Photobucket

[LuxLuthor]

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.

That's opposite of what Flicka did with my image. :thinking: It added to the size of the jpg file I have on my hard drive, while the bucket kept it the same. Have you checked your file size against the right-click "view image info" sizes of the various sites?

 

[cityevader]

So far all i've seen is Buckaroo reduce the file size, not Flickster like 65535's demo did. I still wonder if it's some hidden method or setting that I don't see.
It's times like this I wish I were smarter, especially when it comes to computer jargon like some prior posts mention.

It all kinda reminds me of trying to comparison shop for a shop vac, and they're all rated differently. Horsepower, amps, mph, inches water suction power, etc.... and in the end you just gotta try them to see which one works the way you want and stick with that one.

 

[StarHalo]

especially when it comes to computer jargon like some prior posts mention.

The JPG file format is compressed, that is, it looks at all the 1s and 0s of the image data and creates "shortcuts" to keep the image looking as much as possible like the original while making the filesize smaller. This isn't so bad if it's done mildly, it will remove just a little bit of detail from areas of the image you wouldn't normally notice (like the gradient of color in the sky) and the picture will look the same. But if you do it too much, it will start removing detail from everywhere, and the image will look overly-pixelated.

Here's an example; This is an image where detail is critical, so I've saved the file as a JPG with the highest quality/as little compression as possible. The filesize on my hard drive is 504 kilobytes.

The image you see above is also 504 kilobytes, so my photo service is just displaying the file as-is, no changes or compression added. It looks as it should, I wouldn't want any compression to steal even the tiniest detail.

So now let's see a compressed example, let's say my photo service has decided that their drive space is precious, so they're going to add compression to files they deem too large. This is a somewhat exaggerated example, but it gives you the idea that compression means lost detail:

Ouch. The filesize of this image is 11 kilobytes, so while the file takes up a lot less space, it's also lost nearly all of its fine detail. If this were some sort of important one-of-a-kind photo, like a family portrait, all future generations would only have this pixelated idea-of-a-picture - this is what can happen when data is lost.

So what everyone is talking about here is how some of the various photo services are applying compression to the images; if you feel your photos are important, if you want everyone to see your pictures exactly as you see them, then you obviously want a service that doesn't tamper with the file/doesn't add compression.

 

[65535]

On the flower picture all the hosts except Flickr had the exact same file size and compression as the original right at 360kb. Now the Flickr image is 380kb.

The Tree is 640kb, all the hosts have the same file size except Flickr which had a filesize of 290kb.

Take it for what it's worth, I personally won't be using Flickr for photos I publish online.

 

[LuxLuthor]

On the flower picture all the hosts except Flickr had the exact same file size and compression as the original right at 360kb. Now the Flickr image is 380kb.

The Tree is 640kb, all the hosts have the same file size except Flickr which had a filesize of 290kb.

Take it for what it's worth, I personally won't be using Flickr for photos I publish online.

That's messed up. YOu are saying that My Fiend Flicka is adding to the file size in some cases, and subtracting in others. No consistency. That's bad for people who care about their image integrity.

 

[65535]

That be my point exactly. I personally like integrity, and the hosted file to be the same exact picture I see on my image viewer offline.

 

[Coop]

If you want that, why not pay for some webspace and host your pics there? No conversion, just images the way you uploaded.

 

[65535]

I think photobucket is far cheaper. I think it works out to around $2 a month tops.

 

[cityevader]

That's messed up. YOu are saying that My Fiend Flicka is adding to the file size in some cases, and subtracting in others. No consistency. That's bad for people who care about their image integrity.

There have been "inconsistencies" shown with both Photobucket and Flickr adding/subtracting file size.
What I don't understand is how some people have the same file size pictured, and others have then halved.