Image hosting sites.

[Lee4145]

I'd be interested in hearing some opinions about on-line image hosts. There are so many and I haven't got the slightest idea how any of them work.
And what's the difference between that and a website? Would there be any reason to have both?

You're answering this for someone who knows exactly nothing about it so any input will helpful.

[brian.austin]

Geez what a stupid question to post. (you know I couldn't resist, Lee)

Seriously, though...

I'm not a big fan of Flickr, pbase, and other image hosting sites. I used to have images on pbase and one or two others but never kept it up. They have since been deleted due to inactivity.

My primary reason for NOT using them is loss of control. In some cases, the Terms of Service actually has an implicit commercial release embedded in the legalese. I haven't seen this on the bigger, more popular sites (although Flickr's comes darn close, imo). Basically, it means that, if it's buried in the Terms OR the Terms are changed while you're a member (there is usually a "if these terms change, they'll still apply" type clause), the site has the ability to use YOUR images without your explicit permission for commercial gain.

I prefer hosting from my own website. It takes more work on the backend and requires some software, pre-defined templates, or help from others. But at least I have some level of distribution control. I'm also not limited by content restrictions (ie nudity or any other controversial content).

And for those about to punch holes in that statement...

SOME level of control. I understand (perfectly) that the moment an image is presented online...anywhere...I've just lost total control over its distribution. I use Flash galleries, low res images, and, if required, watermarks. None are foolproof by themselves but it does make it more of an effort to get the image...especially since there are a lot more opportunities to steal on Flickr, pbase, etc..

Oh...I also have a deviantArt site (subjectivevision.deviantart.com) but it's not really designed as a "hosting" site.

[Mr. Pickles]

SmugMug is a good place to start. You can simply host your pictures there, and later when you get more into it, you can turn it into a very cool "website" that is devoid of some SmugMug banners and such. AND, in case you didn't know, you can WIN a SmugMug subscription by finishing in the top-3 in our current Themed Contest. But you have to enter to win.
Rhythm

A very popular "hosting only" site is PBase. Flickr is used by a lot, but I didn't like it as well as SmugMug.

Don't forget that you have FREE Gallery space here at PhotoCamel to host all your images. Just click the Gallery icon at the top or the Gallery LINK in the left panel of your posts...

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

I prefer hosting from my own website. It takes more work on the backend and requires some software, pre-defined templates, or help from others. But at least I have some level of distribution control. I'm also not limited by content restrictions (ie nudity or any other controversial content).

I agree with Brian. Get your own domain name and then use it with a hosting plan such as those offered by Hostgator or Godaddy. Goodness, for 8 bucks a month you'll get way more web space than you can with some dedicated "hosting" site. Slap up some free software such as Coppermine or Gallery, and host to your delight. True, you'll have to learn how to set up Coppermine or Gallery, but after that you aren't bound by limitations. Of course, if something goes wrong, you'll usually only have yourself to blame.



Footnote: Actually with most of the hosting plans offered today, you don't even have to know how to set up Gallery or Coppermine. I believe the "cpanel" that you get when you get your own domain comes with Fantastico, which makes installing your coppermine or gallery a one-click affair. You can call a rep for one of these companies for details.

Spend some time researching which host you want to go with, however. They're not all created equal, and I mention the two above only because they come to mind.

[yendikeno]

I'm not a big fan of Flickr either, but do use it and PhotoBucket to store photos that need to be posted for web sites that require external linking. For that purpose both of them work OK for me.

[Mr. Pickles]

Hey guys, based on what the OP actually stated, getting a web host and "setting" up his own site, might just be a bit of a task right now for him....? Something like SmugMug is pretty easy to use, and as he grows photographically and in web-savvy-ness, then he can expand....

Well, that is what I think anyway.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Hey guys, based on what the OP actually stated, getting a web host and "setting" up his own site, might just be a bit of a task right now for him....? Something like SmugMug is pretty easy to use, and as he grows photographically and in web-savvy-ness, then he can expand....

Well, that is what I think anyway.

It's not a bad idea but he also stated he didn't know the difference. He needs all of the options before making a decision.

