IMAGE (Resolution Limit VIEWing of Photo Bucket is 1024x572) FLIKR (no Limit)

[Wally.B]

I am running a test to see best Highest Resolution and Image Quality for Thread Posts. (Not uploads, but linked thru Photo Bucket)

My understanding is when you link a Photo from PhotoBucket, it doesn't affect the Post upload (space usage) on Reefcentral (like an upload of photo would). That is why when a photo is removed from PhotoBucket, it no longer shows in the reefcentral post.

However, I'm still scratching my head why I can't seem to link Photos of higher resolution (which I sometimes would like for clarity).

Does the ReefCentral Web server reduce the photo presentation? Or is this PhotoBucket doing this since it's kind of treated like a HighRes Thumbnail.

So to demonstrate/test my issue, I'm going to post a few re-sized images (of the same image of my New Tank Build). Each Image is STAMPED with the RESOLUTION to be clear.

I have attached as an attachment these two photos as ONE TEST.

1) Highest Res (1570x877)
2) Lowest Res Photo(640x377)

The NEXT TEST is same two photo's above linked thru Photo Bucket.

FIRST IS THE [640x377](Photo via Photo Bucket)

SECOND is the [1577x877] Photo

Thing look somewhat proportional, but the 1577x877 Image is not as clear as original (Based on the Zoom in of my Browser).

Here is the image posted on FLICKr.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147613604@N08/31360844084/

(Also as test, I saved back the Image from Reef Central) and it SAVE back as (1024x572). So this may somehow the Image Res LIMIT MAX.

So next Photo is [1024x572]

** NOTICE the 1024x572 Image is the same as the 1570x877 **

What is interesting is the 1024x572 saves back as 1024x572.

Next is a Test of [850x474] Image which is the Reef Central Recommended Image size for Uploads.

This look correct.

OK. So my test is done with PHOTO SHOP.

It appears Photo Bucket or Reef Central limit the image size to 1024x877.


and to get Best PICTURE CLARITY, the BROWSER must be size appropriately by hitting the SHIFT+ or SHIFT- Button.

(Try the SHIFT[-+] and see picture clear up, or get fuzzy). There is a sweet spot Zoom IN Point.

I tested with IE and Chrome and it's the same.

NOW I TRIED THE SAME IMAGE [1570x877] using a DIRECT URL to FLICKR as shown below.

BINGO!! It works in proper Resolution.

I am converting to Flicker and Droping PhotoBucket (which now is really slow, tons of ads, and unreliable)

 

[Wally.B]

Last Test using "FLICKR" Direct to Image Link

My 90 Gallon Mixed Tank (Not best Photo, but show Res working)

My 65 Gallon Office (In Wall) Future SPS tank in 1600 Res [NO RES STAMP]

Can you find all the 5 fish now? 2 Tangs, One Angel, One Fairy Wrasse, and Tough to See Mandarin Golby. Cleaner Shrimp too.

I was actually considering paying for PhotoBucket to improve my user experience, but now with my discovery, I'll pay for FlickR if I ever need to.

That's it. Problem solved.

 

[Wally.B]

CORRECTION (on BROWSER ZOOM in and out)

I posted that SHIFT+- is the KEY SEQUENCE. THAT IS INCORRECT

Correction:

CTRL + (For Zoom in)

CTRL - (For Zoom Out)

And also note: To link directly from FLICKR, you have to go to the photo after uploading. Select Download (But must select all sizes), then when you pick size you want (right click on Image and DO A COPY). Then use that COPIED URL to paste the Image into YOUR Post (using the Image Link Button).

Photo in FlickR must be first made as PUBLIC.

 

[slief]

So in short, if we share high res pictures from Flickr, the visible resolution of the pictures on the forum will be better? I've always shared from Photobucket but I just setup a Flickr account to play with.

 

[Wally.B]

So in short, if we share high res pictures from Flickr, the visible resolution of the pictures on the forum will be better? I've always shared from Photobucket but I just setup a Flickr account to play with.

Yes, that is what my test appears to have proved.

If you upload a image HIGHER than 1024x____ into PhotoBucket, then you are wasting time uploading since it won't present anything to Reef Central Viewers beyond 1024.

