If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Web Based Photo Hosting?
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 ... 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Web Based Photo Hosting?
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 ... 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Web Based Photo Hosting?
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Web Based Photo Hosting?
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Web Based Photo Hosting?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Web Based Photo Hosting?
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Web Based Photo Hosting?
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Web Based Photo Hosting?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Web Based Photo Hosting?
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WinXP Microsoft Photo Printing Wizard, and Scanner and Camera Wizard | Orak Listalavostok | Digital Photography | 2 | July 10th 04 08:15 PM |
Epson color controls, photo enhance, ICM - which one for accurate photo printing? | Lindyhop | Digital Photography | 5 | July 3rd 04 03:06 PM |
How do I center a photo on a page? | Brian Kendig | Digital Photography | 4 | July 1st 04 06:11 PM |
Notebook computer for photo editing? | Tim Green | Digital Photography | 3 | June 24th 04 09:11 PM |
fiber based photo paper | Monkey | Film & Labs | 5 | February 2nd 04 01:59 PM |