Image hosting and storage options

[JDuding]

For reasons... I would like my EXIF info to be available on the images I link here.

The current site I upload to and use for linking to here and anywhere else is IMGUR.com
This site has many features that have made it quite convenient as a image host.
Now the one feature they do not offer (as far as I know) is the ability to leave the EXIF info in a pic.

The pro's have been, it's free.
Free to create an account. Free to upload any number of images and no linking restrictions.
I can upload a pic to my account as a single image or as part of an album.
Accounts and images never get removed due to inactivity (so far).
There is no resizing/modifying of the original image.
and it is soooo free.


Now... I want to have the EXIF info available and this means finding another host site.
I have never actually tried any other.

When I see forums on the net and see that little box instead of a linked image, that says, "This image cannot be displayed because...", I think that that host is not one reliable enough to host my images.
I see it most with Photobucket and tinypic... but that could also be because they are used the most?


I would like to know what hosts the members here prefer to use.

I would like a free account.
Able to upload large file sizes.
No limit (or a large enough) to the amount of images/MB uploaded to an account.
No deletion due to inactivity.
Doesn't strip an image of the EXIF info.


I have been going through many of the old threads here, using Google... to check previous topics of this nature.
There were some that gave some good reviews about 500px... but then mentioned that most are uploading their 'Sunday Best' there.

Personally... I'm looking for a site to host the images I post here for critique... and they will not all be 'Sunday Best' that's for sure.

I doubt that there is a perfect site... but am interested in what people here use and would recommend.
If this topic has been discussed to death... please direct me to the threads if you can find them.

thanks,
JDude.

[ameerat42]

When I was having serious doubts about OneDrive, formerly SkyDrive, Flickr was the next best thing.
If EXIF doesn't make it to the linked image on AP, it is certainly still available on Flickr itself. There is
an abbreviated EXIF below the linked picture, and a full exif via a click on a link there.

(Aside: Have I changed yet? No, because I am lazy, and couldn't be bovvered learning to drive Flickr or anything else.
So now my images are attached here on AP)

[JDuding]

Thanks Am... I will be checking out Flickr some more. even if just for a backup site when i need.

I like to keep the files as close to original... so I don't often do much compressing... so I'll probably use a host site, rather than get AP to host them for me.

Really, I should spend a dollar or two and buy a pro account somewhere... but until that becomes unavoidable... I'll keep looking for a free solution

[Mark L]

Able to upload large file sizes.

But you didn't do that with the cockatoo photos you posted. You just had the image dimensions larger than what AP allows and the file size much smaller than what AP allows.
Try this for the photos you want to link. Upload them to that IMGUR place within the dimensions that you are allow to upload directly to AP. 1024 on the longest side and no more than 250 mbs. That may retain your EXIF. It works for photos linked from Flickr so may also work with IMGUR?

[ricktas]

Both flickr and photobucket offer EXIF at the original sizes uploaded only. So you mention you do not like using compression. But if you use flickr and photobucket and then choose the size that AP allows (up to 1024 pixels), if that is not the size you uploaded, then the EXIF will not be available.

EG, you upload a photo at 4000 pixels x 3000 pixels. If you share that full size, then your EXIF will show. but as soon as you select a different size to share (eg 2000 pixels, 1024 pixels, etc) the image will no longer include your EXIF.

[tandeejay]

Both flickr and photobucket offer EXIF at the original sizes uploaded only. So you mention you do not like using compression. But if you use flickr and photobucket and then choose the size that AP allows (up to 1024 pixels), if that is not the size you uploaded, then the EXIF will not be available.

EG, you upload a photo at 4000 pixels x 3000 pixels. If you share that full size, then your EXIF will show. but as soon as you select a different size to share (eg 2000 pixels, 1024 pixels, etc) the image will no longer include your EXIF.

But, the link back to flickr gets you back to the source with the exif. Of course, whether the exif is available or not will depend on your privacy settings. With flickr, you can set your privacy so that you can restrict who is allowed to see your exif data.

Also, flickr has a 1TB space limit for the free account.

[JDuding]

...Try this for the photos you want to link. Upload them to that IMGUR place within the dimensions that you are allow to upload directly to AP. 1024 on the longest side and no more than 250 mbs. That may retain your EXIF. It works for photos linked from Flickr so may also work with IMGUR?

ooh... I thought you might be onto something there Mark... So I was about to test and...
what about a quick google...

So I did.

Found this... "...Alan Schaaf (Founder): Sorry, but exif data is striped on purpose to keep the anonymity of the uploader. This will not change..."

Looks like Flickr might be the next site to try.

[Mark L]

EG, you upload a photo at 4000 pixels x 3000 pixels. If you share that full size, then your EXIF will show. but as soon as you select a different size to share (eg 2000 pixels, 1024 pixels, etc) the image will no longer include your EXIF.

Ah, I wondered how that worked. Might test that tomorrow after vacuuming and the rest of the housework.

[JDuding]

Both flickr and photobucket offer EXIF at the original sizes uploaded only. So you mention you do not like using compression. But if you use flickr and photobucket and then choose the size that AP allows (up to 1024 pixels), if that is not the size you uploaded, then the EXIF will not be available.

EG, you upload a photo at 4000 pixels x 3000 pixels. If you share that full size, then your EXIF will show. but as soon as you select a different size to share (eg 2000 pixels, 1024 pixels, etc) the image will no longer include your EXIF.

