I've been thinking about this for quite some time now, not sure if I want to proceed with this idea or not but it's been in the back of my head for quite some time. Well for starters I'm a bit disappointed on the quality of pictures with Photobucket, I have been using Photobucket for several years now but the quality is very, very poor. I didn't care about it before but now that I've educated my self a bit on photography I'd like to start either using a better host with much, much better photography quality or since I have my own dedicated server I've been thinking of just uploading pictures to the Detailing Bliss server. Now, like I've said before. First things start of as a selfish act, meaning I look for something to improve my detailing/photography/write ups skills once I've found it I make sure I get enough for the rest of the community. So what that means is that I would open the opportunity to all the members to load their pictures directly on the DB server as I would be doing and benefit from much superior picture quality. The only draw back is that there is a cost associated with this idea of mine, having a dedicated servers is not cheap at all but I don't mind spending some of my own hard earned money but I wanted to get some feed back from you guys. First of all are there such sites that provide the service I'm looking for? Second, I'm no programer or know enough about servers or photography quality to do it my self so I would have to run this idea by my programer and see what he says.
There are a few that some of my friends use to host high res pics they have taken. I will ask them when I see them tomorrow and see what service they are using. On the dedicated server point, could be pay per year type of deal? I do not know if you are open to it as I know you like to keep it free but if you would like to have your pics hosted on the server you pay X amount a year, nothing large just to cover the cost or some of it.
If I read correctly, Flicker reduces picture quality to save space...but I could be mistaken, I read it some where..just can't remember where or if it was a reputable source :shrug: Oh please do let me know, I've had enough of Photobucket. Don't get me wrong it works well and it has helped me for the past few years but it's time to upgrade and I'm more then willing to pay to have better quality pictures. As to what your saying about paying a fee to be able to load the pictures to the DB server and have capability to use high quality pictures here, I've though about that but I would have to work out the fee. I could break it down depending on how much more space I would need to add to the server. I'll look into it as I need to pay for the dedicated server for next year. Now the other question I have is, in order to get the best quality you need to have a good quality photograph, meaning you would have to know what your doing right? What I'm saying is that if I'm just using my point and shoot camera and load to the DB server, will the photograph still look good or does the server compensate? Again I don't know what the program would do to render a good quality picture so perhaps this question is better answered by my programmer...but if any of you know and would like to enlighten me I would greatly appreciated it :thumb:
Here are some that a few friends recommended: PBase.com Printroom: Web Storefronts, Online Sales, and Digital Printing for Professional Photographers (said many pro's use this one) SmugMug Photo & Video Sharing. You look better here. Zenfolio | hosting service for photo galleries | a place to learn and enjoy photography I took a quick look at them and most of them have a free trial and look like different service levels and cost depending on what you would like to have. But those are the ones that were recommended.
Here is a silly question, so I've looked at: SmugMug Photo and it looks good but does it behave like Photobucket? What I'm looking for is a site that I can load my pictures and link them to my write ups but I want them to be as high quality as possible...so does SmugMug or any from the list the list that agpatel posted do what I'm looking for?
I am pretty sure they all have photo linking capability. On SmugMug for example just to show you how the linking can be done do this: In the search box search for detailing or anything and click on a gallery. You will see the photo englarged and the rest of the pics to the left. Top right corner click on share, then "get link" This will take you to the direct photo links. You can pick the size of the pic and ext. Example of a photo (copyright to org. owner of photo) You can pick the size of the direct link, and can even view the org. resolution picture.
Thanks for that agpatel, I'm going to be testing some stuff out with my server and see if I can notice a difference between the quality of the pictures using the DB server and Photobucket :shead:
There shouldn't be a change in quality unless there is compression when you upload them, using DB servers would be the best, no file size/ resolution restrictions
:nod: that's what I'm thinking, but from what I've been told and seen Photobucket reduces picture quality drastically...well not sure if it's just my eyes but the pictures look washed out more so on certain colors so, so next write up I'm working on will be done using the DB server and see if I notice a drastic difference. Thank you all for the help and if anyone knows more about this please let me know, I'm not too familiar with this stuff, nor did I ever care but some times learning comes with a downside :shrug:
Alot of free photo hosting services compress the images to save space on there servers. Upload a picture and note the file size, then save that picture again and most of the time it will be a large difference in file sizes even with the same physical size of the picture. Hosting them on a server at no to very little jpeg compression will improve quality but also could increase load times because of larger image sizes. Would be interested if you uploaded a picture on photobucket and a picture on the DB server and posted them both if a difference could be seen.
Doing that right now and there is a difference...well so far just trying to make sure I'm comparing apples to apples.
I actually like photobucket, all the pictures I take are uploaded via photobucket, but reduced in size in order to post here and not have them obnoxious 1920x1440. I find if you upload each photo though the individual uploader vs the bulk you get better quality. Just my opinion though
Really, individually uploading huh that would take too long in my case though...but can't say I knew that, thank you for sharing. hmmm...I'd have to give that a shot, thank you for the tip eace:
For those who are familiar with each hosting site, are there any available that have a function so people CAN NOT right click or highlight and save the photo that is posted?
To do that you would have to create a album and have it setup as a flash album. Once you link the picture into a thread on this forum you will be able to save the picture. But many of the top end host you are able to create a gallery that is in flash thus right click save picture does notwork. The only way to get the picture is doing a screen shot or other more complex ways. But there is no way to do that if you link the picture in a thread. Let me know if that just confused you I can try to be more clear.
If it is ok I would love some elaboration on that especially with what hosts you mean. You can PM me as well if you think it would be easier. I really appreciate it too, thank you