** I could be wrong about PhotoBucket since there could be a possible way to get to the higher res URL (The Master), but I haven't found out how **

With Flickr, you can upload whatever resolution you want (max is whatever your camera can produce), but when you decide to request the URL to include in Reef Central, you can choose the display resolution URL.

You can actually upload a 5024x image, and get URl's from flicker for 640x, 1024x, 2048x, etc from that same higher resolution image.

I like that, since I can use one Resolution upload multiple times. (IE) One for Forum Publishing (Custom Res), another for a BLOG (medium Res), send another URL (at LOWER Resolution) to someone's phone etc. ALL FROM one Upload (THE MASTER PHOTO at Original Res for my Archive).

But what really motivated me was Photo Bucket was getting so slow and unreliable I couldn't publish anything effectively. I would get timeouts. Page not founds, etc. And during that time if I posted a thread post, it would be and "X" missing the image.

 

[Reef Bass]

Thanks for your investigation and explanation of results.

I've always used Photobucket and have always observed my images at the same size at which I upload them. Perhaps it was having your browser set at a custom zoom level setting (as evidenced by your control + / - adjustments) that caused you to first notice the difference in size between your upload and what was displayed?

It does seem convenient that Flickr will let you choose the size to cause to be displayed from one larger uploaded image. That can save time not having to generate and upload different sizes yourself.

 

[Wally.B]

Thanks for your investigation and explanation of results.

I've always used Photobucket and have always observed my images at the same size at which I upload them. Perhaps it was having your browser set at a custom zoom level setting (as evidenced by your control + / - adjustments) that caused you to first notice the difference in size between your upload and what was displayed?

It does seem convenient that Flickr will let you choose the size to cause to be displayed from one larger uploaded image. That can save time not having to generate and upload different sizes yourself.

That is interesting. Maybe there are URL's that Photo Bucket has to the original image (why it works for you).

I have a ton of images I've uploaded over the years in PhotoBucket. Some that got lot when I got an Ransonware bug in out home computer. Got most back from backups, but lost some.

Could you post a image on this thread that is greater that 1024x to demonstrate it works for you. (Do 2048x to show it's really bigger)

I simply upload to PhotoBucket, then when I click on the image there are 4 windows where you can get a URL. I use one of them for my thread posts. Maybe it's one of the others that I never tried since it kind of worked.

If you post your image and it shows greater than 1024x (then I'll be able to see your URL and maybe get it working for me too).

Greatly appreciated.

 

[Reef Bass]

Sure, I'll upload something large this evening after I get home from work.

Sorry to hear about the ransomware.

 

[Wally.B]

Sorry to hear about the ransomware.

Actually since this is the PhotoGraphy Section of the Forum, I'll share my Ransonware story and the Fact on how important it is to do backups of one's precious photos.

I am an IT Techie so I know All about backups, but what happened is worth sharing (So nobody loses their photos).

Basically I have about 700 GB of Photo's spanning over 3 decades. I take lots of pictures, and most precious are family photo's from my 3 kids since birth.

All my photo's are backed up to a Networked Storage Array (Raid Mirror Drive) and once every 3-6 months, I copy to a 2nd Disk Pack and store at my Brother IN Law Place (Offsite in case house burns down).

What happened was just as we were heading to Airport in a rush, I notice my camera's SD cards were full. So I quickly enabled the Network Backup Drive from our not so Safe Family Community Computer to dump them to Storage. BUT I FORGOT TO DISCONNNECT IT. That computer had the Rasomware (Probably downloaded by my younger kid who clicks YES on every website).

So basically the RANSOMWARE software had a whole week of access to my Photo Archive Drive (That would normally not be possible), and the RANSOMWARE encrypted 700 GB worth of Photo's,.

You can imagine the shock when we returned from the Bahamas.

I reacted fast and shut all our household computer down and did the proper things.

But the good news, is I had my Off Site copy of my PHoto's that was done 3 months ago. Plus having many SD Cards, that I swap out (I never Cut to Clean SD cards, I copy and erase manually later), so I got about a months worth of Photo's back.

And here was the Bonus. I had gotten one of those Mobi EYEFI SD cards, that transfers Photo's to computer via WiFI every time a photo is taken. So I had a copy of every photo taken with that camera (Fish Tank + Project Hobby shots) for over 3 months. (The EyeFi card is great to Fish tank photography. You know how tough it is to get a good photo and hard to tell on one small screen on camera. You take a picture of you tank, and seconds later (without removing SD card), you view it on your Large Screen. Especially handy when Camera is on Tripod and you have to remove it to get SD card out.

