What's new

Biggest pet peeve with photos?

Facebook photo quality pisses me off, even though alot of people still like my photos I'll always know that the quality is horrible
 
A little late but most of this thread reminded me of this.

some-motivation-19.jpg
 
Facebook photo quality pisses me off, even though alot of people still like my photos I'll always know that the quality is horrible
To add to that, Photobucket-quality photos! I absolutely hate seeing perfectly good photographs ruined by Photobucket's terrible compression. No photographers who care about the way their photos look should host anything on that site! Use Flickr, they use a much better method of compression than Photobucket, so the images still look vibrant and crisp even when they are resized and posted on a forum. Here's the proof, the exact same photo hosted on my Photobucket account (which I used to use a few years ago) and on my Flickr account...

Photobucket:
burdell1.jpg


Flickr:


See the difference when they're right next to each other? Photobucket's compression makes the image look dull and blurry, like my lens was dirty or I misfocused. Switch now! Photographers have no excuse! :lol:

PS: Also, Flickr lets you keep the rights to your image, which apparently Photobucket doesn't.
 
Facebook photo quality pisses me off, even though alot of people still like my photos I'll always know that the quality is horrible
Yes! Facebook seriously downgrades the photos. So does photobucket. Flickr is better, but adds noise to the photos.
 
A little late but most of this thread reminded me of this.

some-motivation-19.jpg

P.S. I actually like a little noise if done in the right setting...

P.S.S. Not sure what happened and why I quoted this but I blame it on just getting my nails done...
 
Rebecca - I am the Copyright Nazi. Please show your papers.
 
Facebook photo quality pisses me off, even though alot of people still like my photos I'll always know that the quality is horrible
Yes! Facebook seriously downgrades the photos. So does photobucket. Flickr is better, but adds noise to the photos.

Flickr doesn't add noise to images. That's absurd. You must doing it wrong!
 
Facebook photo quality pisses me off, even though alot of people still like my photos I'll always know that the quality is horrible
To add to that, Photobucket-quality photos! I absolutely hate seeing perfectly good photographs ruined by Photobucket's terrible compression. No photographers who care about the way their photos look should host anything on that site! Use Flickr, they use a much better method of compression than Photobucket, so the images still look vibrant and crisp even when they are resized and posted on a forum. Here's the proof, the exact same photo hosted on my Photobucket account (which I used to use a few years ago) and on my Flickr account...

Photobucket:
burdell1.jpg


Flickr:


See the difference when they're right next to each other? Photobucket's compression makes the image look dull and blurry, like my lens was dirty or I misfocused. Switch now! Photographers have no excuse! :lol:

PS: Also, Flickr lets you keep the rights to your image, which apparently Photobucket doesn't.

Natalie, your point is well taken. I took your advice when I 1st joined TPF, and was using Photobucket as my host service. I switched to Flickr on your advice, and the results were truly dramatic. Thanks again.
 
Cheesy sayings and bad photoshop effects. Titled anything. Bad composition. Pop up flask look.
 
Some of you are classically trained in the art of buffoonery.

Well it's nice to know that I'm classically trained in something. :-P

For some reason this reminds me of what my wife says when people ask her where she wants to go to law school: Barnum and Bailey's School of Law.

Because everyone know the legal system is a circus anyway!
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom