Image hosting and storage options

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[JDuding]

If you are serious...

No. Not serious... placed a couple of smileys in that post to help show that.

Many eons ago... I would service Power PCs and graphic designers monitors and would perform calibrations (mostly on Apple monitors). Wasn't my main job... but... have done it.

As you were saying... when it comes to quality... I was over thinking it.
So when it comes to what this sites 'critiquers' are viewing the images on...
...hardware calibrating my monitor might be going an unnecessary step too far.
So I am happy to relax a bit and just rely on the brightness-contrast bar to be enough to gauge a posted images quality... and I won't be expecting others to be hardware calibrating their monitors either.

If I become a professional photographer... I will definitely get high end monitors and PCs.

As for posting best image quality for critique... I'll still post as good as I can within reason... but will scale them down more than I have been... as I wasn't considering people with slow internet or those using mobiles and tablets.

I'll still try to find a site that has the least limits... Andrews 'Dropbox' suggestion seems the pick of the litter so far.

So in short... yep... not serious.

- - - Updated - - -

...I switched to Smugmug...

drool... yes... I saw that and sussed out their system.
Looks ideal for when I want to start creating an online portfolio.
I'll have another look... but do they offer free services?
I thought I struck them from my short list due to no free accounts?

Still... a really nice setup they have.

----EDIT-----
Dude... how good does your SmugMug portfolio look... Awesome.

[arthurking83]

Thanks Rick.
....

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?

.....

What software are you using?

Also two other options for you to check out for image hosting are:

DeviantArt and Nikon's ImageSpace
Both are free(or have free account systems).
Because you have a Nikon camera body, the free ImageSpace account is larger than it otherwise would be if you didn't have Nikon camera.

I've never had an issue with DA in the ten years I've used it.
But I sometimes have linking issues with ImageSpace, only in that the transfer of the image from IS to the site you linked too can be slow. Hopefully they've fixed that.
The last option I (prefer to)use is AP's gallery space if it's just for linking to AP.