Photobucket

[gareth]

I opened a Photobucket account a few weeks ago. It had been years since i had used them, but it was a decent service back in the day. It was just to send email links to a gallery detailing the pre-construction conditions on a job I was giving an estimate for. The project is a substantial one ( for me...) and I was horrified when I discovered that the client was now being hit with embedded BS ads when they clicked on the link. It made me look, at the least, kinda tacky. At worst, like I was trying to virus up their website.
I'm never using Photobucket again.

[Wildkat]

Or get banned for no apparent reason.


Did I just say that out loud?

Too bad the admin that banned you didn't tell you
They should have

You were being a jerk
And there were LOTS of complaints

Then you became useful and they let you back in

[BA80]

Good to be useful.............I guess. You'll never see Russ here again.

[Wildkat]

Yeah, admin got a bit carried away
They should have thought things through

[TopCatGr58]

Hey Scott,

I got my email/letter from Photobucket regarding the change to my account. The terms are dated July 5, 2017 which makes me think that they were supposed to be IN EFFECT as of that date? However, I just viewed a thread that you had photos in and they were still showing.

You mentioned that you were NOT going to be paying for the4 3rd party hosting feature, but you also said you didn't use that feature?

After reading the TOS and the descriptions of their plans, they describe the way WE USE PB with the Direct IMG links AS 3rd party hosting, not just linking, which is what will be stopped.

With the middle/Plus $99.00 plan, they will host/store the photos and allow just the posting of a LINK to a forum that will take the reader TO PB and to your account/library to view the photos there, they will NOT show up in the FORUM's posts.

Granted, it will probably take them some time to activate the features and restrictions, but I don't think we will be able to post and SHOW/display the images in OUR forum/site the way we've been doing it, because it will be deactivated(Direct linking=3rd party hosting).

I can't believe the PRICE they are wanting/trying to charge for that feature!

You can pay for a WEBSITE Hosting plan, storage and direct linking feature a whole lot cheaper. Granted, it will take a little bit more tech/NET knowledge and work to upload/store and then link to them, but would be a whole lot cheaper.

They(PB) will probably get a fair # of folks paying that fee because those folks have invested lots of time creating/uploading their photos, videos, already have the LINKS in place, and it's relatively easy to use/do, and probably many of those folks are NOT very tech/NET savvy, and wouldn't know how to use their own web hosting site.

With regards to the posts on our site that have the direct links, folks should still be able to FOLLOW the URL to PB to view them despite the URL being an IMG URL and not a Web URL link? We'll see when PB finally enforces their policy limitations.

T.C.

[3Phase]

T.C., I got the reply to my e-mail this morning from Photobucket support. I bought a two year subscription last year so I'm golden until December 2018 for what they consider 3rd-part hosting, that's why my pictures are still active.

If they're still in business next December I'll see what has to be done but changing photo hosts and having to re-post pictures got old after I dropped My Friend Flickr. Oh, well, Stuff Happens.

[Mathh]

It got a lot less colourful on a lot of forums right now. What a shame.

[TopCatGr58]

T.C., I got the reply to my e-mail this morning from Photobucket support. I bought a two year subscription last year so I'm golden until December 2018 for what they consider 3rd-part hosting, that's why my pictures are still active.

If they're still in business next December I'll see what has to be done but changing photo hosts and having to re-post pictures got old after I dropped My Friend Flickr. Oh, well, Stuff Happens.

I see said the blind man!

Yeah, I remember your disdain having to change from Flicker. I've done a little research, and have found that IMGUR is the top rated FREE service right now. However, I haven't read their TOS but I'm thinking that once folks submit their photos to that site, that part of the "FREE" process is that the photos become PUBLIC DOMAIN for anyone to be able to access, view, download, etc.

I have Verizon FIOS, TV/PHONE/Internet but I don't think they have personal web space. Years ago when I was on COX.net, they provided personal WEB SPACE which would also work as 3rd parting hosting, but don't know if they offer that anymore either??

So...looks like I'll be checking out IMGUR in the near future. I wouldn't have minded paying $10/month for PB IF they had provided the 3rd party hosting, Oh well, perhaps when they loose enough customers they may rethink their payment schedule/plans??

T.C.

[3Phase]

I haven't looked at IMGUR but I pretty much consider anything I put up on the 'net public domain, the one's I don't I just leave on my computer and don't worry about a TOS.

Unless someone makes a buck! Then I want in on it!

[TopCatGr58]

Well, here's a test of some images I've put up on Imgur. I created an account, and then created a FOLDER, and then uploaded a few of Godzilla just before he was completely ready for XSSE 2016. I uploaded the FULL SIZED IMAGES, they were ~2MB file size, 3264 x 2448 pixels, jpgs.







T.C.

[3Phase]

That was such a great paint job, T.C.!

So, IMGUR works then.

[madmax-im]

Try Postimage as well..free...

[Jerry]

Guys:
Photo size is not relevant except if you are going to print the image. PC monitors cannot display all the info that is contained in a good photo. If you reduce your photo size down to around 300K it will still display just fine, take up a lot less storage space, and load much faster.

First photo (Crystal Mill, Colorado) is a 1.2mb file:

(Photo name is 1556L.jpg.)

Same photo at even more reduced size (Original is 6.6mb) of 367K:

(Photo name is 1556s.jpg.)

There is no difference in the display quality when you click on the photos to bring them up to a larger size. In fact, photo sizes of 100 - 200K are perfectly fine for web viewing.

Now if you were to print these photos, particularly at larger sizes, you would see a difference in quality. I suspect not a lot of photos posted are printed.

There is no real reason to post a 2mb photo file in these threads as you cannot see the difference between it and a 330K version of the same photo. If someone does want a higher resolution image to print, send the photo owner a private mail (PM) and have him or her send you a higher quality image more suitable for printing.

Smaller images load faster, use less bandwidth to upload and download, and save on storage space. Image quality does not suffer when viewed on PC screens. No reason not to use smaller-size images in this or any web venue. Yes, you do have to use a program (some free, some low-cost) to save an image at a lower resolution before you upload it, but these programs allow basic photo editing such as cropping and color correction and are worth having on your system. (I use Photoshop Elements, cost is around $80.00.)

[3Phase]

Size Does Too Matter!

Jerry, the forum software resizes images, clicking the image will open the original or take you to a site where you can open/download the original.

This being a technical forum, I resize some images, some I don't.

I upload and link to original size images like my '80G US GIF schematic that's meant to be printed on four sheets of paper, most I link so they can be zoomed in for better detail, not because I think anyone has a 5344 x 3008 monitor!

Here're some pictures of the bad #2 connecting rod journal that I took yesterday. The first image will be the resized to 640 x 360 JPG, the second will be the original 5344 x 3008.

640 x 360


5344 x 3008


640 x 360


5344 x 3008

[madmax-im]

Photofffup still sucks...Just clicking on your pics takes 5 mins to upload the pic..and it actually failed the first time..i can wait until we are free of pB altogether...