View Full Version : Uploader into post
I would like an image uploader on this site directly from my computer straight into posts like many other sites have. I am not too keen on the Galleries only method because you may wish to post a substandard image as an example of some photographic fault and certainly would not wish to post it to a Gallery.
It is so much easier directly loading an image off your computer into the post at the time as you are compiling it.
DaveW
Get some hosting, use ISP hosting, use Flickr, or Zoomr, or Imageshack or one of the many many many other image hosting sites.
Second that. It costs so little. Pay for a proper Photobucket account or get some cheap webspace. My web hosting account is £40 a year and has over 300Gb of disk space - that's enough to run websites, back files up and make images available.
Second that. It costs so little. Pay for a proper Photobucket account or get some cheap webspace. My web hosting account is £40 a year and has over 300Gb of disk space - that's enough to run websites, back files up and make images available.
May I ask who you use? I could use 300GB online!
I tend to use Imageshack usually for quick uploads...Very very quick and nifty, and it even formats the line of code to put in a thread too....
For more permanent hosting, I pay about 15 quid a year for mine (tis only small)
I also use my Flickr account for my own shots too.
The only way we could implement a direct uploader onto the forums, is to enable member uploads/attachments within the forums themselved, something which we have disabled completely (even for staff).
May I ask who you use? I could use 300GB online!
I'd be interested too, mine are just about due for renewal
Jimmy_Lemon
15-06-2007, 15:19
300gb!! :o that has to be a typo?
300gb!! :o that has to be a typo?
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Im thinking 300mb :)
Les McLean
15-06-2007, 19:41
I tend to use my permanent hosting (100mb) or my ISP (200mb), and use a ftp program to uload/post.
Smart ftp is the one I use , it's free and relatively easy to use.
To upload images (to host) it's drag/drop or copy/paste.
When posting you can configure it to whichever way the forum works.
For example on this forum, to post an image using the insert image icon, the script prompt http://, I have my ftp configured that when I right click on the image I want to upload from my host, it automatically completes the upload script.
Your all really missing the point, other sites have far easier and better methods through simply providing an uploader, plus they cost the user nothing. Why pay £40 per year when you can store your images on your own computer?
I have a 500Gb raid array hard disk and it seems pointless not to use it to store my images. If that gets full I can offload to CD's or DVD's. I want most of my images stored on my computer, not on somebody else's! If your storing them both on your computer and a host site you are simply duplicating facilities and paying extra to do so.
With an uploader it is straight off my computer to here. You have had to do things twice by uploading to a host site then doing the same thing here. Not everybody wants their stuff stored on a host site or in a gallery.
I am on five sites and three out of the five have an uploader, so I don't bother posting images on the others, just use text or post a link to a site that has an uploader where I posted an image if applicable. I am sure lack of an uploader on any site must put off quite a few people from bothering posting images.
Neither do I ever wish to indulge in the ego trip of having my own web site, or put in the unnecessary effort of creating one.
DaveW
Jimmy_Lemon
16-06-2007, 18:43
Erm....so you use you computer as a server? Surely that involves a lot more work that just an "uploader" on the forum. I am thinking port forwarding firewall problems etc...not to mention peoples net connections. Would be some VERY slow loading images. Are you sure this how these "uploaders" work on these other sites?
whitewash
16-06-2007, 18:54
Your all really missing the point, other sites have far easier and better methods through simply providing an uploader, plus they cost the user nothing. Why pay £40 per year when you can store your images on your own computer?
I have a 500Gb raid array hard disk and it seems pointless not to use it to store my images. If that gets full I can offload to CD's or DVD's. I want most of my images stored on my computer, not on somebody else's! If your storing them both on your computer and a host site you are simply duplicating facilities and paying extra to do so.
With an uploader it is straight off my computer to here. You have had to do things twice by uploading to a host site then doing the same thing here. Not everybody wants their stuff stored on a host site or in a gallery.