In the END I only lost 1 month of Photo's, which was just before the vacation anyway, so nothing much..

Had I lost everything, it would have been devastating!!! I never contacted the Ransomware criminals. Never paid a penny.

**** MESSAGE TO EVERYONE *** Back up Photo's twice, and store one copy offsite *****

 

[Reef Bass]

Photobucket appears to have changed their larger image handling, or I haven't run into it before even though I have uploaded 1200 (and I believe 1600) pixel wide images before, though a year or two ago. Tonight I uploaded a 2500 wide image and when I use their IMG links, I get a 1024 back.

The site appears even less responsive and more ad laden than last time I was there.

While it sucks to lose images, it sounds as though you were relatively fortunate with the outcome of your ransomware experience. Thanks for sharing.

I hear your point about liking to view images on a screen larger than the 3" camera back. I shoot tethered / remotely most of the time and so am composing and focusing the shot on my laptop instead of the camera back. Using the 200% zoom I can set the focal plane exactly where I want it. And if I want to go completely wireless I activate the wifi in my 6D and can use laptop, tablet or phone.

 

[Wally.B]

Yup. must be some cost cutting.
But the slow site is unacceptable.
Flickr is great. You get 1000 GB for free. I am moving over.

 

[PyroSteve]

I signed up for a photobucket account just to post pics on here and it is ungodly slow. Think I'm going to try Flickr. Thanks!

 

[Wally.B]

I signed up for a photobucket account just to post pics on here and it is ungodly slow. Think I'm going to try Flickr. Thanks!

Totally agree with you.

The slowness drove me so crazy that I found Flickr. (Still learning the features of Flickr. Looks better organized and not a Printing Shop theme.)
I should have named this thread "SLOW PHOTOBUCKET SOLUTION (and more)"

Plus I was already getting annoyed with the Force Ads for Free Users.

They may speed it up (doubt it), but I ain't going back to PhotoBucket.

I'll even pay for Flickr, if I need more space, but plenty for now. I think you get 1000GB for free.

 

[Artthorn]

Can you recommend a good photo processing app?

 

[Assapax]

Why so many complicated paths? Why didn't you just find a regular photo enhancement app? Now there are so many wonderful applications that can cool process a photo. It seems to me that you are too bother about these photos. My friend (he works as a photographer) uses the most common applications for processing photos. For example, he often uses imglarger.com to improve the quality of the photo. I just give you an example of a person who makes really cool photos but doesn't bother much. I sometimes think, there are easier ways to resolve some problems.

 

[Misled]

Can you recommend a good photo processing app?

I use Photoshop and Lightroom. Both work well together. For most basic level editing, Photoshop Elements will cover most of your needs. There is freeware out there. Most new cameras come with their own.

Why so many complicated paths? Why didn't you just find a regular photo enhancement app? Now there are so many wonderful applications that can cool process a photo. It seems to me that you are too bother about these photos. My friend (he works as a photographer) uses the most common applications for processing photos. For example, he often uses imglarger.com to improve the quality of the photo. I just give you an example of a person who makes really cool photos but doesn't bother much. I sometimes think, there are easier ways to resolve some problems.

I don't think you understand what this thread is about. The OP was figuring out which hosting sites passed higher resolution photos to other sites when posting pics.

 

[bettatail]

I use canon DPP, not as good as lightroom but once master this free editor from Canon, it is sufficient for what I need.

 

[visualsparrow]

CORRECTION (on BROWSER ZOOM in and out)

I posted that SHIFT+- is the KEY SEQUENCE. THAT IS INCORRECT

Correction:

CTRL + (For Zoom in)

CTRL - (For Zoom Out)

And also note: To link directly from FLICKR, you have to go to the photo after uploading. Select Download (But must select all sizes), then when you pick size you want (right click on Image and DO A COPY). Then use that COPIED URL to paste the Image into YOUR Post (using the Image Link Button).

Photo in FlickR must be first made as PUBLIC.

Thank you for the correction! Grateful for the CTRL + for zooming and the Flickr photo upload tip.