Flickr vs Photobucket

Until yesterday i'd been using Photobucket to host my photos. Having read some comments in the photography section at Hi-fi Wigwam forum (i'm a moderator) I thought i'd compare it to Flickr.

These aren't great shots, but they perfectly illustrate the heavy compression that Photobucket is using....


Flickr








Photobucket







I had no idea. Needless to say I won't be using Photobucket again!

They've reduced the file size to about a quarter of what it
was originally.... don't they alow any control of that?

'

As long as you upload to Photobucket the correct file size it's not a problem. Don't let any site do the resizing for you.

That is quite a difference colours look a little desaturated in PB. PB was convenient for uploading images into the pentaxuser forum but as they can be uploaded direct now it makes PB rather obsolete.

Good point Stan. Perhaps some members are still unaware that we can now upload directly into the forum. Press the button marked Image, found below the message pane.

I'll remember that, thanks chaps.

Why not rent your own hosting. It's not that expensive. Then you have complete control.

You could, and probably already are if you have your own website, but not just for uploading to here. No need when you can upload directly.

The other option for free hosting upto 2048px is to use Facebook ( if you have an account ). you can create a private photo album and still link to photos from it. the only downside is that it strips the EXIF

Facebook compresses terribly too...

When I had a "proper" website which was Linux based I used Coppermine.
This a link to the docs link and may be of some interest.

With Flickr you can upload full size Jpegs, but when you link to a smaller size of the image you don't get the dreadful loss of resolution due to compression that Photobucket seems to produce. In fact linking to a smaller size of the image on Flickr gives you a better image than one from Photobucket uploaded at the same size you want to link to. I gave up on Photobucket a while ago. You can also disable downloading of your images on Flickr, or make them only available to family or friends. I'm not sure if Photobucket has that facility.

Good point. I've only used it to host pics where compression doesn't matter. posters and funnies, etc

be interesting to do a comparison

You can see the cause if you check the EXIF data on the photobucket one. (So little effort taken to optimise that they even left the message in! :roll

I host Coppermine not stand-alone but as part of a complete site (incl. forums, calendars, articles, store, etc.). Better security, and easier to setup and control. Actually extending the Coppermine Gallery code even as we speak. Happy to talk if ...

Yes, and does so in a way that looks terrible in low light images, or any images with large areas of shadow. You end up getting these little square blocks of slightly lighter shadow, often in seemingly random colours. It's really nasty.