Image hosting websites.
I really don't come on here much but I have been buying the mag since launch and I hope that I am posting in the right place, please move elsewhere MR Mods if I have have posted wrong.
I have read many, many complaints abut FlickR, Photobucket and what have you, I have free accounts on both websites.
I have uploaded literally thousands of photos, some straight out of the camera and others where I have spent quite along time editing and then uploading to these sites, but what I have noticed(you certainly have to) all the images have become soft focused, colours have changed, etc, etc.
I have also read that even the pro accounts (paid) also suffer from the same degredation.
Jessops told me that fully paid accounts are never compressed but after 2 days of research I have found there are an aweful lot of people who say otherwise, infact everyone.
Can anyone shed any light what websites that I can use where quality from my PC to the upload that nothing changes, I would like to send and host photos to some of the fun compitions to this magazine with the IMG code but I cannot see any point as the images after upload are carp.
Can anyone suggest a better alternative because I cannot seem to find an answer of anyone from any corner of this Earth that we live upon.
Many thanks and kind regards.
I use Flickr and have not noticed anything with my photos. They look the same as they did coming out of Lightroom. I have heard people mention issues, but I have never seen any.
I'm on Flickr with a Pro account and have just compared one of my photographs with the original and theres not the slightest difference that I can see.
Thats' good to know Little Bro, I asked the original question as I am on photobucket and every single one of my images are soft or the colours have changed. I researched it and thousands have said the same about Photobuckets.
I also researched FlickR but hundres of people said the same about FlickR, even people who have Pro Accounts.
These images are razor sharp on my PC, but not now.
Not that I am an expert, i am just an enthusiastic photographer but storage space is a pain I have taken loads of pictures and love keeping them. so I decided to use photo bucket and have noticed the picture quality is not 100% the same as the original to view when its on photobucket. that said I have just installed the photobucket app on my ipad and found the settings where not set on a high enough resolution so i have adjusted to max setting which might help. Hopefully that will sort it out.
I have also resorted to transferring them to DVD but it takes ages to burn the discs with the amount I have been trying to archive.
Moving a little off topic, but I do not consider Flickr, etc, as backup storage for my photos. I would like to have a decent offsite backup service, but I do not have one yet. Right now, I download to my computer, then those are backed up to a NAS (network attached storage - an external hard drive set up that all computers can access - has two mirrored hard drives in it) and then to another external drive. I plan to drop the external drive at the in laws at some point to hold onto. I used to give them DVD's. In the meantime, if there is a fire, I will be grabbing the kids and then if I can the drive on the way out.
I would agree with Don, if you want to retain the quality of your photos look after them yourself.
I posted a similar problem regarding Photoradar here
The image I linked to was on Flickr so that comparison between the same photo on photoradar could be compared. I've got to admit that I'm impressed with the non pro accounts.
I've just uploaded a flower photo on the gallery here.
I've not as yet compared this with the one on Flickr, but my guess is the quality is seriously degraded on here.
Silly me I forgot the link to flickr
I know all about backing photos up onto a separate hardrive, I have thousand and thousands of them on a 2TB version, they have also been backed up onto DVDs but that has nothing to do with my question on my original post, none at all.
Photobucket now stipulates that all images can now be uploaded in their original size, in other words you could not before otherwise why an earth did they email everyone telling them so:rolleyes:
Hosting sites are there for a reason, one reason is to share your photos to maybe somewhere on the other side of the earth where they can be printed in another persons home for example, maybe a wedding or a birth, etc.
Soft photos will not do as a print, why spend a £1,000 on a camera body otherwise, why not £60.00 on a Fuji point and shoot, put your photos on a disc and send them to the otherside of the world, if you get my drift, no point in hosting them is there really if they are soft????no point in having an expensive high quality body and lens unless it's just for home use, but I like to share my photos on different forums and if there crap what is the point.
Have a look through this lot maybe.
Or this lot
I'll give up.
Interesting list and stats for various sites. Interestingly for me it confirms photo bucket limitations...
I like the idea of a NAS storage device set up. Any one got any recommendations on drives..
|All times are GMT. The time now is 09:04 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.