Web Based Photo Hosting?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JeffS, Jul 10, 2004.

  1. JeffS

    JeffS Guest

    Hi,
    I am looking for a web based photo hosting site that allows direct
    linking. People on DPReview seem to primarily use PBase.com to host
    their photos online, but I'm curious about alternatives. There seem to
    be many hosting sites out there (from a quick Google search) and am
    wondering what people here use for photo hosting? My unmodified photos
    range from 2.5 MB to 3.2 MB in size (JPEG, I prefer not to post RAW). I
    want to keep my photos fairly large (minimal JPEG compression) in size
    in order to reduce the amount of JPEG artifacts. Any
    thoughts/opinions/pros/cons on hosting sites?

    Thanks,

    Jeff
    JeffS, Jul 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. To what purpose are going to put the hosting service? If its to show a
    gallery of your work then you won't be posting 2-3 meg files. You will size
    them to a reasonable pixel size and JPEG it from there....and if you do
    minimal compression from that point there should be no apparent artifacts.


    "JeffS" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    > I am looking for a web based photo hosting site that allows direct
    > linking. People on DPReview seem to primarily use PBase.com to host
    > their photos online, but I'm curious about alternatives. There seem to
    > be many hosting sites out there (from a quick Google search) and am
    > wondering what people here use for photo hosting? My unmodified photos
    > range from 2.5 MB to 3.2 MB in size (JPEG, I prefer not to post RAW). I
    > want to keep my photos fairly large (minimal JPEG compression) in size
    > in order to reduce the amount of JPEG artifacts. Any
    > thoughts/opinions/pros/cons on hosting sites?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Jeff
    Gene Palmiter, Jul 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JeffS

    Sabineellen Guest

    >
    >To what purpose are going to put the hosting service? If its to show a
    >gallery of your work then you won't be posting 2-3 meg files. You will size
    >them to a reasonable pixel size and JPEG it from there....and if you do
    >minimal compression from that point there should be no apparent artifacts.


    Yes it is strange that the OP wants hosting for 2-3 meg files. I generally
    think it's best not to exceed the typical browser screen size, for which
    800x600 would be okay. Get people scrolling and they'll be annoyed.
    Sabineellen, Jul 10, 2004
    #3
  4. JeffS

    JeffS Guest

    On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:34:32 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
    <> wrote:

    >To what purpose are going to put the hosting service? If its to show a
    >gallery of your work then you won't be posting 2-3 meg files. You will size
    >them to a reasonable pixel size and JPEG it from there....and if you do
    >minimal compression from that point there should be no apparent artifacts.


    I did indeed want to start a small gallery of my photos. The reason why
    I was thinking of posting such large files is that there seem to be
    quite a few comments on some of the DPR boards about not being able to
    properly evaluate a gallery because the owner did not post in the
    camera's native output size. I would much prefer to downsize the images
    to something approximating 1280 x 1024, 1024 x 768, or even 800 x 600. I
    appreciate the input. I'll try using the smaller image sizes.

    Thanks!

    Jeff
    JeffS, Jul 10, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <>,
    JeffS <> writes:

    >I did indeed want to start a small gallery of my photos. The reason why
    >I was thinking of posting such large files is that there seem to be
    >quite a few comments on some of the DPR boards about not being able to
    >properly evaluate a gallery because the owner did not post in the
    >camera's native output size. I would much prefer to downsize the images
    >to something approximating 1280 x 1024, 1024 x 768, or even 800 x 600. I
    >appreciate the input. I'll try using the smaller image sizes.


    I do not understand why "camera's native output size" is important.
    (Any analogy would be criticizing a painter for not listing the types
    and sizes of brushes used to create a portrait.) Desktop cropping
    is part of the creative process, and usually improves the resulting
    image.

    Copyright also is an issue. My long term plans include providing
    some of my images on the Internet for marketing purposes. My
    current thinking is that I will reduce the finished images to a
    640x480 pixel size for Internet display, and will include a textual
    copyright statement in each Internet image. My goal is to
    illustrate my talents without giving away salable product.

    Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
    --
    Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
    Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
    Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg
    Richard Ballard, Jul 10, 2004
    #5
  6. JeffS

    Frank ess Guest

    Richard Ballard wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > JeffS <> writes:
    >
    >> I did indeed want to start a small gallery of my photos. The reason
    >> why I was thinking of posting such large files is that there seem to
    >> be quite a few comments on some of the DPR boards about not being
    >> able to properly evaluate a gallery because the owner did not post
    >> in the camera's native output size. I would much prefer to downsize
    >> the images to something approximating 1280 x 1024, 1024 x 768, or
    >> even 800 x 600. I appreciate the input. I'll try using the smaller
    >> image sizes.

    >
    > I do not understand why "camera's native output size" is important.
    > (Any analogy would be criticizing a painter for not listing the types
    > and sizes of brushes used to create a portrait.) Desktop cropping
    > is part of the creative process, and usually improves the resulting
    > image.
    >
    > Copyright also is an issue. My long term plans include providing
    > some of my images on the Internet for marketing purposes. My
    > current thinking is that I will reduce the finished images to a
    > 640x480 pixel size for Internet display, and will include a textual
    > copyright statement in each Internet image. My goal is to
    > illustrate my talents without giving away salable product.
    >


    Well, I wouldn't flatter myself by suggesting my photos are stealable or
    worthy of serious evalutation, but my solution, as an exercise, can be
    seen in the first two images in this album:
    http://www.fototime.com/inv/C61C2ACE68C4F51

    The first is a 1:1 (camera's native output size, evaluate-able) section
    of the second, viewable but not real good for printing. Cake and eat it
    in two easy uploads.


    Frank ess

    PS: I have nearly 5000 images on FotoTime. Works for me. So far. Good
    value at about $2.00 USD per month per 250 MB, an extra ~$18 per year
    and they will host your video, too.
    http://www.fototime.com/00091D6C9BCAE3B/conv.wmv
    Very little downtime that I know of, very responsive staff.
    Frank ess, Jul 10, 2004
    #6
  7. JeffS

    Crownfield Guest

    Richard Ballard wrote:
    >
    > In article <>,
    > JeffS <> writes:
    >
    > >I did indeed want to start a small gallery of my photos. The reason why
    > >I was thinking of posting such large files is that there seem to be
    > >quite a few comments on some of the DPR boards about not being able to
    > >properly evaluate a gallery because the owner did not post in the
    > >camera's native output size. I would much prefer to downsize the images
    > >to something approximating 1280 x 1024, 1024 x 768, or even 800 x 600. I
    > >appreciate the input. I'll try using the smaller image sizes.

    >
    > I do not understand why "camera's native output size" is important.
    > (Any analogy would be criticizing a painter for not listing the types
    > and sizes of brushes used to create a portrait.) Desktop cropping
    > is part of the creative process, and usually improves the resulting
    > image.


    even more important, if the image is big,
    say 1 mb, and 1,000 people in this newsgroup download it,
    your bandwith for the day hit 1 gig.

    now your hosting service is getting expensive.
    my bandwith is 60 gigs per month,
    and putting 2 1 mb pictures could use all of it.

    remember that search engines use your bandwidth too,
    and there are many many crawlers.

    >
    > Copyright also is an issue. My long term plans include providing
    > some of my images on the Internet for marketing purposes. My
    > current thinking is that I will reduce the finished images to a
    > 640x480 pixel size for Internet display, and will include a textual
    > copyright statement in each Internet image. My goal is to
    > illustrate my talents without giving away salable product.
    >
    > Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
    > --
    > Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
    > Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
    > Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg
    Crownfield, Jul 10, 2004
    #7
  8. JeffS

    JeffS Guest

    On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:47:14 GMT, "Frank ess" <>
    wrote:y
    >Well, I wouldn't flatter myself by suggesting my photos are stealable or
    >worthy of serious evalutation, but my solution, as an exercise, can be
    >seen in the first two images in this album:
    >http://www.fototime.com/inv/C61C2ACE68C4F51
    >
    >The first is a 1:1 (camera's native output size, evaluate-able) section
    >of the second, viewable but not real good for printing. Cake and eat it
    >in two easy uploads.


    Hmmm, good idea. I looked at the Fototime site and it seems like a
    slightly better deal than PBase. Does Fototime offer EXIF extraction
    also? I couldn't find a mention of it in the account descriptions.

