«

Smugmug is awesome. smugmug.com

http://photo.higginsoft.com


"Richard H." <> wrote in message
news:MA%Mg.10806$c07.1903@fed1read04...
> I'm looking for suggestions / experiences with online photo hosting
> sites - not like pbase, but sites catering to professionals who want to
> sell photos online. I.e., they host & handle fulfillment, you get paid.
> (No luck narrowing the Google search.)
>
> I'd like to find a reliable site that charges a reasonable printing &
> processing fee. I'm not looking for a premium service (these are sports
> photos, not portraits), just a site that will do a good job of hosting and
> order fulfillment.
>
> Have you got any favorites? What makes them great?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>

I agree, I've used smugmug for over two years, and it just keeps
getting better. Started as a basic user, now I subscribe to the pro
service. I also have a huge love for photoworks.com, of all the places
I have ever had prints made, no one has done a better job.

JC Dill wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:37:48 -0700, "Richard H." <> wrote:
>
> >I'm looking for suggestions / experiences with online photo hosting
> >sites - not like pbase, but sites catering to professionals who want to
> >sell photos online. I.e., they host & handle fulfillment, you get paid.
>
> I have experience with 3 sites: Smugmug, ExposureManager, and
> Printroom.
>

Thank you for a very good comparison of the three.

However re proofs, I don't understand the problem with uploading proofs
to SmugMug and later the edited pic.

I use SmugMug but don't like the fact that this year they started to
strip my domain masking. I have several actors portfolios on SmugMug,
each has its own domain name which I had masked. Now the actors domain
no longer shows when the SmugMug pix load up. Of course the text I
posted on SmugMug which each portfolio still shows.

JC Dill wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:37:48 -0700, "Richard H." <> wrote:
>
> >I'm looking for suggestions / experiences with online photo hosting
> >sites - not like pbase, but sites catering to professionals who want to
> >sell photos online. I.e., they host & handle fulfillment, you get paid.
>
> I have experience with 3 sites: Smugmug, ExposureManager, and
> Printroom.
>

Thank you for a very good comparison of the three.

However re proofs, I don't understand the problem with uploading proofs
to SmugMug and later the edited pic.

I use SmugMug but don't like the fact that this year they started to
strip my domain masking. I have several actors portfolios on SmugMug,
each has its own domain name which I had masked. Now the actors domain
no longer shows when the SmugMug pix load up. Of course the text I
posted on SmugMug which each portfolio still shows.

On 16 Sep 2006 09:29:45 -0700, wrote:

>
>JC Dill wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:37:48 -0700, "Richard H." <> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm looking for suggestions / experiences with online photo hosting
>> >sites - not like pbase, but sites catering to professionals who want to
>> >sell photos online. I.e., they host & handle fulfillment, you get paid.
>>
>> I have experience with 3 sites: Smugmug, ExposureManager, and
>> Printroom.
>>
>Thank you for a very good comparison of the three.
>
>However re proofs, I don't understand the problem with uploading proofs
>to SmugMug and later the edited pic.

Unless they have made recent changes that I don't know about, Smugmug
uses the photo you upload to process the print order automagically.
You don't have any chance to upload an edited pic after the print is
ordered. The only way to "later upload an edited pic" would be to
mark the originals as not available for purchase, then edit and upload
replacements, and then mark the replaced images as available for
purchase. I don't know about your photo volume and workflow, but that
wouldn't work for me at all.

>I use SmugMug but don't like the fact that this year they started to
>strip my domain masking.

Have you asked them about this? You might want to post on dgrin and
see if there's a workaround.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

wrote:
> However re proofs, I don't understand the problem with uploading proofs
> to SmugMug and later the edited pic.

The issue is uploading proofs for preview (reduced images of the
unedited photos), but fetching the high-res version from the owner when
a print is ordered. This is honestly an issue I hadn't considered at
the outset, but it would hugely reduce the effort to prep pics that
nobody wants, and it reduces the online storage requirement to a small
fraction.


> I use SmugMug but don't like the fact that this year they started to
> strip my domain masking.

This concerned me, but on another posting here the masking is clearly
working: http://photo.higginsoft.com/

Do you subscribe at a basic level, that they would have disabled this on
you and not his?

Thanks,
Richard

Frank ess wrote:
> I haven't tried it, but FotoTime has a sell-for-you service.
>
> I have seven thousand images there, have experience essentially no
> downtime, and the technical service is rapid and competent.

Hi, Frank.

Thanks for the info. I've finally got the time to compare these
recommendations side-by-side. It's just an impression, but fototime
doesn't seem to have a strong emphasis on pro sales (more photo sharing,
it seems). Do you agree?

What does it cost you to host those 7,000 images annually, and what
resolution are you storing? Unless they offer the option to upload
proofs like the others, $24/yr per 1GB is going to cost a fortune for
hosting event photos. Do you know if they support uploding high-res
after an order is placed?

Thanks,
Richard

"Richard H." <> writes:
> What does it cost you to host those 7,000 images annually, and what
> resolution are you storing? Unless they offer the option to upload
> proofs like the others, $24/yr per 1GB is going to cost a fortune for
> hosting event photos. Do you know if they support uploding high-res
> after an order is placed?

I think he said $2/month per 10GB, not per 1GB.

A "fine"-quality 5MP jpeg takes about 1.5MB so 7000 of them would be
10.5GB. For 16MP shots (EOS-1DS mk II) maybe that goes up to 40 GB,
around $100 a year, still not bad if print sales are generating any
serious amount of revenue.

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Richard H." <> writes:
>> What does it cost you to host those 7,000 images annually, and what
>> resolution are you storing? Unless they offer the option to upload
>> proofs like the others, $24/yr per 1GB is going to cost a fortune
>> for
>> hosting event photos. Do you know if they support uploding
>> high-res
>> after an order is placed?
>
> I think he said $2/month per 10GB, not per 1GB.
>
Richard:

I corrected my mis-type; it's 1 (one) GB.

I store for-web-link images, mostly. They tell me the average file
size is 79.14 KB, but that includes a few large-for-print files and
some video. If the projections Paul made (below) are in the ballpark,
It might not be an appropriate venue.

My (very low-volume) way of doing it has been to load un-processed but
re-sized images for proofs purposes, with instructions to contact me
with selections. When I know which are the desired ones I process and
upload print-ready versions to a separate 'album', where prints can be
ordered or the image downloaded, depending on prior arrangements.

Not really conducive to the kind of work flow you describe.

> A "fine"-quality 5MP jpeg takes about 1.5MB so 7000 of them would be
> 10.5GB. For 16MP shots (EOS-1DS mk II) maybe that goes up to 40 GB,
> around $100 a year, still not bad if print sales are generating any
> serious amount of revenue.

Paul:

The few contacts I've had with the folks that run FotoTime have been
pleasant and productive; I wouldn't be surprised if they'd be willing
to make a better offer for the kind of volume Richard is
contemplating, and even adjust their capabilities to his needs.

--
Frank ess

Richard H. wrote:
> > I use SmugMug but don't like the fact that this year they started to
> > strip my domain masking.
>
> This concerned me, but on another posting here the masking is clearly
> working: http://photo.higginsoft.com/
>
> Do you subscribe at a basic level, that they would have disabled this on
> you and not his?
>

Yes I pay the basic level.

When I mentioned it to them, they told me that masking was for Pro
Level.
It was OK for at least one year, before they downgraded basic level.