Photobucket just shafted me

As many know, more than half my posts are usually accompanied with one or more pictures. Starting this week, Photobucket has reduced the resolution on all my 300+ picture files. All I have now are fuzzy Farmall files.

Their written response to my complaint was a bunch of "geek speak". It appears I am getting too many hits on my Photobucket account. All the hits are coming from YT.

They want me to pay for the account. I would rather find another site that's a little more generous as in "free".

Like many others here, I originally used the defunct PhotoPoint host. Six or seven years ago, they put out a cash call on everybody and threatened to wipe out the photos of those who did not cough up. Poof, I lost 200 picture files over there.

I am taking suggestions for a photo host that is a little more friendly and tolerant of my usage patterns.

I like your pictures and I wish I could help. Most everyone providing a free service is looking for a way to charge for it. Even the online newspapers won't be free forever.

I've counseled all the folks I support in my role as an IT director to never use any of the free photo hosting services as their only location for their photos for just those reasons.

How can any business survive in which they give away their product for free??

There is no guarantee that any of them might not go belly-up... The only way you can get a guaranteed service-level agreement is pay for one and even then you're not guaranteed against them going under.



Howard

Wardner; There, take that Wardner! That will show you...trying to possibly help folks out w/photos that can be more helpful than the typed word. Yea, take that Wardner. The web is at least 20% porn, but something like a true adult website like YT...we just can"t have you being so enlightening. Take that Wardner.

(quoted from post at 16:29:42 04/28/10)

I've counseled all the folks I support in my role as an IT director to never use any of the free photo hosting services as their only location for their photos

Click to expand...

nd the same for free web sites for anything else!

Without knowing what the "bunch of 'geek speak'" was, we can't make any particularly helpful suggestions about your problem. It is rather like the guy that posts a question about what year his Farmall was built but neglects to mention the model or serial number.

I suppose you could set up a second photobucket account.

i think google my have something not completely sure if it will work for posting on here
google

I'm sorry, but a couple months back I complained that sellers were overcharging shipping on parts. I knew this because I ship a lot of different packages on a daily basis...not that anyone cared. Were you not one of the people who lambasted me for it? Wasn't it you who told me to be grateful there were suppliers of parts out there and told me they would go out of business if they couldn't scam a profit on shipping (utter nonsense)? At least I was willing to pay something to ship. Now I apologize in advance if I have the wrong guy but I am pretty sure I am correct. Here is my point...why should anybody host your 200 pictures for free? Sounds like you are getting a lot of use out of their site and they would like to see you ante up a little money for the service. That is pretty unreasonable of them I guess.

Try tinypic.com it requires less typing. Hal

Dave,

That doesn't sound like my point of view. I always look at the bottom line and don't really care how a vendor itemizes customer costs. Non competitive vendors should go out of business when selling identical items widely available in the market.

I searched on "Wardner shipping" and found no posts from you among the five threads.

I am not familiar with the business model of photo hosting sites. However, the internet (including this site) is predominately free access, free content, and free interaction. This also applies to TV, libraries, and some museums among other venues. Professional sports teams could easily go to free access but charge admission to control the demand. In my life time, the Fenway Park bleacher seats were once prioed at $0.25. Movies were $0.10 and the Hollywood actors were driving Cadillacs and Porches.

As long as someone offers free hosting, I will accept their "generosity". When there is no more free hosting, I will pay.

This ain't free, but I have a MAC computer and subscribe to something called me.com. Among other things I have a gallery where I can post pretty much anything I want photo wise. Power Points, slide shows, videos.

Me.com cost me about $100.00 a year.

I think there is a similar system for PC's, but it won't work as well!!

Jim,

The following is the letter I received from Photobucket. I hope you don't fall asleep reading it. My question to them was "Why are my pictures fuzzy"

Dear [email protected],

To clarify, compression on our site is a general feature that we use for web display images on our site in order to balance the cost of bandwidth and storage ("optimization") while providing various features and overall site performance for our users. By "web display" is meant the album display or linkable images on Photobucket.com. File-size and Resolution limits are determined by your upload settings parameters.

