Photosharing site difference

[Anthony Woodbine]

I have always been dissapointed with the way my posted photos appear on this site . Some were actually quite embarrising . I have always used photobucket and have just opened up an account with flickr . Here is an example photo that shows quite a difference . First one is the one i uploaded to photobucket then here . Second one to flickr then here . Smaller size i know but difference very obsvious . For some reason ,possibly my error i could not get a bigger version from photobucket to show a comparitive shot . Photobucket version has degraded to the point of being embarrisingly soft . Even in the flickr version the lorrikeet is a bit soft from slight movement . The leaves are sharper . Flickr is easier to use . I know which one i will be using in the future .
Regards Anthony .







This one is a bigger version from flickr

 

[Col K10d]

Substantial difference... sometimes feel that jpegs are like non glass slides but you need 6 months for them to finally "pop". Don't worry always had faith in your skills. Visiting photobucket directly does help.

I've also experienced quite a difference in posting images direct from a web page and from the dp gallery, mainly in colour saturation but also sharpening, though the down scaling algorithm is rather nice.







--

 

[Anthony Woodbine]

Hi Col ,

Yes after uploading to photobucket i always thought, what happened there . Not being very knollegable in the workings of these things i could not work it out and tried flickr just to see the difference .
Anthony

 

[Marc Sabatella]

Have you tried downsizing your image yourself before uploading to Photobucket? The degradation presumably comes from the downsizing algorithm they use, but if you've already downsized appropriately, then they shouldn't have to, and your image should come out unchanged. Not that I've tested this...

FWIW, I have both Flickr and Photobucket accounts (as well as Picasaweb, and also a paid Zenfolio account), and they all have individual strengths and weaknesses.

The downside of the free Flickr accounts are that they strip EXIF on all resized versions and that you're limited to 200 images available at a time. So I use Photobucket when I post an image I expect I'll want to be able to easily access later (although it's certainly possible to use Flickr if you keep track of the URL yourself - something I can't be bothered to do). I also use Photobucket for images I really don't want to share in general but am posting to a forum for a very specific purpose - like to show a corner crop of some lens. I don't need stuff like that on my Flickr photostream, which people visit, but I don't mind stuffing those on Photobucket.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/

 

[Pentax Prime]

What kind of Photobucket account do you have? Are you resizing your images to the size limit (based on your account) or are you allowing Photobucket to resize your images? If you are allowing Photobucket to resize - the change in appearance is easy to pinpoint. I've used Photobucket for years - they don't make any changes to your file unless it is too large (and there are options in the user settings to change your max size). My images on Photobucket and Flickr are identical.

-Prime

Hi Col ,

Yes after uploading to photobucket i always thought, what happened there . Not being very knollegable in the workings of these things i could not work it out and tried flickr just to see the difference .
Anthony

--

My Pentax Street Gallery - Arranged By Lens Used http://photobucket.com/andy_allen

"A noob by any other name, or with any other camera, is still a noob ... "

 

[Pentax Prime]

The limitations of Flickr are the reasons I haven't bought a "Pro" account there - but some of those were recently alleviated with the site update they did last week (including size issues which have plagued Flickr for some time).

Personally, I use Photobucket for my images I want to be able to access for the foreseeable future - including ones used in my lens reviews, posted on the forum, linked to from Facebook, etc. I also like the specifics you can do with your URL on Photobucket - and the stats are kinda neat too.

-Prime

Have you tried downsizing your image yourself before uploading to Photobucket? The degradation presumably comes from the downsizing algorithm they use, but if you've already downsized appropriately, then they shouldn't have to, and your image should come out unchanged. Not that I've tested this...

FWIW, I have both Flickr and Photobucket accounts (as well as Picasaweb, and also a paid Zenfolio account), and they all have individual strengths and weaknesses.

The downside of the free Flickr accounts are that they strip EXIF on all resized versions and that you're limited to 200 images available at a time. So I use Photobucket when I post an image I expect I'll want to be able to easily access later (although it's certainly possible to use Flickr if you keep track of the URL yourself - something I can't be bothered to do). I also use Photobucket for images I really don't want to share in general but am posting to a forum for a very specific purpose - like to show a corner crop of some lens. I don't need stuff like that on my Flickr photostream, which people visit, but I don't mind stuffing those on Photobucket.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/

--

My Pentax Street Gallery - Arranged By Lens Used http://photobucket.com/andy_allen

"A noob by any other name, or with any other camera, is still a noob ... "

 

[Anthony Woodbine]

Hi Marc .