I am on five sites and three out of the five have an uploader, so I don't bother posting images on the others, just use text or post a link to a site that has an uploader where I posted an image if applicable. I am sure lack of an uploader on any site must put off quite a few people from bothering posting images.
Neither do I ever wish to indulge in the ego trip of having my own web site, or put in the unnecessary effort of creating one.
DaveW
TP's gallery allows you to upload directly from your computer.
if you dont want them appearing in your gallery on here then host them elsewhere and link to them, or is it the money you'd have to fork out for outside hosting that your objecting to? (TP is run as non profit and doesnt take payment from anyone, bandwidth is expensive, personally im happy with the amount of uploading that TP allows, but i use it as little as possible to reduce costs for the people running this site
Your all really missing the point, other sites have far easier and better methods through simply providing an uploader, plus they cost the user nothing. Why pay £40 per year when you can store your images on your own computer?
Off you pop then.
I have a 500Gb raid array hard disk and it seems pointless not to use it to store my images. If that gets full I can offload to CD's or DVD's. I want most of my images stored on my computer, not on somebody else's! If your storing them both on your computer and a host site you are simply duplicating facilities and paying extra to do so.
Very true. I have nearly 2tb's but if I turn my computer off its a little trickier for people to access my work. Not exactly the best thing for my clients or the visitors to my photoblog
With an uploader it is straight off my computer to here. You have had to do things twice by uploading to a host site then doing the same thing here. Not everybody wants their stuff stored on a host site or in a gallery.
You do realise that by uploading the image here it is hosted on this site, even though you don't want that. Un poco loco.
I am on five sites and three out of the five have an uploader, so I don't bother posting images on the others, just use text or post a link to a site that has an uploader where I posted an image if applicable. I am sure lack of an uploader on any site must put off quite a few people from bothering posting images.
Well afaik you're the first to complain because no-one else has had an issue and personally I think you're making a mountain out of a sugar cube personally. Its really really really really not hard to right click, copy link, click the insert image button and paste.
Neither do I ever wish to indulge in the ego trip of having my own web site, or put in the unnecessary effort of creating one.
DaveW
Oh yeah I hate people with websites. Like this one... or my few... or the ones my friends have... or google...
whitewash
16-06-2007, 19:19
hey pete ive got a website you should see my ego, its massive, nearly as big as my penis!:nuts:
Jimmy_Lemon
16-06-2007, 19:23
You know you 3 would find it easier if you went into a chat room on something like IRC....oh wait a second......! :p
/me takes off his admin cap as he remembers which forum he is in *ahem* (plus I dont want to get slapped with fish in IRC)
My point, which you are all dutifully trying to avoid because you use other methods, is I only want to put the odd picture on the web at the time I wish to do. I don't want dozens of images stored out of my control that I may never use.
And regarding Web sites being an ego trip I was not referring to this one, or trade sites but what one might term personal "vanity sites" which serve the same purpose as "vanity book publishing" where there is no hope a publisher would ever accept your work so you get a vanity publisher to print it at your expense so you can claim "I have had a book published". I know quite a few very good personal sites that serve a useful purpose, but many others are simply "vanity sites" because their contents would never be commercial or of any general interest and are not informative.
What is many peoples real purpose in using a paid for host sites? Is it simply to store their work for posting in threads like this, or is it a form of "vanity publishing" on the Web which avoids having to get the approval of a printed publications Editor for it to be accepted?
I don't rate my pictures as being that good, and I am sure most of you will agree when you see them so I do not want dozens of them stuck on a web site somewhere out of my control. The odd one or so that is reasonable I will post, but my primary hobby is not photography so I probably take less pictures in a year than you all do in a week.
To me an uploader shows the site is willing to help beginners or those less profligate snappers not having dozens of pictures on a host site to post. For the amount of images I would ever put on a host site it would not be financially viable.
But then it seems to many the proper measure of a photographer is evidently the quantity of images they have taken per year and how many they can put into a host site? I automatically delete 95% of the pictures I take as substandard so I do not have hundreds needing a home, evidently I am just a poor photographer!
