Photobuckets sucks....any suggestions?

[HemiSam]

All,

The Photobucket site has been crap for years.  Now they want something like $400 / year for a user to post pics on a third party site (i.e. embed photos).  If the site wasn't absolute crap, I might have given this more than a seconds' worth of thought.  Since that's not the case, figured I'd ask here if there's a smarter way to do this.

Thanks in advance.

HS

[Fitz]

Is what you're looking to do outside of imgur's realm? It's been the de facto image hosting site for years now.

[HemiSam]

42 minutes ago, Fitz said:

Is what you're looking to do outside of imgur's realm? It's been the de facto image hosting site for years now.

Fitz,

I have heard some good things about imgur, but I have not used it.  Safe to assume I can embed a photo (i.e. not simply a link) in a post on a forum like head-case?

HS

[Fitz]

Absolutely, that's how I've always used it. Open imgur.com in a tab, drag photo from computer to browser, wait 5 seconds for it to upload and process, then right click and copy image address to use anywhere I like. No account, no using their own 'ecosystem', etc.

I have not checked in a while but I believe it keeps all images alive as long as they've been accessed within 6 months or so, something like that.

[HemiSam]

3 minutes ago, Fitz said:

Absolutely, that's how I've always used it. Open imgur.com in a tab, drag photo from computer to browser, wait 5 seconds for it to upload and process, then right click and copy image address to use anywhere I like. No account, no using their own 'ecosystem', etc.

I have not checked in a while but I believe it keeps all images alive as long as they've been accessed within 6 months or so, something like that.

Thank you, Fitz.  I will have a look.

Do you happen to know if say a pic is embedded in a post, it is not accessed in whatever period of time is the cap (e.g. 6 months), whether that embedded pic then disappears and leaves something like "no longer available"?

HS

[Fitz]

If it's embedded in a post and for whatever reason that post isn't accessed in enough time (let's assume my 6 months is right), then yes, it'd become a broken/unavailable image. But anyone opening the thread to the page where the post is counts as accessing the photo.

I don't know if they have a service to keep images permanently alive regardless of activity, I've only ever used the basic drag'n'drop system I described.

[HemiSam]

 

2 minutes ago, Fitz said:

If it's embedded in a post and for whatever reason that post isn't accessed in enough time (let's assume my 6 months is right), then yes, it'd become a broken/unavailable image. But anyone opening the thread to the page where the post is counts as accessing the photo.

I don't know if they have a service to keep images permanently alive regardless of activity, I've only ever used the basic drag'n'drop system I described.

Thanks again, Fitz.  This looks interesting.  I'll do some additional research.  Has to be better than photobucket's site...

HS

[Fitz]

The one other thing to know is imgur does process images for lower filesize, so it's not suitable if you want to have jpgs at very high quality settings. 99% of images it isn't noticable, but if it's for high res photography the compression artifacts may become visible.

[HemiSam]

1 minute ago, Fitz said:

The one other thing to know is imgur does process images for lower filesize, so it's not suitable if you want to have jpgs at very high quality settings. 99% of images it isn't noticable, but if it's for high res photography the compression artifacts may become visible.

Most are off my iPhone so I'm far from a photog...  Understatement of the century.

HS

[Fitz]

Hah, then it should work perfectly for you, as long as the limited archival aspect is fine.

I'm quite fond of it because it's one of the few image sites still around that doesn't try to have the images only available viewing their website. They did change the default behavior to not immediately giving you a link to the image itself and instead preferring the link that shows it on their site (which is still nicer to deal with than most image sites), but you can right click and get image address, or whatever equivalent on mobile, and there's no automatic redirect that tries to prevent that.

I get unreasonably mad when I'm trying to look up an image real quick and it's impossible to access without going on the hosting site, covered by more things promoting their site.

[johnwmclean]

Another choice...

I’ve been using Flickr for years, has been good. Will do forum embedding links, size reductions etc

[mypasswordis]

If you want to have more control over the files with no processing, have file organization, and link everything across multiple devices then you can use any cloud service like Dropbox or Google Drive, etc and make things public or private with just a few clicks. Since you have an iPhone, Apple has its own cloud storage system. You'd have to ask someone else how it works as I've never owned an Apple product

[Fitz]

I've only really used google drive for sharing files with people I trust and don't feel like going through mega, or for google sheets that we're all working on together. Does google drive let you hotlink images directly from it?

[HemiSam]

35 minutes ago, johnwmclean said:

Another choice...

I’ve been using Flickr for years, has been good. Will do forum embedding links, size reductions etc

Thank you, John.  I will have a look.  I have been on their website briefly likely via a link, but am not that familiar with them.

HS

[mypasswordis]

39 minutes ago, Fitz said:

I've only really used google drive for sharing files with people I trust and don't feel like going through mega, or for google sheets that we're all working on together. Does google drive let you hotlink images directly from it?

I should check these things before I post.. mind blown. Looks like Google still hasn't gotten a simple direct link to work, so you have to paste the share link into some url generator. I know Dropbox embeds, but apparently you have to change the end of the url to ?raw=1 now... 

[HemiSam]

Testing imgur...

Bonus!

HS

[Fitz]

Vroom vroom!

[swt61]

Those are some shiny piston tops! And some well honed cylinder walls!

Being an old guy, I still find it odd not seeing a big void in the valley.

[HemiSam]

1 hour ago, swt61 said:

Those are some shiny piston tops! And some well honed cylinder walls!

Being an old guy, I still find it odd not seeing a big void in the valley.

It is amazing how far engine technology has come in one respect and yet how similar they are to what they were decades back.

The environment has arguably had the biggest impact on technology in the last few decades.  Pretty amazing stuff when we set our minds to it...

My primary bitch is the lack of space in an engine compartment when you have to wrench on a car.  It's nuts how I can look straight down to the ground on my '78 Datsun 280Z and I can't see much of anything on my newer rides.  Even changing plugs can be an adventure...

HS

[Fitz]

I hadn't really thought about it much but yeah, newer cars sure do seem to have the engine bay packed to the gills with... stuff.

[swt61]

I remember working on my '67 Ford pickup. It had a straight 6 and I could sit on the fender well and replace spark plugs.

[Fitz]

A straight 6 in a rwd car/truck is just perfect for having so much space to work with.

[swt61]

Well, I was about 100 lbs. wet back then too.

[HemiSam]

LOL....those days are long gone for me although corporate stress keeps me in check....

 

HS

[Fitz]

13 minutes ago, swt61 said:

Well, I was about 100 lbs. wet back then too.

I've never thought of you as even remotely heavy or fat, but trying to picture you at 100 lbs is... difficult.