Photobucket

[boo5ted]

Sorry I'm on a pc, thought it might be similar. :(

 

[boo5ted]

In no areas of flickr have I found any right click that brings up an image code or address....I'm not drunk, but I am stupid.

You're right it only copies the address from the page not the pic. :confused: You still have to click on all sizes. :shakehead

 

[mossyoak]

thanks anyways boss, i think ill just give it a a shot with the photobucket app for iphone, maybe my dumb *** can figure that one out...

 

[LukeA]

thanks anyways boss, i think ill just give it a a shot with the photobucket app for iphone, maybe my dumb *** can figure that one out...

I just go to home/all albums/username's default album and there's a button that says "upload images and videos". That brings up a Finder window to pick the picture(s).

The photobucket iphone app is real simple but it's painfully slow to upload, like 55KB/s on my 5mbps u/l connection.

 

[fishinfool]

:kewlpics: Those nice and clear pics make me want to try Flickr.

 

[65535]

I'd like to see the photobucket truck, and flickr truck both downloaded and saved, and the original uploaded photo cut into 3rds then photoshopped into one picture labled then reuploaded with both services, and possibly just a file hosting site rather than a picture site.

Looking at the flickr image I have a feeling flickr adjusted contrast and brightness, it looks nice and all, but it also looks faked.

 

[mrartillery]

Lighter, darker whatever, the pictures are the exact same one that I uploaded to both of the sites. The photobucket one looks horrible compared to the flickr one to me. If I view the picture on my computer it looks just like the one from flickr. To me that is a big difference in quality. :rolleyes:

Yes, thanks for clarifying my initial statement.

 

[LukeA]

Yes, thanks for clarifying my initial statement.

It's clearer but it's still not a valid or reasonable statement. "It looks horrible in comparison" means nothing. You can't test a claim like that. Provide some sections of the two images that show some difference in image quality beyond simple brightness/saturation adjustment overlapped or as animated gifs or whatever equal comparison you want and then your "notion" of which image you prefer can be validated as reflecting a real and measurable difference in quality between the two images or not.

 

[cityevader]

Me Cityevader.
Me like Flickr picture.

 

[cityevader]

Mossyoak...did you go back and figure out Photobucket's changed site?

 

[mrartillery]

It's clearer but it's still not a valid or reasonable statement. "It looks horrible in comparison" means nothing.

The point of this being? If someone prefers the way a certain picture looks, then why try to over analyze it with jargon that means nothing to most people?

 

[cityevader]

The two photos are side by side compared...what more is needed?

 

[LukeA]

The point of this being? If someone prefers the way a certain picture looks, then why try to over analyze it with jargon that means nothing to most people?

You didn't say that you preferred one over another (the dimmer over the brighter). You said that the dimmer one was better than the other and that's not true empirically.

 

[StarHalo]

The Flickr image has been "Auto Level" processed, which means the contrast and color level was balanced. This makes most photos look better, but means you can't do beamshot or tint comparisons; contrast and color settings have to be identical across a range of images in order to do proper comparisons.

The Flickr image filesize is more than twice as large as the Photobucket one. I don't see any image quality difference, so if Photobucket is using some sort of compression, it's very conservative.

Also, you're not allowed to have images over 800 pixels in either direction on CPF..

 

[cityevader]

But boo5ted says the Flickr photo of his truck looks just like his original file on his computer screen. So it would seem that Photobucket is the one that has been altered?

 

[StarHalo]

But boo5ted says the Flickr photo of his truck looks just like his original file on his computer screen. So it would seem that Photobucket is the one that has been altered?

Must be, but that's strange, there shouldn't be any reason to decrease the contrast of the image.. There is no compression type I know of that alters a picture that way. But that mystery alone would be enough for me to not use Photobucket..

 

[LuxLuthor]

To begin to prove the superiority of one hosting site over another, a wide series by various users need to do the same test hosting the same photo on each site, so it is repeatedly and independently confirmed. I'm not going to draw any conclusion from this one white truck which isn't even a good example image to use.

 

[cityevader]

To my eye, the Flickr one seems sharper, especially around the rear spokes and sprocket area. What do you all think? I'm totally open to changing my mind and have no attachments to Flickr that can't be swayed by a simple demonstration otherwise.



photobucket:

Flickr:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4078/4810060523_defcc6042c.jpg

 

[StarHalo]

To my eye, the Flickr one seems sharper, especially around the rear spokes and sprocket area.

Yup, and again the Photobucket image is less than half the filesize, they're clearly applying some sort of compression.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Bucket on Left ............ Flickr on Right