DaveW
Well done at alienating most of this forums members in one post.
Try this:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/showgallery.php?
Upload a picture and link to them.
Good luck in trying to link direct to files on your computer, hope you have a really good SDSL or leased line connection for that. :bonk:
If you don't want the images "out of your control" why not delete them from, say, your ISP web-space, after you've finished with them? Using said web-space would also allow you to upload when and wherever you choose. Not quite sure what the problem is here. Others are managing quite efficiently with off-site space.
Edit: I think he's referring to system similar to that used by Fred Miranda where the forum hosts the picture, thus saving the poster the cost but passing it onto the forum's bandwidth costs. Edit edit :D which Pete has referred to....
My point, which you are all dutifully trying to avoid because you use other methods, is I only want to put the odd picture on the web at the time I wish to do. I don't want dozens of images stored out of my control that I may never use.
Ok riddle me this. How is uploading photos to various forums using their uploading tools any different to uploading them to your own server somewhere? How are those dozens any different to the other dozens? Wouldn't they be the same images? Also. How much more control do you get over your images when you upload them into a forum than to your own server? I'll go out on a limb and say less. Someone could ban you and you wouldn't be able to remove the images. However, by paying for hosting you have a contract and you can take them to court over that. Personally I think you've got the wrong end of the stick and its turned out to be a lemon in disguise. Think about it this way. You pay for hosting, not a website, hosting. You get space and bandwidth. Use it how you want. You put only the images you want on that space and then copy / paste the link to other forums. So if you want to then remove them, they're removed from that 1 source. Saves you the effort of going round the other forums fixing them all.
As for vanity hosting, it makes the ladies want me. :naughty:
well to be honest, if you upload to our gallery, you have control of the images, if you use an attachement upload on any other forum, then that image is out of your control. Uploading to the gallery is a nice easy job, you can even set it to private so noone can see them outside of the posts you make.
we cant please everyone though i guess
I think this whole thread is based on confusion!
There is exactly the system DaveW is asking for already in place. Every TP user get given 16Mb of space for storing images. The difference may be that that it is not fully integrated into the forum - you will need another browser window to upload the picture and get the link to put in the post you are compiling.
Use the gallery link under your user name or the gallery link at the top but open it in a new window if you are in the middle of writing a post.
I think Roberts right, this is quite confusing?
I'm not sure exactly what you want Dave. Would you like us to turn on Vbulletins "Post attachment" feature?
We've disabled that for bandwidth and server reasons, pure and simple really. Because we have a fully integrated Gallery system.
I think with the VB upload feature, once it's uploaded, its out of your control. With the Gallery, you're fully in control, you can edit, delete, arrange all your things as you like, and also link them into many posts. The VB system isnt made for this sort of integration.
Also, if you click "Quick Links" on the navbar at the top of any page on the site, then you will see a drop down list, on that list is the "Upload Photos" option, which will take you straight to the upload gallery post. Sure you have to navigate *back* to a post to insert the image, but that's the only way it can be done at the moment. We can look into some sort of more direct inegration with the gallery, but at the end of the day, isn't it only one or two more clicks?
whitewash
17-06-2007, 16:28
extra clicks, christ marcel thats as bad as vanity hostinG!
whiteflyer
17-06-2007, 19:50
Uploading to the gallery is a nice easy job, you can even set it to private so noone can see them outside of the posts you make.
Well you learn something everyday, off to make ALL my crap images private :lol:
Sorry for the delay in reply, but I compiled an answer early on today so I could watch the F1 Grand Prix at my leisure, plus do other things I had to do and just as I intended posting it Intenet Explorer stopped working, closed itself down and restarted again loosing all my post! Internet Explorer very occasionally closing in Vista seems to be one of the bugs not yet ironed out!
The "Post Attachment" feature sounds exactly what I am talking about. On many other sites above or below this post window I am typing into now would be an uploader function. There would be a "Browse" button which when clicked on took you to your computer files where you selected your image and clicked on the "Open" button then on the uploaders "Load" (or whatever they choose to call it as it seems to vary between different uploaders). After a short time your image appears with a button saying something like "Add into Post". You just click on this and your image tag appears where you put your cursor. Use "Preview" and you can see if your image is right.
