using IMCE CCK Image on a development site, and am pleased with its performance, although I am now beginning to design a more elaborate site and am wondering whether using Imagefield has any advantages as compared with this module?

In addition, can IMCE CCK Image and Imagefield run simultaneously if I wanted to use the IMCE CCK Image field for all of the nodes that I have already designed, and Imagefield for new content added to the site (if in fact there are any advantages to utilizing Imagefield)? I want to make the correct decision now while I am still in the earlier stages of development, as I read another thread that says converting an IMCE CCK Image to Imagefield is a time consuming process.

Thanks in advance!

Comments

panis’s picture

panis commented

go with imagefield. It has more users (so perhaps better support), it is will be part of D7 core (again better support), doesnot depend on a 3rd module (imce) fewer areas of problems - unless of course you are looking for a different user experience.

laurent.lacote’s picture

laurent.lacote commented

Hi,

Regarding Imagefield and IMCE simultaneous usage :

I did it the other way (imagefield first then trying imce) i didn't encounter any problem. But i didn't push my experimentations very far ^^.

Regarding your main point :

Use Imagefield. To explain my opinion, let's review assets / drawbacks for each one :

IMCE
+ "native" file browser.
+ can create new sizes automatically or on request for uploaded pictures.
+ all general configuration options (size limit, formats, access rights, etc...).
+ great reusability of pictures.
+IMCE browser can be used to upload other files and, with modules, create and reorganize files.
- incompatible with imagecache (which offers far more flexibility).

ImageField
+ Stronger support.
+ Fine-grained upload configuration (token-defined pathes, size limits, number of files, etc...).
+ Integration with ImageCache, wich allows on-the-fly picture transformations (as in views, automatic thumbnail generation)

  • you don't have to bother with dozens of versions of the same picture.
  • You can create various transformations profiles fitting your needs.
  • More powerful features than IMCE (resize, rotate, crop, grayscale, etc...).

+ Historic drawback currently disappearing : the added module Filefield_source allows users to reuse already uploaded pictures (still in dev phase, tough).
+ D7 supported.
- Nearly a dozen modules required with dependencies (ImageField, FileField, Filefield_source, ImageCache, ImageCache API, ImageCacheUI, GD2 or ImageMagick for picture processing, IMCE or another file browser... Hope I didn't forget one).
- Mechanisms configuration scattered troughout administration panel.
- Requires some time to understand and set up.

I certainly missed some features, especially for IMCE since I didn't fully test it: i tried it because of picture reusability problem with imagefield. Since i found filefield_source, i currently have no further use for IMCE.
But all in all, IMHO imagefield is by far the best choice for now and for later. ;) My 2 cents...

Lanae’s picture

Lanae commented

I'm confused because for my needs, the above list of pros and cons seems to indicate I should use IMCE CCK Image, not ImageField.

I'm using Wysiwyg + TinyMCE + IMCE to allow users to upload images and other files (pdfs, etc) as they create content, so they upload the files while they're making links to them, as needed. I haven't needed to add any 'image fields' yet but I'm not very far into development yet. I need the all-purpose file browsing and uploading that IMCE provides, so that won't be going away.

If I use ImageField, won't my users then have two different interfaces to learn, depending on whether they are uploading an image to an imagefield, or in a full-HTML Wysiwyg textarea? If the Imagefield way is better, fine, but then what should I do if/when they want it that way for the Wysiwig editor as well, but still keep the current ability to upload and browse all types of files in one place?

jcisio’s picture

jcisio commented

IMCE is fully compatible with ImageCache, the problem is just that it isn't integrated to ImageCache. I use IMCE to keep my database from useless file nodes, and I use ImageCache at the theming layer. In fact, there're quite a few modules that support IMCE (or "files without nodes"), such as image_resize_filter, teaserthumbnail.

Anonymous’s picture

Anonymous (not verified) commented

I have recently tried imceimage and imagefield with filefield_sources. I have been favouring imceimage and wanted to veer away and make things 'simpler' which turned out to be more of a hassle.

To use IMCE with imagefield you need filefield_sources and it demands an FID for each file. So if you upload directly to the webserver bypassing imce you're out of luck. After indexing the files (lots of scriping fun!!) you still cannot choose an IMCE file that exceeds the file upload quota (wtf) even though it is indexed and already on the server.

My solution is this:

imce2
imceimage-dev
imce_kama

Makes everything easy and pretty too.

Try also: imce_crop imce_mkdir

Enjoy! I almost dumped imceimage but the dev version is great.

makbeta’s picture

makbeta commented

Agree with Ryan. ImceImage works better. I chose it because it allows to pick images uploaded via FTP without any hassles, it also allows me to share image files between multiple sites running on one installation. Dev version works pretty good, no problems for me so far.

Lanae’s picture

Lanae commented
Version: 6.x-1.x-dev » 6.x-1.0-beta2

Not happy to see this module deprecated in favor of something more complex and less flexible!

I had already uploaded a bunch of images via FTP for my imceimage fields when I started the Drupal site. Ported a ton of content from an old static site that way. So it looks like I would have the same issue as Ryan if I'm ever forced away from imceimage. I don't want to spend time re-uploading or indexing existing files, plus lose the ability to mass-upload via FTP. I had actually been thinking of uploading a library of stock photos for users to pick from.

I ended up having to install imagefield anyway, as part of a news slider module, so now there's one imagefield, in one content type. But all the rest are imceimage fields, they are so nice and easy for users to either upload or pick an image already on the server.