fgallery vs Photofield
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted photo management options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
| Feature | fgallery | Photofield |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Read-the-docs project | Under-an-hour setup |
| Health score | 9 · At risk | 79 · Good |
| Status | Archived | Actively maintained |
| Category | Photo Management | Photo Management |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | JavaScript | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 248 | ★ 608 |
| First released | 2013 | 2022 |
| Replaces | Flickr, Google Photos | Google Photos |
What are fgallery and Photofield?
fgallery
fgallery is a static photo gallery generator that produces a minimalist, self-contained HTML gallery from a folder of images. The generated gallery is fully static, privacy-respecting, and can be hosted on any web server.
- Minimalist static galleries
- Self-contained output
- Mobile friendly
- No tracking
Photofield
Photofield is an experimental, fast photo viewer designed to browse very large photo collections smoothly. It uses a tile-based layout to render hundreds of thousands of images without slowing down.
- Handles huge libraries
- Smooth tile-based viewing
- Fast indexing
- Low resource use
fgallery vs Photofield: key differences
The biggest difference is maintenance: fgallery's repository is archived and no longer developed, while Photofield is actively maintained. Fgallery is written in JavaScript, while Photofield is built with Go. Fgallery is the lighter option, starting around 128 MB of RAM against 256 MB for Photofield. Fgallery is the more established project (first released 2013), while Photofield arrived in 2022. Photofield has the considerably larger community, at 608 GitHub stars versus 248. Photofield lists first-class Docker deployment; fgallery does not.
Why pick each one
Choose fgallery if…
- Clean simple design
- Privacy respecting
Watch out for
- Command-line only
- Minimal features
Choose Photofield if…
- Excellent performance
- Simple deployment
Watch out for
- Viewer only, no editing
- Experimental status
Frequently asked questions
Is fgallery or Photofield better?
Neither is universally better. Photofield has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are fgallery and Photofield free and open-source?
Yes. fgallery is licensed under MIT and Photofield under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run fgallery and Photofield with Docker?
fgallery: check the project docs for container support. Photofield: yes.
Which is lighter on resources, fgallery or Photofield?
fgallery has the smaller minimum footprint at 128 MB of RAM, compared to about 256 MB for Photofield. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.