Photo Hosting

[arith]

Where is a good place to put your photo's on the web with unlimited space and some of my pics are 20MB jpeg and doesn't cost the earth?

I use Fotki at the moment but would like some options.

[Geoff F]

There are quite a few to consider. I use P base which I find easy to use. Being rather useless at this internet stuff I found some sites impossible to understand. I couldn't even find 'the key of the door' leave alone getting inside!

There is a small annual charge with P base which increases as you require more space; but offhand I'm not sure how competitive it is.

Several of our members also use this site. There are a number of preset display templates or, if you are cleverer than me, you can customise your own. As an example of the site, here are my galleries http://www.pbase.com/crustacean

ps. Is there any special reason for needing large files? Most people, myself included, prefer to use small resolution images to prevent pirate copying and printing.

[arith]

It is one to keep in mind; generally I upload 100% jpeg at full size because I've been burgled three times and had complete computer failure twice where even the backups failed. Also I like to be able to easily get my files printed. Only a few of mine are good enough for pirating but as I get better and more consistent it is something to consider.

At the moment I have 426 photo's and 1.64GB used but mostly rubbish and I could cut that by half easily. cheers

[Dave Humphries]

Is there any special reason for needing large files? Most people, myself included, prefer to use small resolution images to prevent pirate copying and printing.

I second this query, it does seem strange to want to lay bare your hard won pixels to the world.
Are you actually looking for an online backup location instead, I wonder?

Cheers, (PS my PBase in signature)

[Colin Southern]

I'm another pbase user. Personally, I find their interface a but clunky, but it's perfectly useable once I got the hang of it. I have the 500MB plan which only costs a few dollars a year.

I have to say though that 20MB JPEGs sound awefully big; unless there's a good reason for it that I don't know about, I suspect that you could get them a LOT smaller without any visible loss of quality.

[Donald]

Because my e-mail is with BT in the UK, I got offered 'free' Flickr Pro and went with it (there's obviously some sort of tie-in), on the basis that the only purpose of a hosting site was, for me, as a means of getting images uploaded onto this site (pre album days). I had no aspirations to 'have a website' and Flickr did the job I wanted it to do perfectly adequately.

However, one develops as one gets older and (?) wiser. And as I've dropped in to the various pages of people on here, I have to confess to being quite impressed by smugsmug, which I got to via Steve's (Wirefox's) postings. But I haven't a clue whether it offers better, as good as, or poorer value for money than others.

[arith]

I'm another pbase user. Personally, I find their interface a but clunky, but it's perfectly useable once I got the hang of it. I have the 500MB plan which only costs a few dollars a year.

I have to say though that 20MB JPEGs sound awefully big; unless there's a good reason for it that I don't know about, I suspect that you could get them a LOT smaller without any visible loss of quality.

I did again a panorama of Lichfield Choir and uploaded it at 100% 6051x3071 pixels and was going to use a smaller version of it to illustrate what I mean; but it isn't saved on my harddrive. Only bits of it are in tiff and I would have to do it all again because of absent mindness. It is 14.4MB on file and much better than my original attempt.

Of course if I wasn't absent minded I wouldn't have had to download it; it is big for printing should Lichfield Cathedral or I should want to.

This is a very small version.

[arith]

Because my e-mail is with BT in the UK, I got offered 'free' Flickr Pro and went with it (there's obviously some sort of tie-in), on the basis that the only purpose of a hosting site was, for me, as a means of getting images uploaded onto this site (pre album days). I had no aspirations to 'have a website' and Flickr did the job I wanted it to do perfectly adequately.

However, one develops as one gets older and (?) wiser. And as I've dropped in to the various pages of people on here, I have to confess to being quite impressed by smugsmug, which I got to via Steve's (Wirefox's) postings. But I haven't a clue whether it offers better, as good as, or poorer value for money than others.

Cheers Donald; the problem with fotki is they are unreliable, images get uploaded then disappear or the size changes. However maybe just some storage space is needed and I already have a website with 10GB space but it is against the rules I think to use it to just store files.

[RonH]

... However, one develops as one gets older and (?) wiser ...

Hei Don,
I am getting older but definately ain't wiser, at least about such subjects as photo sites! I have no need for plonking my pics 'off site' as far as I know because I do save them all on such as dvd's, ext hard drives etc ... and every 6 months I keep an updated copy at my lady's mother's house (they have their uses ) just in case we get 'done over'.