Thanks Rick.
I'll compress if I have to... but for purposes of critique... I would like to offer as close to as original (post PP) as possible for the most accurate presentation of the image.

When submitting an image for competition I reluctantly (but understandably) compress the OhCrikey out of them

- - - Updated - - -

But you didn't do that with the cockatoo photos you posted. You just had the image dimensions larger than what AP allows and the file size much smaller than what AP allows....

This is surprising.
I'm so use to working with JPG and having the file sizes blow out after editing... that I didn't even check these image sizes.
The two cockatoo pics were my first PP using RAW.
Not sure if that is why the file size was so small?

Will do some further testing... as I have my camera set to shoot RAW to one memory card and a JPG to the second memory card.
I am doing this to see comparisons of my PP V's in camera PP.

- - - Updated - - -

...Also, flickr has a 1TB space limit for the free account.

I think I can work with 1TB

[tandeejay]

my only issue with that 1TB is the lack of decent upload speed... takes for ever to upload full sized images...

Oh NBN, NBN!, wherefore art thou NBN?

[JDuding]

my only issue with that 1TB is the lack of decent upload speed... takes for ever to upload full sized images...

A couple of months back I saw the NBN trucks at our junction box... so it must be close to being available here.
I only hope that the rumour is being overstated.
They are saying that the more people that jump on the NBN... the slower it gets.

Here's hoping that they made the new info-highway wide enough to accommodate everyone... now... and for a few years to come? Foresight... they would have employed that right? right?

[tandeejay]

They are saying that the more people that jump on the NBN... the slower it gets.

That depends on how it is implemented.

If everyone is on the same loop, then your packets have to wait for a gap to transmit... usually done by the network stack in each computer trying to transmit, and if a collision is detected, then it delays and then tries again. This type of network definitely suffers a slow down with more people using it. But if everyone's link goes all the way back to a switch then your bit of the network is never congested with anyone elses traffic as the switch only sends your traffic down your link, and you don't see everyone elses traffic. The catch here, is that the switch becomes the bottle neck... a good switch will be able to handle a high volume of traffic before it starts to become overloaded, and then of course enough traffic might be more than the uplink from the switch can handle in which case, your packets would have to wait...

Of course I could be wrong here... been a while since I studied networks at UNI... since uni, I've always had someone else to worry about the networks

[ricktas]

A couple of months back I saw the NBN trucks at our junction box... so it must be close to being available here.
I only hope that the rumour is being overstated.
They are saying that the more people that jump on the NBN... the slower it gets.

Here's hoping that they made the new info-highway wide enough to accommodate everyone... now... and for a few years to come? Foresight... they would have employed that right? right?

it is generally 12-18 months after they start appearing in your area that people can first connect.

[ricktas]

I'll compress if I have to... but for purposes of critique... I would like to offer as close to as original (post PP) as possible for the most accurate presentation of the image.

I think you are over-thinking this. Fairly much every other AP member resizes their photos to 1000 or 1024 pixels and gets good critique. There are huge factors involved in rendition accuracy that you have no control over, no matter how little compression etc you apply. Things like monitor calibration, room lighting of the viewers computer, angle of view, the size of the viewers monitor (quite a few people view the site and give CC on tablets). etc.

No matter what you do, or do not do, how your image looks on someone else screen is determined a lot, by them.

For instance, is your own monitor hardware calibrated?

[JDuding]

...is your own monitor hardware calibrated?

Even better... there's a bar at the bottom of this web page that goes from grey to white over many increments.
Looks good to me

[I @ M]

Personally... I'm looking for a site to host the images I post here for critique... and they will not all be 'Sunday Best' that's for sure.

That is a relatively simple set of parameters to me, have a look at dropbox or copy ( or both ) as they fill my needs for free.

I doubt that there is a perfect site... but am interested in what people here use and would recommend.

I would consider dropbox or copy as close to perfect as one could need for presenting photos on AP or to share via a link with others.

Neither sites strip exif, what you upload is what others download.

They are both free with plenty of storage and the ability through "sharing rewards" to expand that storage quota.

They will take large files, I uploaded a 32 mb jpeg for someone recently which took our 2 cans and a string internet ages to achieve but the recipient had the full file in seconds 3/4 of the planet away.

Usage is simple for sharing, all one has to do is to "wrap" [img] --- [/img] tags around the source folder url for them to appear on the pages of AP.

Only those who you choose to share the link with are able to view your images.

Both Dropbox and Copy are set up as data backup sites so the url of the stored material doesn't change and nothing is deleted by them until you delete it.

[JDuding]

Sounds ideal Andrew.
thanks... I'll check them out as well.

[Cage]

A couple of months back I saw the NBN trucks at our junction box... so it must be close to being available here.
I only hope that the rumour is being overstated. They are saying that the more people that jump on the NBN... the slower it gets.

I've had my NBN FTTH up and running for a few weeks now. I have the 100/40 speed and it usually runs 95/38 and doesn't drop below 92/32 in peak periods.

[ameerat42]

I will dance a jig --- Er, make that drink a jug --- for you.

That's great!

[ricktas]

Even better... there's a bar at the bottom of this web page that goes from grey to white over many increments.
Looks good to me

If you are serious, then you are mistaken about what that bar does. It merely checks brightness and contrast levels and comes no where near calibration.