For details on Upload Options, please refer to our Online Help Topic here:

http://pic.pbsrc.com/help/Content/Upload/SetUploadOptions.htm

After our site runs compression for web-display (linkable) images, you may notice loss of quality in some images, especially smaller files with text superimposed over the original image. Some contributing factors to quality loss however, may also be due to how the original image was created or captured, any editing software or applications used to enhance, edit, or update the image, and any superimposed or composite elements added to the image during any editing of the original (e.g. text). Please note also, that with a Pro membership, the original of every image you upload, ie. the 'high res' version - should always be available for retrieval via download button.

To help mitigate the effects of compression on the web display/linkable version of your images, especially if they are small, edited via 3rd party software, and/or have text super-imposed over them is to use your upload settings as 'ceiling/floor' parameters for the compression engine.

This means for example, if you have an original image that is 140 x 120 resolution, then the best upload setting that will keep compression at a minimum for that image or any images falling within that range would be this one: Small ( 160 x 120 ). A slightly smaller resolution setting may also help in scenarios like these also.

With this setting, the compression process will only have so much 'room' within which to optimize for storage space/bandwidth.

Any setting (whether resolution of file-size) in effect, gives the compression engine "room" within which to work with in it's algorithm-based attempts to optimize.

Thank you


Sincerely,

Your Photobucket Support Team

Al, with Scandinavian ancestors,

Ouch!!! My butt has just been kicked.

Howard H,

Nearly all the pictures in my Photobucket account are backed up on my computer.

I addressed the free content with Jim.

But Photobucket does take ads, sells photo-finishing and speciality cards. I believe the service that they give away is inferior to the service that is paid for. It is a "loss leader" for them and it may drive clients to their paid service. I won't be one of them.

Photoshop says they will transfer all my photos from Photobucket. Don't know yet if they will get the sharp or fuzzy renditions.

Hi,

I've been using the Picassa product from Google which is (currently) free. Has a limit of like 1 Gig of space but that's not been a problem so far. Let's you choose resolution/file size for upload (so you can have more small pics or fewer large pics)

Includes a software package for minor editing and organization (even for photos you keep only on your PC)... I like it..

Randy

That is terrible. If somebody working for me had written it, they would be doing it over. It appears that the problem isn't using too much storage space for your pictures, but that you are using too much band width displaying them. As you said, too many hits from this site.

I am not a Photobucket user, so my interpretation and suggestions may be all wrong.

It apears that your pictures, as stored, have not been reduced. Photobucket is reducing them when they are displayed. If so, they may return to normal next month. It appears that they have some parameter (setting) you can use to limit how much the pictures are compressed (and blurred). That limits blurry pictures, but doesn't reduce the band width used untill the limit is reached. So when you reach the limit, rather than blurry pictures, you get their little marker image that says you've hit the limit.

Things that might help prevent reaching the limit:
1) They may have a parameter you can set to somewhat reduce the size of all your pictures when they are displayed.
2) Start using somewhat smaller pictures. For example, a 1024x768 picture, if reduced to 640x480, would be welll under half the original size. I haven't gone checking your pictures to see that size most of them are.
3) Use pointers to pictures rather than putting as many in-line with the post. Let others click on the link if they want to see the pictures. This reduces repeated use of bandwidth to display what someone has already seen. Their displays will also be faster.
4) Beat the restriction by splitting half your pictures into another account.

Must have you confused with one of the other regulars hereabouts! My apologies. I like the your calm, well researched and intelligent response to the accusation. How about running for public office? It would be a refreshing change!

I read their message below, and although it is hard to understand, and they did mention their "pro" paid service, it seems as though they were trying to help you with altering your settings to keep your pictures sized like you want.

Did you try their suggestion?

Jim,

Pictures are shot are 1600 x 1200. They go into my computer and are uploaded at the same size. I believe I can reduce the size to 640 x 480 with little effect on quality. I do have some early pictures in "My Pictures" at that size and they appear to be good quality.

I have always directed Photobucket to display them, when hit, at 640 x 480. I believe this to be a convenient size for all monitors. I am assuming the bandwidth usage to forum members from Photobucket is based on 640 x 480.

I also assumed that a larger file at Photobucket would compress with more clarity than a smaller file. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding on my part.

