Photobucket

[LuxLuthor]

Several things I see, since these differences got me curious enough to sign up for a free Flickur account.

My original jpg file on my hard drive is 122KB. The file size on the Bucket image if you right mouse and select "View Image Info" is also 122KB.

However, the same photo uploaded to my friend Flicka somehow shows as being 197KB.

There are also limits on each hosting site of quantity allowed, file & display size unless you pay for a "Pro" account. There are also default settings on menus that may need to be changed. It appears that The Bucket allows up to 2mb file size or 1024x768 pixels, but that option needs to be set before uploaded. With my pro account, I believe it allows any pixel size but caps image file size at 20mb. Not sure how that compares to Flicker.

From what I just saw using Flicked, it is insanely unfriendly in terms of getting easy to post links for a forum. I cannot conclude that Flickie is better based upon this one test where something got added to my original uploaded file size by Flickster.

 

[cityevader]

I agree with the initial observation that Flickr is "horrible" for forum photo usage. However, there are some huge benefits, such as being able to pick what size you want to put into a thread without changing the actual file size. Plus the page-to-page load time is so vastly better that the extra steps involved are actually faster.

I guess it boils down to "I like sharp cheddar" vs "I like medium cheddar" or whatever. Once someone gets used to a certain thing, that's what they like.

I had no idea this thread would end up so, um.... so, um.....yeah

 

[boo5ted]

I agree with the initial observation that Flickr is "horrible" for forum photo usage. However, there are some huge benefits, such as being able to pick what size you want to put into a thread without changing the actual file size. Plus the page-to-page load time is so vastly better that the extra steps involved are actually faster.

I guess it boils down to "I like sharp cheddar" vs "I like medium cheddar" or whatever. Once someone gets used to a certain thing, that's what they like.

I had no idea this thread would end up so, um.... so, um.....yeah

What he said. The choice for me is usability. With Flickr I can upload photos from my phone's camera and choose the location(set) that I want to put it in. I can also edit the pic from my phone if needed. With Photobucket I can only upload photos to the default album. Flickr also loads so much faster for me and their are more options over Photobucket.

Oh, and I prefer provolone myself. :poke:

 

[DM51]

From Rule 3:

Images... If you post an image in your post, please downsize the image to no larger than 800 x 800 pixels.

:whistle:

 

[calebra]

pick deleted, too large...

 

[cityevader]

From Rule 3:

:whistle:

:ohgeez:
That's for the reminder.

 

[JonN06]

I don't use flikr and I can't remember any of my old photobucket login info, but google's picasa web albums seem to work well for me. Just thought I'd throw another one into the mix... :whistle:

 

[mossyoak]

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

No sir, seriously I'm allergic to technology

 

[cityevader]

I've no idea if Macs work differently with photobucket. But on the main page after signing in, there is a green bar with "upload images and videos" dead center. Just above that to the left is where you select which album you want to up load into. You should select the album before uploading.
It's working for me. but maybe you're doing differently? I'm unfamiliar with bulk uploading.
Good luck?
Maybe others can chime in and help this brotha out?

 

[LuxLuthor]

Preferences with features and how it works once you get used to it are one thing, but that's not what the thread was about.

I was only trying to answer the speculation of why the images looked sharper in the pro-flicker posts, and I only know that flick added 70KB to my image which is not something I can dismiss or even excuse for a photo hosting site.

The peanut gallery speculation was that Bucket was compressing the images since they were a smaller file size, but it looks to be something else going on, including flickster falsely adding to the file size. The question I have is what did they add, and why? If they have some other hidden tags, or changing qualities or character of my photo without asking me, I consider that a violation of image integrity.

I'm also not sure what settings were used between the two accounts when demonstrating above images, or if the bucket has some default adjustment for a free account...but my file size was what it should be with photobucket. End of story for me.

 

[cityevader]

ahhhh, perhaps you're on to something.
My free bucket account's file size is half the original. So it does seem to be a defining difference between free and pro subscription.

OK.....defining test:
Somebody with a pro account should open up a free bucket account and use the same picture to post here to compare side by side a "free" and a "pro" photo.
Any takers?

 

[65535]

Photobucket Free

Photobucket Pro

Flickr

Picasa

 

[65535]

Later I'll round up a better photo, this was the first I had just ready.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Later I'll round up a better photo, this was the first I had just ready.

They all look the same to me.

 

[cityevader]

ditto.
What gives?
I noticed file sizes similar, yet many of us experienced half on free bucket. Anyone know for sure if there's any settings for upload/file quality/etc that can be changed in photobucket?

 

[was.lost.but.now.found]

The Photobucket Pro if definitely different from the rest, while as far as I can tell the remainder are all equal to each other. The Pro picture seems to be brighter.

Please follow my testing methodology to see what I see.

1. Using IE 7 or better (or comparable app) open each picture in its own window.

2. Using CTRL + roller wheel, increase the size of each picture by 10 -15 marks (just be consistent across all pictures), while also keeping each picture in the same position. This will accentuate any differences.

3. Now toggle back and forth between all the pictures.

 

[65535]

It could be that the test photo was an ready compressed jpeg resized in SeaShore to 800x599 before being uploaded. It's also a lightly processed HDR image from PhotoMatix.

At only 390kb or so I believe it was within any data maximums for all of the sites. For my Pro account I have a 2mb max file upto 4000x3000 pixels.

I'll take a few pics with my G10 and play around with different photos, try other formats.

When I installed an EXIF viewer button for Chrome/Iron I noticed this.

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?b=3&refe...t.com/albums/zz180/Numbers65535/Phototest.jpg

Look under color encoding, that could explain some of the differences we may be seeing, though all the images show the same color profile.

 

[65535]

Photobucket

Photobucket Pro

Flickr

Picasa

 

[65535]

I'm not seeing one difference at all in the actual image, but the Flickr image is compressed to almost half of the others. Which is fine for hosting images on forums where you have to keep the members running stoneage connections in mind, but honestly I don't want my images compressed, for some things I would want to be able to have the image downloadable from my host at no reduced quality from the original file, and that plays a huge part on larger images.

Also I have found Flickr and Picasa give me trouble with links to the images, Photobucket is straight forward and gives me the image I hosted, in the size it's hosted at.

 

[65535]

If Boosted will e-mail his truck photo I'll host it on the 4 sites and see if it's some setting that he may have used that edits the images upon upload.