UKC

Hi
I use Imageshack but am finding it more & more prone to service issues especially with passwords. Can anyone recommend another site (though I know my workplace has barred some of the more popular, such as Flickr).
Ta

https://picasaweb.google.com

In reply to Flinticus: Very little is known about this but the prices are extremely good. Amazons own S3 service: http://lunacloud.com/en/cloud-storage-s3-compatible?gclid=CKaEm4Xjy7ICFYYNf...

Try it out. The thing I found is you can choose the format in which to save the photo file. Picasa is good but limited space so only relative small jpegs, which will lose detail eventually every time they are opened.

In reply to Flinticus:

Whenever this comes up I recommend PBase, cheap (starts at $2 a month for 1000meg), no adverts, slick interface, any size of image you want, as many galleries as you want:

http://www.pbase.com/chris_craggs


Chris

In reply to Flinticus:

if you can be bothered with a a little bit of admin then i use

https://www.e-noise.com/clients/signup.php?clienttype=22&package=56

and a site built with joomla (although many people use wordpress and find the learning curve much more user friendly)

you then have total control over your images and can do pretty much whatever you want with your site if you have the time to invest in it.

... not for everyone, but there you go

In reply to Flinticus: I've always used webshots, it's not great but does for what I need.

http://www.webshots.com/

In reply to Chris Craggs: Chris Amazon Glacier is way more cost effective. Storage costs 1 cent per gigabyte, which works out to $10.24 per terabyte per month, and uploading data is FREE!

It is called Glacier because it is cold storage, so ideal for archiving.

In reply to halo:


There is an option in Picasa to upload files at original size.


(... lose detail every time they are opened........???)

In reply to Flinticus:

I'm using Mr Site.

The bigginers pack includes hosting for a year and software to make a start building your own site. Not bad for 20 quid. (they also offer webchat if you get stuck: which i often do. Then, they send you a transcript for good measure )

In reply to Fredt: Hi Fredt perhaps you misundertood. What I mean was Normally the overexposed (burnt out) areas in a photograph will be ”lost”, when the image has been saved in a JPEG file.

After the image computer has processed the image’s data, the areas will have been converted into 100% white surfaces, with no image details at all. If the image had instead been saved in a RAW format, then there would probably have been some small nuances of very pale colour tones saved in these areas. These can be salvaged via the RAW format.

So shooting in RAW is more beneficial, admittedly they're larger files than is nescessary for storing but at least most of the 'detail' will be embedded in a RAW file, but not found on a JPEG artefact.