Flickr vs. Photobucket

[Beast95]

Nobody has said Imageshack? I use imageshack.... its perfect in my opinion because it is barebones. All you do is upload a picture.

It doesn't compress photos
Saves all EXIF data
Doesn't resize either (unless you ask it to; then it will!)
There are no limits
Unlimited amount of pictures also
Gives you direct links
Easy to share on forums
Easy to manage and delete pictures

....You dont even need an account. I have one, because that way i have access to my files forever. But it's not required.

Why is this not popular, I dont know. But i like it a lot!

 

[Natalie]

Flickr vs. Photobucket is a no-brainer. Photobucket makes your photos look like crap and also owns the rights to your photos once you upload them (read the fine print). IMO, no one who really cares about their photography should be using Photobucket.

As for a comparison, here's the example I normally use. Same exact photo, same exact size, the only difference is the hosting site.

Photobucket:

Flickr:




Huge difference between the two! The Photobucket one looks terrible, like someone smeared Vaseline on my lens. The Flickr one looks like the file I have on my computer.

 

[Overread]

Whatever service you use I always advise people to make the big change in file size themselves. If you're going to be showing or the service will limit you to (say) 1000pixels on the longest side then make the 1000pixel on the longest side file yourself. You can then use your own sharpening codes on that rather than relying on the webservices which (as shown) vary a lot in the quality of code that they use. It also lets you vary sharpening amounts after resizing as some shots will want more or less (again this is an area where web-services are just applying a standard value to each shot regardless of the shots content).

 

[480sparky]

...... Photobucket....... owns the rights to your photos once you upload them (read the fine print). .........

Yes...... let's.

You retain all your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or while using Photobucket. This means that YOU own ALL the Content you post,

 

[Natalie]

You forgot the rest of it.

• If you make your Content public, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to copy, distribute, publicly perform (e.g., stream it), publicly display (e.g., post it elsewhere), reproduce and create derivative works from it (meaning things based on it), anywhere, whether in print or any kind of electronic version that exists now or later developed, for any purpose, including a commercial purpose.
• You are also giving other Users the right to copy, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and create derivative works from it via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, via services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content, and via social media websites).

 

[Overread]

And a few lines down:

If you make your Content public, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to copy, distribute, publicly perform (e.g., stream it), publicly display (e.g., post it elsewhere), reproduce and create derivative works from it (meaning things based on it), anywhere, whether in print or any kind of electronic version that exists now or later developed, for any purpose, including a commercial purpose.

You are also giving other Users the right to copy, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and create derivative works from it via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, via services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content, and via social media websites).

Terms of Use - photobucket.com

I notice that its easier to read, but that it now includes transfer of rights not just to them but to any user - of course this is only for public content not private albums and its revoked once you remove content from their services, but it still very grabby. Flickr (as an example) does not make any claims to your work nor copyright/licence transfer (save to grant them permission to display your work in accordance with the services you want - it to allow them to show it online).

edit - I'm getting slow it seems beaten by a whole minute!

 

[480sparky]

Key words here:

If you make your Content public..........

Don't make your content public. Problem solved.

 

[bhop]

Wow.. glad I never got a photobucket account.

 

[bhop]

Key words here:

If you make your Content public..........

Don't make your content public. Problem solved.

That's the difference I guess.. I like my photos being public via flickr. I can 'show off' my stuff to lots of people, but I still get to keep the rights to all of it. I guess if you want to limit who you show your stuff to then photobucket is fine.

 

[480sparky]

That's the difference I guess.. I like my photos being public via flickr. I can 'show off' my stuff to lots of people, but I still get to keep the rights to all of it. I guess if you want to limit who you show your stuff to then photobucket is fine.

The same is true for FB if you make your Content "Private". The images I post here are in Private folders, yet you still see it.

 

[Natalie]

Key words here:

If you make your Content public..........

Don't make your content public. Problem solved.

And for that they say:

Remember: if you share it from the Site, it's no longer private, even if you marked it "private."

So if you show it to anyone, you're granting them and Photobucket the right to basically do whatever they want with the photo. The only way you can avoid their power-hungry terms of use is if you upload it and then don't show it to anyone, which kind of defeats the purpose of hosting the photo on there in the first place. There really isn't a good reason to use Photobucket.

 

[Overread]

That's the difference I guess.. I like my photos being public via flickr. I can 'show off' my stuff to lots of people, but I still get to keep the rights to all of it. I guess if you want to limit who you show your stuff to then photobucket is fine.

The same is true for FB if you make your Content "Private". The images I post here are in Private folders, yet you still see it.

Aye true, and for photobucket its not too big an issue since the site hasn't as much of a social aspect to it so you can set an account to private and not miss out on much. However if you head over to somewhere like flickr you can have an open account and have anyone catch sight of your work (should you want to).

edit - Nat - ooh that is crafty wording. I missed that, but its sneaky indeed on their part!

 

[bhop]

That's the difference I guess.. I like my photos being public via flickr. I can 'show off' my stuff to lots of people, but I still get to keep the rights to all of it. I guess if you want to limit who you show your stuff to then photobucket is fine.

The same is true for FB if you make your Content "Private". The images I post here are in Private folders, yet you still see it.

Yeah, but this thread is about Flickr vs Photobucket.. not FB

 

[ElenaIuliana]

an experiment to see the differences sounds great!