But, in the case of Cambridge and My Albums, are there any benefits? Currently I simply upload to My Album at the regulation 700px size and at the best quality I can muster at my current level of expertise. If I have a 'photo site', does this mean that I can show my pics on Cambridge in eg Comps at a better quality/resolution etc?

[Dave Humphries]

If I have a 'photo site', does this mean that I can show my pics on Cambridge in eg Comps at a better quality/resolution etc?

In a word; Yes

Well, by that I mean larger pixel-wise - even then 1200 or so is the max width we recommend, or it takes too long to load the post, especially if more than one image is involved.

If you do as you are, by sticking within the 700px limits, it shouldn't affect the quality by hosting in an album here at CiC at all.

Sean (McQ) does go to some lengths to ensure that even when downsizing is done, the impact is minimal.

[RonH]

In a word; Yes

Thanks Dave ... have to put my 'thinking cap' on

[RonH]

In a word; Yes

Well, by that I mean larger pixel-wise - even then 1200 or so is the max width we recommend, or it takes too long to load the post, especially if more than one image is involved.

Dave ... something I don't understand. How is it that CinC can 'accept' larger pixel pics from hosted sites than direct from an upload to Albums from eg home pc? Can't get my brain around this though it may be due to very low temperatures up here

[arith]

I have decided if I get sick of fotki then smugmugs is the most economical for me. Fotki is very cheap but always developing and I like to be confident I can get at my pics. cheers

[Dave Humphries]

Dave ... something I don't understand. How is it that CinC can 'accept' larger pixel pics from hosted sites than direct from an upload to Albums from eg home pc? Can't get my brain around this though it may be due to very low temperatures up here

Because the picture isn't at CiC, it is at PBase, Flickr or where-ever and your web browser gets it directly from there, 'on the fly'. The only thing stored at CiC (actually in the post) is the (web) address of where the picture is

This means the cost of providing the bits of data in a timely fashion (called bandwidth), is bourne by the place where the picture is, not CiC. That's why, especially for the ability to directly link to images (as this is called), is usually either charged for (I paid $23 for 500MB/yr space at PBase last April), or the web site is strewn with nasty, garish, flashing adverts and/or pop ups.

However, if the picture is hosted at CiC; Sean has to do something to keep the server hosting costs reasonable, one way being to limit the size of pictures hosted, which not only reduces the HDD space needed, but also the small charge (or debit from paid for bandwidth) everytime someone views it. Every little helps.

Cheers,

[RonH]

Because the picture isn't at CiC, it is at PBase, Flickr or where-ever and your web browser gets it directly from there, 'on the fly'. The only thing stored at CiC (actually in the post) is the (web) address of where the picture is

Cheers,

Why did I not think of that! Clever stuff init
So if Flickr whatever has a bit of 'bother' then no pic for view on CinC ... but this is true for any 'shared service'. Thanks Dave, I have had another 'learn' today.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Ron,

~ So if Flickr whatever has a bit of 'bother' then no pic for view on CinC ... but this is true for any 'shared service'. Thanks Dave, I have had another 'learn' today.

Exactly, and that 'bother' can be self inflicted

If the url (address) for the picture contains anything that looks like more than just an image number, for example an "albumid" number, re-arranging photos on 'your' website may also mess up the images in any posts here, I think ""Ph~bucket" is one I have had experience of this with - when building the CiC Hall of Fame of competition/challenge winners, I used to see a lot of their "missing image" placeholders here in posts - or it could just have been people deleting their older pics in favour of newer, better stuff.

To answer your question; yes, if their site goes down, the pictures go missing (usually only temporarily), but even that is very rare.

Cheers,

[wjh31]

+1 to flickr from me too. 25USD/yr gets a pro account with 20mb max upload for unlimited uploads. Ive only got a free account but am very pleased with it. Its also a good way to get a few more views on your photos if you are after that. Alternatively there are plenty of hosting companies which offere reasonable storage. They usualy say dont use it for storage, but if you throw together a simple site around the images you can easily argue that they are for the site and get around any problems.

Alternatively you could try a more general backup solution, e.g mozy offers 2GB online backup free, or unlimited for 55USD/yr. You can then throw in any other important files for a bonus with that option