[Mechoption]

Picasa and Google Web Albums are a good place to start for a beginner. Picasa easily organizes your pics on your PC and with some simple clicks dumps it online for you. It also does basic photo edits. Plus these two are completely free and as far as I know Google doesn't try and steal your pics . You get about 1Gb of space free and then can pay for more.

Picasa: https://www.google.com/accounts/Serv...2&passive=true

[aam1234]

Guess it depends on the purpose. If it's a pro-type (e.g. to show clients) then what Brian and JD suggested will suite you. If it's for general use (family/friends/post in the net) then the other ones will be a lot more convenient. However, I would suggest the pay type as they have more options there.

Btw I, check out Zenfolio. Been hearing good things about it.
Btw II, if you decide to go with Smugmug then two people here can get you a coupon, Mr.P and John. There are probably others but these guys are the only ones I know of.

Edit: Forgot to mention, places like Smugmug have pro accounts whereby you have your domain name and you can customize it to look the way you like, among other features.

[Lee4145]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Geez what a stupid question to post. (you know I couldn't resist, Lee)

lol, I would have been disappointed if you had.

Thank you to everyone. I appreciate all the experience. I'm really just at the very beginning of this and don't even know enough to ask an intelligent question. All of this is very helpful.

Mr.P., I wondered how long it would take to get "you can use the gallery here!" lol. Looks like about 15 minutes.
I do have some things in it but am not sure it's a long term solution.

Thanks again everyone.

[Mr. Pickles]

Like aam1234 mentioned above, SmugMug does have different "flavors" of subscriptions you can buy, and they run from simple image hosting to full-blown "website" looks like I mentioned above. With the top-level account at SmugMug, you can completely customize the look, and they have awesome help available if you have questions and want to know how to make something work.

It also offers the chance for you to sell prints and other items directly from your site. You upload the pictures and set the prices for each item. People can buy whatever they want, whenever they want and it gets shipped direct to them. SmugMug will pay you the difference between your cost to print and the cost you placed on the item. So you set your profit margin.

SmugMug is one of very few that can take you from the bottom to the top as far as "image hosts" goes. Your own website can too, but some things done by yourself aren't worth it in the long run sometimes...

[Jacco]

However, if I were you, Lee, I'd start gaining experience before spending my hard earned cash on stuff I haven't yet got a clue about.

Have a look at Weebly.com. It is excellent for starters, imo: 1) it is FREE, and 2) it's got a whole bunch of ready-made but very adaptable templates to give your website a unique 'look & feel' that is all your own.

Have fun!

[Aussiejoe]

If you are only looking for a host for photos you want to post in forums and such, ImageShack is a good site, you can store as many photos as you like with a free account so you don't have to delete photos to make room for more, so your photos are still in old posts - not blank spaces.

Forum posts are the only reason I use photo hosts, I don't store photos on them as my up-load speed is so slow it is impracticable so I can't give any advice from that point of view.

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by Lee4145

And what's the difference between that and a website? Would there be any reason to have both?

This is going to sound a little pedantic, but bear with me: Flickr, SmugMug, and the like are web sites ... just like you can set up yourself. Anything served up over HTTP is a web site. There's nothing magic about what image hosts do.

They still have some advantages. Flickr has some pretty good software; most of them do. If you want other people to see your photos, they tend to already have big communities. They're very easy to work with. With a lot of them, they're 100 % free, and there's no way you could be charged 'by surprise.' ( Hosting your own site, bandwidth can be an issue ... although it's not likly anymore. )

Now these places have some disadvantages, too. For me, loss of control is the worst among them. My web site is going through a redesign, and both are ugly as hell, but I can change anything about it any time I learn how to be aesthetic. I can run a photo blog, and embed working Google Maps in it, which can fascinate me until the end of time. I can do things to make it harder for people to grab my images, although I don't right now. I don't have to agree to any type of contract about how others might use them. This isn't full proof, but for me, it's better.

Somebody mentioned "Fantastico" one-click installer in c[ontrol]-panel. It's good stuff. It will take more effort to do it yourself, but most of that is up front, and once only.

[Douglas]

Ive been happy with photobucket. Had them for about 3 years now. PAy $25 a year for the hosting. I think the max size I can use is 1024x768, but I really dont have a need for larger sizes there