    Thanks,

    Jeff
    JeffS, Jul 11, 2004
    #8
  9. Protecting your images' copyright

    Richard Ballard wrote:

    >640x480 pixel size for Internet display, and will include a textual
    >copyright statement in each Internet image. My goal is to
    >illustrate my talents without giving away salable product.


    how do you do that?? I have wondered what software I need to imbed a copyright
    symbol and my name,,,,

    thanks
    --
    chas
    The new Canon DSLR elist. no trolls, etc
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canon-dslr/join

    ....
    schuetzen - RKBA!, Jul 11, 2004
    #9
  10. In response to several emailed questions.

    In article <>,
    (Richard Ballard) writes:

    >In article <>,
    >JeffS <> writes:
    >
    >>I did indeed want to start a small gallery of my photos. The reason why
    >>I was thinking of posting such large files is that there seem to be
    >>quite a few comments on some of the DPR boards about not being able to
    >>properly evaluate a gallery because the owner did not post in the
    >>camera's native output size. I would much prefer to downsize the images
    >>to something approximating 1280 x 1024, 1024 x 768, or even 800 x 600. I
    >>appreciate the input. I'll try using the smaller image sizes.

    >
    >I do not understand why "camera's native output size" is important.
    >(Any analogy would be criticizing a painter for not listing the types
    >and sizes of brushes used to create a portrait.) Desktop cropping
    >is part of the creative process, and usually improves the resulting
    >image.
    >
    >Copyright also is an issue. My long term plans include providing
    >some of my images on the Internet for marketing purposes. My
    >current thinking is that I will reduce the finished images to a
    >640x480 pixel size for Internet display, and will include a textual
    >copyright statement in each Internet image. My goal is to
    >illustrate my talents without giving away salable product.


    Most desktop imaging software products allow the user to
    crop, then enhance, then resize (resample larger or smaller
    with or without aspect distortion), then add a textual comment
    to the image. One example software package is JASC's Paint
    Shop Pro, a package I find both professionally written and
    affordable. I am not associated with JASC and I do not receive
    remuneration from JASC. www.jasc.com

    Another question: How do you protect a copyrighted image
    displayed on the Internet? _You don't_. My philosophy is to
    reduce the finished image's size to 640x480 for Internet use,
    then place the copyright notice in a 'busy' image area where
    the notice can not be obliterated without _visibly damaging_
    the image, and assume that a potential Customer wanting that
    image will inquire about purchasing the full size unmarked
    image. I.e., a 640x480 explicitly copyright marked image
    is a throwaway sample, not quality photography. And most
    potential Customers can display an entire 640x480 sample
    image without scrolling.

    The 640x480 image is on the Internet -- anybody can copy it
    and distribute as many copies as they wish. As long as my
    name and copyright notice remains on the sample image, I am
    happy that others are helping me to market my talents by
    distributing copies of my sample images.

    'Hope that helps.

    Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
    --
    Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
    Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
    Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg
    Richard Ballard, Jul 12, 2004
    #10
  11. JeffS

    atpic Guest

    Well you can give a try at my site
    http://atpic.com
    comes with EXIF extraction and free web space...

    JeffS wrote:
    > On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:47:14 GMT, "Frank ess" <>
    > wrote:y
    >
    >>Well, I wouldn't flatter myself by suggesting my photos are stealable or
    >>worthy of serious evalutation, but my solution, as an exercise, can be
    >>seen in the first two images in this album:
    >>http://www.fototime.com/inv/C61C2ACE68C4F51
    >>
    >>The first is a 1:1 (camera's native output size, evaluate-able) section
    >>of the second, viewable but not real good for printing. Cake and eat it
    >>in two easy uploads.

    >
    >
    > Hmmm, good idea. I looked at the Fototime site and it seems like a
    > slightly better deal than PBase. Does Fototime offer EXIF extraction
    > also? I couldn't find a mention of it in the account descriptions.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Jeff



    --
    Alex
    Atpic: share your pictures with http://atpic.com
    atpic, Jul 20, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bhoona

    US web hosting or UK web hosting comapnies?

    Bhoona, Mar 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    516
    Tina - AffordableHOST.com
    Mar 4, 2004
  2. scott

    hosting web based services on home account ?

    scott, Oct 15, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    444
  3. elaich
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    388
    joevan
    Apr 29, 2005
  4. Crains

    Cheap NZ Based web hosting

    Crains, Jul 23, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    555
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jul 28, 2007
  5. darkknight
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    756
Loading...

Share This Page