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

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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