File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Better & cheaper alternatives to Flickr (My subs ran out and they locked my older photos and dropped the max res on existing images). I have originals obviously. I'd prefer somewhere I can upload in a big batch rather than 10 images at a time max.
>> Anonymous
>>62072
I use Google and Photobucket. The only real catch to Google is that you have to install Picasa (which is slowly winning my favor). The image limit to the web album is 500 images which you can select holding shift or pressing the control button. Maximum space on both Google and Photobucket is 1 gig. Photobucket limits you to 1 meg per image for the free account. I'm not too sure about Google though. I have been able to upload pictures straight from the camera to there which generally range from 1-2 megs.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I don't know where you're coming up with that 10 image limit for uploading, dude. On the web interface, yeah, I guess, but does anyone use that? Download Flickr Uploadr or any of the various programs out there that use the flickr API. I think there's even an AJAX-y website out there specifically for uploading batches of files to flickr.
>> Anonymous
>>62075
There's actually no real need to install Picasa to use Google Picasa Web Albums.
>> Anonymous !MjcMqTX/iM
Buy your own host + domainname.
You can have a highly professional site for the same amount you pay Flickr. They're effing raping you with their costs.
>> Anonymous
>>62234
OH MY GAWD 25 dollars a fucking year for unlimited bandwidth and offsite backup. Its fucking highway robbery man. Oh and get this they'll cover everything behind the scenes so you don't even have to look at any html or a sql database.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>62255
He makes a valid point, re: professionalism, though.
>> Anonymous
>>62255
>any html or a sql database.

Because HTML is just soooo hard and an SQL database is needed to embed images into HTML documents, amirite?
>> Anonymous !MjcMqTX/iM
>>62255
Go ahead, make some business cards with a flickr address on 'em and try to score an assignment from a client. You'll never run out of bandwith with a personal site anyways. And most servers have a weekly backup, so that's included in your own site as well.
And for HTML. Well. Most of the times you WANT to look at that. It makes your site personal, instead of Flickr profile #234920. And for a personal site you do not need to know SQL. Even though SQL is even easier then HTML. ^^ Just my two cents. I still think 25 bucks is way too much for what they're offering. But feel free to choose whatever you like ofcourse, I'm not saying you should do what I tell you, I'm just saying I think you're paying too much.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>62341
I'd say SQL and HTML are equally difficult to do well. They're completely different skillsets, though, so it's a very apples/oranges comparison.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I actually just got a job as a wedding photographer with a local wedding studio based off of my flickr link.

Granted, the next step once I have a few weddings and other gigs under my belt is to make a professional website and start really selling myself.

But flickr is amazing, and at $25 a year, it's a complete steal. Show me webhosting with unlimited bandwidth and storage for less than $25 a year.
>> Anonymous
>>62345
Show me a photographer who needs unlimited bandwidth.

I'm not going to argue about storage (since it's dirt cheap nowadays?), but believe me, flickr won't give you unlimited storage and bandwidth, that's just based on normal usage predictions. If you read the fine print, you'll probably find some clauses which enables them to cut you off their service if you "abuse" them. The limits of abuse? I don't know, but maybe they aren't too far off from what you could get from cheap webhosting.

Hell, for a portfolio website, if you don't use flash, with pictures sized for web, I can't see you go far away from 100mb - you're not going to provide everyone with RAWs, right? - , and that's what free hosting providers gave away back in the day.

Plus, the professionalism of a well built site is quite priceless compared to a flickr account...
>> Anonymous
>>62341
You dumbshit. If the fuckwit can't figure out how to use flickruploader he sure as shit isn't going code his own site (no offense to OP)
Also I should note to you dumbshit tripfag that OP never said he wanted a "Professional" site to show off his "Portfolio" s/h/it just wants to be a stingy ass and use a possibly better service to upload his pictures (no offense to OP)

Note: "Dumbshit Tripfag" title does not currently apply to heavyweather. S/H/IT is still a tripfag but not a dumbass
>> Anonymous
>>62444

learn an other word than dumbshit you backwoods ass-hat
>> Anonymous
>>62072

pbase.com
>> Anonymous !4X8vLLNDE2
k
>> Anonymous !MjcMqTX/iM
>>62444
Hey, I'm just defending my point. If you can't handle that and come back at me with some valid arguments, you'd better shut up. OP asked for an alternative. I gave an alternative, and layed out the cons and pro's.
>> Anonymous
>>62444
It's not like basic HTML is hard to learn. All he would really need to know is the <html>, <body>, <a href>, and <img> tags.

Also, some people (like me) might hate bullshit like having to install a program to fully interact with a website.
>> Anonymous
pbase is not much cheaper. I may stick with Flickr. Thanks for pointing out the Flickr uploading software I did not know about that. Also I could create a website of my own but I am not a pro and it's too much hassle plus I would have to pay for web/ftp space anyhow. Also I like being able to joing groups and share stuff with other photographers on FLickr. It's fun. I looked at Pbase and it looks soooooooo much more limited.
>> Anonymous
>>62493
do you know how shitty a website would be thats built on just basic html?
>> Anonymous
Argue about web design on /g/.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, people. All photographers aren't technology oriented people. Comparing services is one thing, but telling how someone should spend their money is another. Photographers who want to look more professional should have a professionally done site, whether maintained by themselves or another person. In the end, it's all about how much cash you are willing to spend and to what degree you want to pursue photography.

Personally, a simple web album is fine for my purposes. I share a couple of shots with friends and family and that's about it. Artistic or not, I just appreciate a well taken picture, in focus and with some play of colors.
>> Anonymous
>>62456
Learn some basic grammar you dumbshit
>> Anonymous
>>62532
>Comparing services is one thing, but telling how someone should spend their money is another

No. While "different strokes for different folks" is true, something like this inherently involves telling someone how to spend their money, just like the ten-thousand "recommend me a camera, /p/!" threads we get.

In fact, the OP was pretty much explicitly ASKING us how he should spend his money.

>>62530
It would look simple, sure, but website design these days is so damned overwrought. While the ideal isn't a simple white page with black text and links on it, it's closer to the ideal than the "over 9000 hours in MS Frontpage" approach.

>>62532
>Argue about web design on /g/.

Sorry.