As to using image tags and copying and pasting, to turn one of today's youngsters pet phrases back on yourselves, "in today's IT world that is so yesterday". And yes you are all youngsters to me as I am 66! We are now in a mouse click orientated rather than keyboard driven world.
As to vanity publishing, a personal web site gets around your work being scrutinised by a professional image man like a photo journal editor who decided if it is good enough for publication. I have seen many outstanding personal web sites, but also many mediocre ones.
OK the acid test for publishing anything on your personal web site would be to first submit these images to a photo magazine journal editor and then only publish on your web sites those that get published in the magazine. Or in today's Web based systems submit all these images to a stock agency and put only those accepted on your web site, or image hosting facility, better still only those that actually sell!
If your pictures are any good people will pay you to publish them, you do not have to pay to have them published, that is vanity publishing. What is your purpose putting them into a Gallery or Picture Hosting site, if not for them to be seen without having them first pre sorted as to merit by editorial staff?
I learned in the 1970's my pictures were not that good when out of the dozen or more I submitted to photo journals only three got published and I weighed up one of those was only selected because it had enough blank space above it to run the mast head for the close-up photography article on the top of it without covering the subject.
The personal web site in some cases is vanity publishing as it is a "look at me" method without the danger of an editor rejecting your images. As I said though some personal web sites are magnificent and informative, but you have to ask yourselves "am I publishing my pictures in this way rather than submitting to a photo journal or stock agency in order to avoid risking rejection?".
DaveW
So by that same argument, then surely you are saying that posting your images onto forums is for vanity purposes?
If you had a dispute with one of the other sites you use that has attachments as a means of uploading images - could you remove your images from that site?
I am simply saying I only wish to upload one or two images at a time not store dozens on a host site or Gallery in case I wish to post them some time in the distant future. An uploader is more convenient for doing that than a Gallery or mass image hosting site. If it were not why would so many sites include an uploader, even though they all have Galleries plus people posting from host sites or their own web sites as well? You all seem more concerned in trying to justify why the site does not have the same facilities others with far less members do than recognising it's usefulness to members.
So many sites would not bother including an uploader if the Gallery system was considered better and posters did not use it. I would guess where it is provided posters use it just as much as the Gallery or Hosting system.
All sharing of pictures is an ego trip if we are honest, otherwise we would simply keep them to ourselves or immediate family. The only reason we post is for others to see them, there would be no point otherwise. But paying to do so, or going to a considerable amount of trouble setting up a special Web facility to display your own efforts unless you are posting the images for sale takes it to a higher level of self-aggrandizement.
The truth may not be palatable but if you really analyse your motives that what you are doing it for, even if only subconsciously. In the past we all would have needed to get past an editor to publish our pictures and so another party would have decided their worth before publication. Sorry if the truth ruffles a few feathers or your preconceived ideas, but I am very good at doing that!:lol:
DaveW
well i dont post many pictures, so it wont ruffle mine...
well i dont post many pictures, so it wont ruffle mine...
Pleased to hear it Matty, it only usually rattles those who realise that personal adoration is their primary purpose for posting in galleries or compiling web sites. Those creating a personal Web site for commercial reasons to sell their images know it does not apply to them, or using images for illustration purposes other than simply for a display of the "look what I can do, aren't I good" kind.
If I understand a previous statement the uploader facility exists on this board but has just never been enabled, which seems a bit pointless. I am sure it would save on Gallery space as many people then would only post the pictures they needed to rather than fill a gallery with images in case they wanted to use them in a thread later.
Still this thread simply seems to be going around in circles so it is obviously pointless me keeping replying to it as no uploader is forthcoming. Therefore I will end here.
DaveW
Pleased to hear it Matty, it only usually rattles those who realise that personal adoration is their primary purpose for posting in galleries or compiling web sites. Those creating a personal Web site for commercial reasons to sell their images know it does not apply to them, or using images for illustration purposes other than simply for a display of the "look what I can do, aren't I good" kind.
