Which do you use most?

Which do you use

  • Flickr

    Votes: 13 34.2%

  • Photobucket

    Votes: 12 31.6%

  • ImageShack

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • TinyPic

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Own website

    Votes: 9 23.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 10.5%
  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
u8myufo

u8myufo

Messages
19,354
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Hopefully this is in the right forum. I am interested to hear what your thoughts are on hosting images. More and more I see people slamming either Photobucket Flickr etc. = just an excuse imo. Here are two indentical shots and hosted on two different sites, now unless my eyes have gone completely :thinking: I see no difference whatsoever between the two :shrug: Yes I understand that files are compressed somewhat, but then that is something we all have to put up with if we use these sites.




IMG_5749_filtered.jpg
 
for one thing the first image is 343kb and the second is 567kb so they are different lol
 
scottthehat said:
i agree rich, i let photobucket do mine and it does it fine, if you resize them your self and save for web then these sites should not need to do nothing.
Click to expand...
My thought really Scott
POAH said:
for one thing the first image is 343kb and the second is 567kb so they are different lol
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that one out (y) The thing here, and I have just uploaded two same sized files to Flickr and Photobucket is that the file size on Flickr is again reduced. But as for quality you would be hard pushed to see a dramatic difference.
 
Looking at both photo's together, the top one looks to have slightly more/better colour.
 
scottthehat said:
double post please delete
Click to expand...

We believed you the first time!! :D

Can't see any difference myself. Use several hosting sites, including PB & Flickr.
 
Actually scrap what I said, I have now sat up straight (and square on to the screen) and they are the same.
 
It might be my eyesight or the second glass of wine I'm on, but I can see some very subtle differences between them.

The eye in the first looks ever so slightly sharper to me and the first also appears to have a hint more contrast to it . . . mostly apparent in the wing and the moss.
There's also a very fine diagonal white line (cobweb?) about halfway up on the LHS. This looks sharper and more defined in the first one.

Without looking to check, I'd guess that the first is hosted on Flickr and the second on Photobucket ???
 
SarahLee said:
And now you've got me doubting myself . . . I'm tilting my screen all over the place and twisting my head from side to side :nuts:
Click to expand...

hehe. In the end I copied each image and put them into two layers in Photoshop and kept turning the top layer on and off, that way there are both in the same part of the screen etc.
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
hehe. In the end I copied each image and put them into two layers in Photoshop and kept turning the top layer on and off, that way there are both in the same part of the screen etc.
Click to expand...

:LOL: Might just try that tomorrow night MINUS the wine . . . it's irritating me now.
I'm sure I can see differences, but then again :shrug:
 
SarahLee said:
It might be my eyesight or the second glass of wine I'm on, but I can see some very subtle differences between them.

The eye in the first looks ever so slightly sharper to me and the first also appears to have a hint more contrast to it . . . mostly apparent in the wing and the moss.
There's also a very fine diagonal white line (cobweb?) about halfway up on the LHS. This looks sharper and more defined in the first one.

Without looking to check, I'd guess that the first is hosted on Flickr and the second on Photobucket ???
Click to expand...

:agree:

also, in the first one the colouration of the black flecks on the breast appear blacker(is blacker such a word :thinking:). BTW what a superb shot.

Graham.
 
SarahLee said:
:LOL: Might just try that tomorrow night MINUS the wine . . . it's irritating me now.
I'm sure I can see differences, but then again :shrug:
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've been ducking and diving in front of the screen to see if there's a difference. I can see a tiny one but will come back to it soberer!

I use photobucket and resize etc before downloading the image fwiw.
 
Last edited:
:LOL: I can picture all your heads bobbing up and down around your screens now. But in all honesty that is something I do out of habit when I look at somebodys picture anyway, a small tilt of the head or screen when viewing sometimes does make a difference. I like the fact Photobucket does keep your exif intact as it saves having to keep asking people what settings they used. My point really I suppose as well as wondering how many used which site, was to show people that if an image is pretty tidy to start with then it does not degrade by that much when posting it up. Slight differences in contrast and lighting might well be altered, but as far as oof is concerned that is user error. Oh! And Sarah the cobweb thingy on the lhs was a streak of rain ;)
 
My 2p worth, the colour in the first is more saturated.
 
I think "own website" is the way to go, and I've tried flickr and pbase, but they don't give you a "clean slate" to work with and try and shape what you do to fit in with their way of working.

Luckily I get free webspace with my broadband so there is no extra cost choosing this option.
 
OK looked again (without the wine ;)) and I'm still convinced that there are very subtle differences there.

But back to the original point, the differences are so subtle that I really don't think the choice of hosting site makes any real difference for the purpose of viewing on a forum . . . of course, it helps if the photograph is as sharp as this one to start with (y)
(Having said that, I have noticed more obvious softening on Photobucket when hosting more contrasty photos - which is one of the reasons that I switched over to Flickr.)

p.s. Thanks for the clarification on the cobweb / streak of rain Rich. I was wondering what it was . . . although if I hadn't been looking so hard and playing spot the difference I doubt if I'd have even noticed it :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
 
On my calibrated LCD the TOP image is sharper and slightly brighter. HOWEVER

When dragging both images to Photoshop, they look identical with the same histograms! So I think the eyes are playing tricks.
 
I use a combination of Flickr and my own site. There is some overlap but not a lot.
 
for my eye.. there is quite a difference between contrast, colour & saturation on these two pics.

Pic 1 is more vivid and colourfull and more clear than pic 2 by a fair margin.

If you did not edit these pics and did a pure straight upload, that cannot be user error, there is definately something going on with the compression of the file, the file sizes do tell that to be true. and to me on this computer photobucket isnt as good as flickr.

Trouble is there are so many variables to things like this...

Viewers monitor calibration
screen resolution
even browsers can conflict with each other ( as I have found out making a website - IE does display hexidecimal colours different to FF )
Hosting site compression ratio..
Backlighting on your monitor ( mostly laptops )

and a host of other things

Unfortunately...thats the digital world

I use PB, but after seeing this great test considering using my own website space to host.
 
Last edited:
no 1 seems more saturated in the greens...and possibly elsewhere
good to see though how really small the differences are
i may use flikr more often now
cheers
geof
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top