Useful image hosting for photo posts

**steve.ledger** · 22 September 2007, 02:07 AM

2 pictures taken during the last 10 days of my beautiful part of the planet. (click thumbnail for full size image).
(1)

(2)

(1) Far North Qld. Looking across Smithfield to the Cairns Airport from the Kuranda Range lookout. The Water Skiing facility can be seen in the foreground near where a new housing estate is currently being built.
(2) Looking across a section of farmland on the Atherton Tablelands twaords Mt Bellenden Ker. Taken from the Halloran Hill lookout in Atherton, Far North Qld.

I have used free image hosting services rather than TG's server for hosting large (photo) images.

Webshots All-You-Can-Upload free hosting:
http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/

fotki hosting
http://host.fotki.com/

*Note: By Free Image Hosting, I mean 'no membership or registration required' - free immediate image uploading and hosting

**raynerj1** · 22 September 2007, 02:16 PM

Nice Pictures...

**steve.ledger** · 22 September 2007, 09:02 PM

Thanks John. It sure was a beautiful day, I just captured what was already there.

**geminiguy** · 22 September 2007, 11:25 PM

hey, Sledger, Beautiful shots! Thanks for the links, I think they'll be quite useful for me.... and it would be nice to contribute to freeing up TalkGraphics server space..... Maybe fi enough space is freed they'll consider adding in a video area for us??!!
For people who do 3d animated, or various other video work?? Not sure if there are too many folks around here who do that sort of stuff but, Id love to see it.....

**steve.ledger** · 23 September 2007, 01:10 AM

Thanks geminiguy, where possible, I think hosting an image off-site (iow, not on TG' server) might just be polite, especially large ones. Using Fotki or Webshots hosting (for example) at least allows for a thumbnail link to be planted in your post. That way members can read your post without being forced to also download the full-sized image.

EG:

**raynerj1** · 23 September 2007, 02:31 AM

With HD space as cheap as it is anymore, why would there be a problem? We typically post 600 pix or smaller images...

**steve.ledger** · 23 September 2007, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by raynerj1

With HD space as cheap as it is anymore, why would there be a problem? We typically post 600 pix or smaller images...

'Bandwidth' is the issue I considered (for TG), as well as the forum user being forced to dl the image while reading the post. As you say, HDD's are quite cheap now and isn't really a problem, but having a large image hosted on the TG server which is repeatedly downloaded (viewed) by forum users will use plenty of available bandwidth.

You're right that 600pix is usually a good size, however I have seen many larger than this at TG. Using a hosting service dedicated to the task makes sense to me and has the added benefit of being able to share your full sized photo's, especially those that have a lot of interesting detail (like scenic shots) that would probably be lost in 600px samples.
Also, the photos I have posted (and those I may post in the future) would be a suitable size and quality for viewer to save and use as their desktop background if they choose to

**Mike Bailey** · 23 September 2007, 07:18 AM

Using an image host is fine as long as the links don't get broken. A word of caution, topics posted in the Gallery that have no image because links to the host don't work are removed.

**steve.ledger** · 23 September 2007, 11:56 AM

Thanks for the heads-up Mike. Will keep this in mind

**raynerj1** · 23 September 2007, 05:59 PM

I could see posting a snapshot full size. But when you take the time to actually do a photograph, I wouldn't want to just give em away. Personally, I think I will keep posting just the 600 pix shots. It is too small to print and yet keeps enough detail to be visible.