Photograph hosting sites
- Thread starter Granitechops
- Start date
Used Flickr for years, the uploader is on my computer desktop, drag'n'drop images into it and the rest is auto, it then asks if you want to make any changes and that's it. Easy to provide a link either to a specific image, series of image's or the whole lot so family or others can take a look. I'm a cheapskate so only have the basic account with limited uploads per month but still find it plenty, there are also plenty of security settings if you need them to stop others seeing your images. Highly recommended.
Sorry to go off topic again 
Nod, it all depends on the quality of the phone camera, the newer cameras used in phones are easily as good a quality as most normal cameras. Looking at some of Kimbrit's piccies taken on a camera phone, there easily as good a quality as most other peoples photo's, so i guess it all depends on the megapixel camera in the phone
Nod, it all depends on the quality of the phone camera, the newer cameras used in phones are easily as good a quality as most normal cameras. Looking at some of Kimbrit's piccies taken on a camera phone, there easily as good a quality as most other peoples photo's, so i guess it all depends on the megapixel camera in the phone
From personal experience Photobucket has never being much use, one time is somehow managed to delete the photo's i had uploaded. Also many websites now require an account to even view the photo's which was another annoying feature of Photobucket :thumbdown:
matthew said:
Photobucket's done me alright. Mind you, I've never looked for anything else. A friend was using it, showed me how to load photos, and it's been all go ever since. 
Flickr is the best I have used, again mainly because its so easy to use!
as for camera phones being of the same quality as normal cameras, its not how many megapixels neccesarily, more the physical size of the sensor and the quality of the lens used, because of this camera phones aren't quite as good as modern compact cameras yet. Thats not to say they are rubbish or no good, I am constantly impressed by the picture quality of my samsung tocco, but when i compare it to some of my other cameras it doesn't quite stack up.
as for camera phones being of the same quality as normal cameras, its not how many megapixels neccesarily, more the physical size of the sensor and the quality of the lens used, because of this camera phones aren't quite as good as modern compact cameras yet. Thats not to say they are rubbish or no good, I am constantly impressed by the picture quality of my samsung tocco, but when i compare it to some of my other cameras it doesn't quite stack up.
Just a quick departure! What is this I hear that soon in the UK it will be legal to just lift a picture from the web for commercial use? I understand a small payment has to be made to the Goverment (of course) just in case you find "your picture" in use on a bill board you can then apply to said Goverment for a payment for use!!
None, of course. This is the Government remember, the photographer will have to pay a creativity tax or something similar they will conjure up out of the hat. No bunnies.
Hm, now I think about it this is interesting, I am a 'tog resident in a freign country with images stored on Flickr. Who says they are in the UK and therefore subject to UK laws, taxation, rights of use etc?
Hm, now I think about it this is interesting, I am a 'tog resident in a freign country with images stored on Flickr. Who says they are in the UK and therefore subject to UK laws, taxation, rights of use etc?
Do I detect the merest trace of a whiff of a suspicion of a mild possibility of infinitesimal tininess of a quark of cynicism there Spike?