What an absolute load of nonsense! I'm struggling to see your comments in this thread as anything other than a deliberate attempt to upset as many members as possible. Perhaps you'd like to consider your stance on this issue and how far you want to keep pushing it?
Jimmy_Lemon
18-06-2007, 09:22
I still dont understand your point. There is no reason why this forum would need an uploader. There are many free services out there that are far better than any uploader here would be, and why should the people that provide this great forum for us, stump up the cost of this extra bandwidth and storage when we can get better for free!
With you point about people with photoblogs and hosting their own photos you seem to have totally missed the point that many people find a lot of joy in sharing their photos! Maybe you don't I dont know, but not everyone posts a picture on here just for the comments and praise. People like to share where they have been and what they have captured. What strange site they saw or what beatifull scenery they have visited. Granted there may be some people that do just post photos to show what they can do....but I dont see how that is any different to people who live in big houses or drive fancy cars. If thats what they like and if they can create an image that gets great praise then good for them!
No offence, but this does seem a very odd way to introduce yourself to a community of fellow photographers.
EDIT - Or maybe I should have gone the non-diplomatic route of CT :p
It's all academic anyway now Jimmy as when you read this I will have moved on deleting the forum link from my Favorites, so will never see your replies. I was recommended this site by somebody on another site and tried it though I was already on four other sites, but have decided I am spending far much time on the computer rather than getting the jobs done I should be doing or taking photographs. Don't we all?
I had therefore to decide which sites were of real interest to me as a macrophotographer and to vacate two that catered least for me. This site was one that held less interest for me as a close-up photographer, along with another general site. I have decided to focus therefore on two specialist macro sites and one Nikon only site where I am a Moderator.
Thanks for your indulgence I hope you all enjoy your photography. Don't take things so seriously as photography is one of the most unimportant things in life. It is just a pastime to while away an hour or so, not the be all and end all of life. And remember when you die probably all your images will finish up in a skip when they clear your house for sale. Because to another person they seldom have the same interest we attach to them because that's just how unimportant the world thinks our snaps are!
Cheerio,
DaveW
And remember when you die probably all your images will finish up in a skip when they clear your house for sale. Because to another person they seldom have the same interest we attach to them because that's just how unimportant the world thinks our snaps are!
Cheerio,
DaveW
Speak for yourself. I plan on living forever and my work is already spread around the world so ner :p
inophoto
18-06-2007, 13:42
Yeah, everything eveyone else said, and another NER. In capitals for emphasis.
NER NER.:razz:
All sharing of pictures is an ego trip if we are honest, otherwise we would simply keep them to ourselves or immediate family. The only reason we post is for others to see them, there would be no point otherwise. But paying to do so, or going to a considerable amount of trouble setting up a special Web facility to display your own efforts unless you are posting the images for sale takes it to a higher level of self-aggrandizement.
DaveW
There is also another side to this arguement I have only been into DSLR's for a few months, I post pictures knowing that they will get ripped apart, I also know mostly that those doing the ripping will offer sound advice as to where I went wrong, before I found this forum I was very happy with my efforts, but thanks to a lot of good people on here I now know where I was (am) going wrong and strive to better myself, With guidence. Narcissistic? I don't think so :D
TheRedUn
18-06-2007, 15:45
Blimey - a lot of misunderstandings and intense (mostly civil) arguments there ...
I can see DaveW's point, if You dont routinely upload your images to a host (TP Gallery or other), it can be a bit of faff to send a few pics to a remote server then link them to a post without being able to browse your own HD for them, but if the way of TP is to link, then so be it.
I tend to use Flock (FF deriviant) to link direct to accts on Photobucket and Flikr, and you can pull the IMG code direct from a 'gallery' below the toolbars.
Neither do I ever wish to indulge in the ego trip of having my own web site, or put in the unnecessary effort of creating one.