I have just resized this photo in photoshop then uploaded to photobucket then here as a test . There is an improvement following this procedure . I think it is still not as detailed as the flickr version though. I have uploaded another set and the difference between the two is very small in my opinion . The default size of photobuckets smaller versions make it hard to pick .
Anthony



photobucket [resized in photoshop first ]



flickr



Photobucket [resized in photoshop first ]



Flickr version

 

[Anthony Woodbine]

Hi ,

Thanks for the info . Both accounts are the lowest free version . I did not realise there was so much to it , learning all the time . I will have to look at photobucket more closely because you and Marc have both informed me of things i did not realise .
Thanks so much Anthony

 

[Model Mike]

I have always been dissapointed with the way my posted photos appear on this site.

Can't comment specifically on Smugmug but I had similar issues with less than stellar display on Zenfolio until I investigated this more fully. Since it was for a wedding, it was pretty important to get the best possible display for the client.

The rule is: don't rely on the photosharing site to do any resizing for the most popular display mode your viewers will be using.

Instead, go into the Help section, find the resolution they display at for your most critical view (general and/or slideshow), and do the downsizing yourself using an editing package before uploading. The reason is that you will invariably need to resharpen after resizing to restore some 'bite', and doing this yourself gives you full control.

If - like Zenfolio - your photosharing site offers an 'resize to fit' option, turn it off!

My wedding are displayed beautifully on Zenfolio - in fact they are virtually indistuishable from the results on my desktop, when viewed in the 'slideshow' mode for which they were optimised.

Incidentallly I used Lightroom 3 which is not only generally superb for filtering and editing 700 images but makes optimisation easy via export presets.
--
Mike
http://flickr.com/rc-soar

 

[richardplondon]

The limitations of Flickr are the reasons I haven't bought a "Pro" account there - but some of those were recently alleviated with the site update they did last week (including size issues which have plagued Flickr for some time).

To boycott a paid (full-function) version because of the free (restricted-function) version's limitations, that's.. IMO a self-defeating way to go about things. Flickr won't suit everyone, but let's be clear about its capability.

Flickr's downsizing (with sharpening) has subtly improved over the last three years. But it has always been the case that an original image as-uploaded will not have been fiddled with at all... though it may well be necessary to have a Pro account in order to gain access to this original. Depending what size was uploaded, a free account may only let you get at an auto resized version of the image, though the uploaded original is still stored and becomes accessible the moment you convert to "Pro".

Size restrictions are because of using a free instead of a "Pro" account. Yes, the difficulty of choosing a grey or dark background has been and is still a very real consideration (except slideshows have always been on black IIRC). And the new picture page presentation doesn't support older browsers, and...

It's a "photo sharing" site - IMO, one that has good upload options and apps available, also one with high speed very availability for pure hosting, blogging etc. But it doesn't pretend to be a "gallery" site.

RP

 

[Pentax_Prime]

The limitations of Flickr are the reasons I haven't bought a "Pro" account there - but some of those were recently alleviated with the site update they did last week (including size issues which have plagued Flickr for some time).

To boycott a paid (full-function) version because of the free (restricted-function) version's limitations, that's.. IMO a self-defeating way to go about things. Flickr won't suit everyone, but let's be clear about its capability.

You need to learn to read - or at least stalk my posts with a bit more attention to detail richard. I'm getting a kick out of your responses to me in most threads, but I have to say ... it's like you are talking to yourself. I'm loving my newest fan.

Flickr's downsizing (with sharpening) has subtly improved over the last three years. But it has always been the case that an original image as-uploaded will not have been fiddled with at all... though it may well be necessary to have a Pro account in order to gain access to this original. Depending what size was uploaded, a free account may only let you get at an auto resized version of the image, though the uploaded original is still stored and becomes accessible the moment you convert to "Pro".

Size restrictions are because of using a free instead of a "Pro" account. Yes, the difficulty of choosing a grey or dark background has been and is still a very real consideration (except slideshows have always been on black IIRC). And the new picture page presentation doesn't support older browsers, and...

And none of the above has anything to do with what I posted. Weird.

It's a "photo sharing" site - IMO, one that has good upload options and apps available, also one with high speed very availability for pure hosting, blogging etc. But it doesn't pretend to be a "gallery" site.

It would appear you have a grudge (aka an axe to grind). Grind on an ignore for me.

RP

--
My Pentax Street Gallery - Arranged By Lens Used
http://photobucket.com/andy_allen

"A noob by any other name, or with any other camera, is still a noob ... "

 

[richardplondon]

You need to learn to read - or at least stalk my posts with a bit more attention to detail richard. I'm getting a kick out of your responses to me in most threads, but I have to say ... it's like you are talking to yourself. I'm loving my newest fan.

Wow. I had no idea. I thought I was sharing some neutral on-topic information about image resizing and sharpening in Flickr , suddenly I am involved in a soap opera of some kind. The sad truth is, I really don't pay a lot of attention to who in particular has posted what - no disappointment intended.

And none of the above has anything to do with what I posted. Weird.

ditto (shrug).

It would appear you have a grudge (aka an axe to grind).

??? (genuinely mystified by what that might be)

RP