I rather not use links for my pictures. People with dial-up service are not going to click on them. Plus I think it is rude to ask someone to click a picture link when the effort to post a picture is the same as posting a link.

I think you are right that time or the beginning of a new month will restore my service.

Here is a sample of what my pictures currently look like:



When I click Properties on this file, while the picture is at Photobucket, the size is 600 x 450. It is 640 x 480 on my computer. It is 640 x 480 when displayed here. It is much clearer in "My Pictures". I think maybe I should have used 1600 x 1200 for this example BWDIK. Let me know if you want a larger file.

My usage stats as shown on my main album page are 2% storage and 1% bandwidth. Don't know what the time interval is for bandwidth.

Thanks for helping.

Andy,

I am going to wait to see if Photobucket will reinstate better service automatically. Time may heal this wound.

Meanwhile, I have opened an account a Photoshop. If I need to post a picture, I will upload over there in the near term.

I'm out of suggestions. The picture you just posted looks pretty good to me. Are we all seeing the same quality? In that picture I can see:
Right rear tire, valve stem at bottom.
Handles for 3 hydraulic remotes.
Drain hole in seat?
Takes a pretty clear picture to see those details. Are you seeing the same?

Wardner,

Some years ago when I was looking for
a photo host it seemed most were using photo
bucket. But about 1/2 of the photos posted
would not open for me and some still don't.
At the time all the ones using imageevent
would always open and were great quality,so
that's where I went . It's 25.00 / year for
1500 photos and they do a great job.
I don't have a great camera ,just an old
2.2 mp and use the high resolution feature
which make 1800 x 1200 , then use the software
that came with the lexmark printer to resize
them to 848 x 565 before uploading , that size
seems to fit most monitors.
When setting up the host file you can set the
sizes to display . I like the imageevent as it
is easy for a computer challenged one to use.
Here is a photo and a link to the site so
you can tour around .

george

<p align="center">

Intake runners installed ,
ready to box and ship back to owner</p>
more photos

Jim,

Bingo. I can't see any of that stuff when on YT. I also can't see it when looking at my albums at Photobucket. If it weren't for the fact that I can see those details from "My Pictures", I would say that maybe I should have an eye doctor pull all the metal grinding fragments from my eyes. LOL

As long as forum members get the clear image, I guess I don't have a problem. Thanks.

Thanks for the picture, George.

I am not seeing good photo quality in your picture. The highlights or reflections on the manifold are not sharp. The box edges are not crisp.

I am beginning to think that my ISP is having a problem.

I mainly went to the Sunday nickel movie at the Victory when they had the 2 for 1 coupon in the paper. Usually the B movies but we were poor. A quarter would handle the movie and the dime bus fares uptown and back. I remember watching the Pit and the Pendulum and it scared the heck out of me. Seems like they played a lot of scary Vincent Price movies.

I read the email from photobucket and I don't see any thing sinister about it. No arm twisting to buy the pro, just a suggestion. The rest was standard geek speak we use in working through any computer problem. A very helpful email and the attitude of the poster was good and what I would want to hear from a customer service rep for a company. I received a lot worse when asking for customer service. You are a nice guy, the trick is not to read emails before you have finished your first cup of coffee. Guess I'll check around before I sign with anyone for my photos. I guess the warning is to watch for any bandwidth and resolution size restrictions.

Hi Wardner -

I don't think the ISP could be the problem. It is just a transport mechanism.

I uploaded a ton of pictures from the Bridgeport sale and posted 50-80 of them for everyone a while back.

I approached my bandwidth limit with Photobucket for quite a while after that, but they never limited me.

Can you still download a full-sized picture from them?? I'm curious as to whether they actually whacked the size of the stored file (which doesn't seem like something they'd resort to) or just limit the resolution when someone hits a link to the pic...

I'm about 60% of my storage limit with them, but have never been limited in resolution or bandwidth, so I'm puzzled by what your experiencing...

Here is a pic I uploaded a couple of weeks ago.

<a href="http://s130.photobucket.com/albums/p268/case600lp/permanent/?action=view&current=DSC_7238.jpg" target="_blank"></a>


Howard