Yet in your first post which opened this thread you ego was put out at the prospect of your gallery being sullied by "example[s] of some photographic fault".
Personally I think it is extremely arrogant of you to deem yourself so important as to decide the criteria for who should be allowed a web site and what may be posted on it. And your insulting generalizations about people's vanity and ego to be hypocritical given the above quote by you.
Your all really missing the point, other sites have far easier and better methods through simply providing an uploader, plus they cost the user nothing.
They may cost the user nothing but they are not free to provide. Those other sites will maybe ask for donations from users or be personally funded by their owners. You expect others to pay to make your life easier because you are too lazy to use a image hosting site or the gallery?
A fair request would be to have the facility to upload to the gallery on the posting page. Though you have probably alienated any goodwill in your direction to make anyone feel bothered to go to the effort of writing that now.
Oops, typed as I read do never realized he had gone off in a huff until the end. Still I wrote it so I will post it!
Michael.
whitewash
18-06-2007, 17:40
As to using image tags and copying and pasting, to turn one of today's youngsters pet phrases back on yourselves, "in today's IT world that is so yesterday". And yes you are all youngsters to me as I am 66! We are now in a mouse click orientated rather than keyboard driven world.
if you click the button right next to the quotation box, the one that looks like an image of a mountain with the sun over it filled in by a frightening yellow sky, that will add image tags for you...
As to vanity publishing, a personal web site gets around your work being scrutinised by a professional image man like a photo journal editor who decided if it is good enough for publication. I have seen many outstanding personal web sites, but also many mediocre ones.
OK the acid test for publishing anything on your personal web site would be to first submit these images to a photo magazine journal editor and then only publish on your web sites those that get published in the magazine. Or in today's Web based systems submit all these images to a stock agency and put only those accepted on your web site, or image hosting facility, better still only those that actually sell!
If your pictures are any good people will pay you to publish them, you do not have to pay to have them published, that is vanity publishing. What is your purpose putting them into a Gallery or Picture Hosting site, if not for them to be seen without having them first pre sorted as to merit by editorial staff?
I learned in the 1970's my pictures were not that good when out of the dozen or more I submitted to photo journals only three got published and I weighed up one of those was only selected because it had enough blank space above it to run the mast head for the close-up photography article on the top of it without covering the subject.
The personal web site in some cases is vanity publishing as it is a "look at me" method without the danger of an editor rejecting your images. As I said though some personal web sites are magnificent and informative, but you have to ask yourselves "am I publishing my pictures in this way rather than submitting to a photo journal or stock agency in order to avoid risking rejection?".
DaveW
i set up my website because when i started out photography i was out 5 nights a week taking pictures of local bands, and hey the bands want to see these images so the internet is just about the best way to share these images with people, no one is going to pay for them, as a subject they are pretty much useless to a stock agency and as there are no magazines that cater for the local music scene there isnt really an end user in that context either.
i post my rally pictures for pretty much the same reason, its an outlet, theres a link to the gallery on the rallys website. and again for the majority of competitiors in the rally there isnt really any source of pictures for them in a magazine, only 10 or so pictures will feature in the major motorsport weeklys and they will be of the front runners, those at the back of the feild may want to see pictures of themselves as well, amatuers posting these pictures on the internet dont do it so much for vanity, they do it as an outlet, and if one competitor looks at the picture of them hustling there car round a corner and smiles, well thats my payment.
as for posting my holiday pictures on the internet, well in this day and age people have relatives all over the world, im not about to start posting sets of photographs to the other side of the world when i could quite simply set up a gallery on the internet so i can see them. its not vanity, its convenience, and then again i can always get critique from people on this site, i couldnt do that without posting any pictures could i?:shrug: (if the hosting comes from my own pocket it reduces the costs to this forum.... not that id expect you to understand that as you've already suggested you wouldnt want to fork out for webhosting etc, ive already assembled an image in my mind of someone so tight they reuse the teabag 5 times and steal bog roll from work... happy to cost otherpeople money but never happy to cost themselves anything...)
