What's the best current way of uploading pictures?

[mjzee]

I used to use Photobucket, but they no longer allow links to third-party sites such as Organissimo.  I know the O board software used to allow uploads of small picture sizes, but I couldn't see an option to do that now.  So what's the best current way?

[BFrank]

Try Flickr. 

[Brad]

You can use the Board option “click to use files,” which seems to work well.  If you’re going to use a third party hosting service, I recommend Smug Mug. It’s fantastic and easy to use. Photo Bucket is the worst. 

[JSngry]

Able to post these from Photobucket just now, fwiw.

[mjzee]

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

Able to post these from Photobucket just now, fwiw.

Huh.  Sometime in the last year, Photobucket told me they would no longer allow linking to third-party sites, and indeed, when I then checked this board, everything I had linked from there could no longer be viewed.  Guess they've since changed their policy (again), because I just now linked a photo from there in the usual way.  Thanks for the tip.

[JSngry]

It's not as immediately apparent how to get to the link as it used to be, but yeah, it's still there. I have to think the customer is always right, at least in this case.

[mjzee]

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

It's not as immediately apparent how to get to the link as it used to be, but yeah, it's still there. I have to think the customer is always right, at least in this case.

Yeah...hard for me to see how I'm the "customer" if I'm not paying them anything.  Then again, I don't intend to.  Must be more of that Internet logic.

[JSngry]

I know, right?

[Dave Garrett]

3 hours ago, mjzee said:

Huh.  Sometime in the last year, Photobucket told me they would no longer allow linking to third-party sites, and indeed, when I then checked this board, everything I had linked from there could no longer be viewed.  Guess they've since changed their policy (again), because I just now linked a photo from there in the usual way.  Thanks for the tip.

There was a huge online stink about this when Photobucket implemented the policy change that required users to pay an exorbitant fee to maintain third-party linking. Apparently they reversed this policy a couple of months ago, drastically cutting the fees they had previously tried to implement:

The Pain and Potential of Making a 180-Degree Policy Shift

I used to use them for casual photo hosting, but when they started trying to extort users I switched to Imgur, which isn't well-suited for heavy-duty web hosting of numerous photos but works fine if you just need to post a photo on a forum occasionally. 

[Matthew]

On 7/29/2018 at 10:57 PM, Brad said:

You can use the Board option “click to use files,” which seems to work well.  If you’re going to use a third party hosting service, I recommend Smug Mug. It’s fantastic and easy to use. Photo Bucket is the worst. 

When I try this from iPhotos, I always get the notice that the photo uses too much MB's. 

[Brad]

8 hours ago, Matthew said:

When I try this from iPhotos, I always get the notice that the photo uses too much MB's. 

Not every photo will work, that is true. 

[Justin V]

I've used vgy.me to upload photos using my phone.  This is a pic of a dog currently available at the shelter where I volunteer.  (I didn't take the picture, but I saved it on my phone because I am in love with her.)

Edited August 1, 2018 by Justin V

[Shrdlu]

Getting the site to accept an avatar pic is tough. The upper limit for the filesize is very low. After a struggle, I got the pic on the left uploaded, but it wouldn't accept any others. Nothing to lose sleep over, though.

[Misterioso]

On 7/28/2018 at 3:57 PM, Brad said:

You can use the Board option “click to use files,” which seems to work well.  If you’re going to use a third party hosting service, I recommend Smug Mug. It’s fantastic and easy to use. Photo Bucket is the worst. 

When I use this option,I am limited to a maximum file size of 0.1MB, which is very, very low. But other members seem to be able to upload larger files. And these files do not seem to be stored on any hosting services. What am I doing wrong?

[Dan Gould]

28 minutes ago, Misterioso said:

When I use this option,I am limited to a maximum file size of 0.1MB, which is very, very low. But other members seem to be able to upload larger files. And these files do not seem to be stored on any hosting services. What am I doing wrong?

My secret is I open the photo located on the hard drive or thumb and use the Snipping tool to save it again. The attached photo of Percy France was 425 kb when open in Paint, saved as a jpeg via the snipping tool it is only 65 and therefore uploadable.

[Misterioso]

11 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

My secret is I open the photo located on the hard drive or thumb and use the Snipping tool to save it again. The attached photo of Percy France was 425 kb when open in Paint, saved as a jpeg via the snipping tool it is only 65 and therefore uploadable

Thanks, will give it a try.

[Brad]

2 hours ago, Misterioso said:

When I use this option,I am limited to a maximum file size of 0.1MB, which is very, very low. But other members seem to be able to upload larger files. And these files do not seem to be stored on any hosting services. What am I doing wrong?

It seems as there is a certain size limitation per day or every few days, which then resets.  I principally post photos in the what are you listening to sections and the photos used by Wikipedia and Amazon seem to work almost all of the time.  Photos from other sites like Discogs always have to be resized. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Brad

[Dan Gould]

I am pretty sure that the size limitation is per post, period.  For instance, I can upload this Freddie Roach cover in this post. But when I try to edit my post above to add this 58 kb snip to the existing Percy France attachment it gives the size restriction warning notice.

[Shrdlu]

I find this file-size limitation frustrating, especially in this era of Signal and Whatsapp, but I assume that the limit is to save on expenses. The result is that I don't add any relevant pictures.

By the way, Whatsapp linked up with Facebook (i.e. the ghastly Google), so I don't trust it anymore. 

[soulpope]

Either post web-based pics or store the picture on your desktop+ the upload via a free service (to create a web based pic) .... never encountered a problem here ....

[JSngry]

If it's just an album cover that's all over the web, why would you want to upload an image rather than just link to the image URL? "Stolen bandwidth" seems to be an argument whose time has come and gone (or has it?). But otherwise, why?

Serious question.

[Brad]

18 minutes ago, JSngry said:

If it's just an album cover that's all over the web, why would you want to upload an image rather than just link to the image URL? "Stolen bandwidth" seems to be an argument whose time has come and gone (or has it?). But otherwise, why?

Serious question.

Isn’t stolen bandwidth or hosting a photo cost money? Not being facetious, just asking as I don’t know the answer. 

[JSngry]

I'm not sure either, all I know is that I don't really hear anybody complaining about it any more. Compare that to posting full article content that diverts away from hit count, which does indeed reduce revenue. That argument is still made, and effectively so, imo.

[JSngry]

Sorry, can't move a single post, just a thread.

Feel free to repost and then delete.