posting pictures on the internet is not vanity, its an outlet, how the hell would the majority of photographers get any business if they didnt have any photos online as a portfolio (now i just know your going to come back at me saying "they could use an agency" but that costs them money and also costs the customer, private customers contacting a photographer directly, would you go to a photographer who has no work available for imediate scrutiny or would you go for one that you could browse through a collection of there images online an decide if i like there work.....)
madmitch
18-06-2007, 17:50
Has he gone? TFFT.
a frightening yellow sky
never occurred to me before :lol:
whitewash
18-06-2007, 20:32
never occurred to me before :lol:
nor me til i had to describe it to mrmoron
Neither do I ever wish to indulge in the ego trip of having my own web site, or put in the unnecessary effort of creating one.
DaveW
Do you have to practise being that patronising, or does it come naturally?
Ah dear - having now read to the end of the thread I see he finally vanished up his own nether regions and left. Honestly - there's no reasoning with some folk, is there?!
h.r.ford
19-06-2007, 07:06
Wow that made for an interesting read. I must say some of you have an amount of self control that I envy... CT would not be one of them although "what a load of nonsense" is exactly what I was thinking. Good riddance!
Matt Charlton
19-06-2007, 07:12
*Proud to be a self loving unpublished photographer on an ego trip with his vanity book little corner of the web since 31st May 2000*
Dave,
I can see where you are coming from in terms of ease of use for yourself, but as one of the IT youngsters of today (I'm 26, not over the hill yet) I can give you another quote - "If you can't use windows without a mouse, you can't use windows at all ".
The keyboard is more powerful and faster than the mouse ever can be, as long as you know how to use it.
Anyway, so I can see how making it easier for you with the attach image to post feature would be a good idea, but think of it like this - you're a member of 4/5 photo image sites, you attach said image to all of the sites - thats 4/5 instances of that image you have dotted about the web, only you're not responsible for the bandwidth charges of those pictures. Now, take what I do for an example - I upload the images to my website using ftp - a one off thing, then I can type a link out within image tags, and copy that to the clipboard with ctrl + c. I can then paste that into a thread on each of those 4/5 photo sites if I so wished with a ctrl + v. I can guaruntee you that I can do that on all 4/5 of those sites before your original picture has finished uploading to the first website.
At the end of the day, bandwidth costs ££, especially on a place like this with so many people sharing what are effectively fairly large things. Thats why the gallery size limits are in place, if you don't like the gallery size limits then you can use offsite hosting - either on your own "vanity space" as you put it which you would pay for, or at a photo sharing site for free.
In regards to people sharing pictures who are on ego trips I have to completely disagree - for most people, sharing photos with people on here is as much a part of the workflow as sharpening the picture is. There are hundreds of experienced individuals on here who are impartial to any image you upload - they see things differently to the original photographer and can offer help, tips and advice on anything from framing to post processing techniques. Even those who are considered to be the best around by many people still gain valuable criticism and help even when they think they've produced a perfect image.
Unfortunately, the web isn't comparable to a book, its not the same as being published in a book - they are two completely seperate entities and are directed at two completely different markets. Also - I've seen plenty of pictures in books and magazines that are paled in comparison to some of the stuff I've seen on here.
To be honest, your post has nothing but comments designed to incense and annoy - its trolling, pure and simple. If you're that disgusted with people who share images and think that everyone who does so is on some kind of ego trip looking for a virtual pat on the back, I recommend that you unplug your PC from the internet, send your modem back to your isp and take up boules or something like that.
As a side note to those looking for a new web host - www.servage.net
Best web hosts I've ever used, they are dirt cheap, the service is fast and you get an unbeliveable amount of space and bandwidth. If anyone wants to sign up to them, I have a coupon code that'll get you some more space and me a free month (I'd recommend them anyway regardless).
Matt Charlton
19-06-2007, 07:12
I didn't see the 2nd page......I was too busy crafting that masterpiece....
I'll read it now ;)
I did that too Matt - although mine was shorter! ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.