# Flickr Vs. Photobucket



## Dory2006

Sorry if it this is in the wrong place. 

My Photobucket is full. It's got 700 MB of pics on it. 

My Flickr is full. It has 198 pics (you can have 200). 

I like both, but today, when I right clicked on my pic to paste it in a forum (usually I go to properties and copy and paste the link), it wouldn't let me. Flickr didn't have the "properties" thing there anymore. I guess that's to keep people from stealing your pics, but if I can't post my pics on forums, then what's the point of having them online? 

Photobucket is $24.95 a year for 25 GB of storage (on top of the 700 MB I already have in use) and unlimited bandwidth. I like Photobucket quite, but I haven't done a lot of browsing there. Does Photobucket have groups like Flickr does? 

Flickr is $24.95 a year for Unlimited uploads and storage and unlimited sets and collections. I like the unlimited part. And I like the groups flickr has. 

Both deals seem about the same, except that Flickr has unlimited storage and Photobucket has 25 GB, which I know it huge also. 

For those of you familiar with both, is either better? Which is easier for users to browse? Which do you prefer?

My photobucket really needs some reorganizing and I need to name my photos. I haven't done that yet. My flickr could use some tidying up, too. 

I'm not a professional photographer. Just an amateur. But I like people being able to see my pictures. Also, should I put a watermark (or whatever it is called) on my pics and how would I do that? 

Also, if I upgrade my Photobucket, it would be easier to say (most of my pics are here), rather than having 2 different places each with a lot of pics. I have 700 MB of pics on my Photobucket. 

Any other photo storage sites you would recommend? Or just general advice on the topic? 

Thanks. 

Here's my photobucket. I need to organize it better. 
Pictures by LeannaW1989 - Photobucket
And my Flickr. Could use some better organization, too. 
Flickr: jesus_mysuperhero's Photostream


----------



## Rekd

I've used photobucket (free) for years. It's always been slow and clunky, if you know what I mean.

I signed up for flickr this month and absolutely love it. I researched which account I wanted to pay for and flickr beat photobucket hands down. It's clean, quick and reliable with no limits. It's worth the 25 bucks a year just for having ALL my photos backed up off-site. :thumbup:


----------



## Dory2006

I read that if you post a Flickr image on another site, you have to link back to the photo's page on Flickr. I don't despise doing that, but that would be a pain. If you don't link back to the site all the time, will Flickr close your account?

What about Webshots? Is that any good?

I signed up for a free Webshots account, to give it a try. If I do upgrade something, it probably won't be until after the holidays are over.

This is the only pic on Webshots for now. Doesn't look too bad. 
It lets you pick what size to post the image as, which is nice. 
You can also order prints directly on that site. 
425



600


----------



## musicaleCA

Flickr gets more traffic, does a whole heck of a lot of a better job presenting your images, and come'on, unlimited uploads, downloads, and storage for $25 A YEAR? That's a steal. A mighty fine steal. And their ToS isn't scary neither.

Flickr, hands-down, without question. That or Smugmug, though where Smugmug fills one niche, I've decided that that particular niche was better filled with my own website instead.


----------



## Garbz

Haven't heard of any user being kicked off flicker for not linking back.

Flickr have only done this on the image page. If you click the "all sizes" button you get not only the ability to click properties, but also a big button that gives you a direct link to the image, oh and a choice of various different sizes too.

It's only your 200 most recent images that you're limited too, and not 200 in total. Also it only prevents you from browsing all 200, so if you linked image number 1 on an online forum somewhere via a direct link, that will still work just fine. I am happily running more than 200 images without a pro account


----------



## Overread

#Photobucket has some nasty bits to its terms and conditions - essentaily they can use any image hosted on their website for any finanical gain without having to pay or inform the owner - they don't do this and say they won't ever BUT the clause is stil present in their TOS. Though you can revoke that right be removing the image at any time it does somewhat defeat the point of an image host.
Flickr is far better in that its TOS are photographer friendly and heck just look at the pricings  - long term flickr is far cheaper and better for the photographer because that 25GB you will fill oneday and then what will you do? Pay more to photobucket? Go for flickr where you have no limits. 
The other nice perk is that flickr is also a socail based website aimed at photographers and whilst most groups revolve around simply giving out comments and awards to each other there are many which are very worth while being a member of. In addition to being able to easily watch fellow photographers be they friends, contacts  or just people you really admire the work of.

For me it was worth the hastle of moving everything to flickr - organising it - reposting it all to me blog and paying their annual fee.


----------



## robertwsimpson

if you click on "all sizes" above your picture and then go to the medium size, you can still get the URL for your photo.

hope that helps.


----------



## Hobbes

if your photobucket account is full all you have to do is creating a new one. I have two accounts there  but I have to agree Flickr is way better.


----------



## bigtwinky

robertwsimpson said:


> if you click on "all sizes" above your picture and then go to the medium size, you can still get the URL for your photo.
> 
> hope that helps.


 
Thats what I was going to say.  You can pick various sizes to post your image by clicking on the ALL SIZES link right above the image.

When you select the size, there will be some URLs down below you can copy / paste to a forum or what not.

I much prefer flickr over photobucket.  I had photobucket for years but ditched it about a year go for flickr.  Photobucket is great for random images.  I find flickr much better for photography


----------



## farmerj

I use photobucket and Picassa.

I have yet to do it with my current ISP, but I used to have a 10 GB storage with Qwest when I had DSL.

The benefit of that?  I wasn't having my images edited or resolution messed with by the host.  What I put up was exactly what I had on the web.


----------



## robertwsimpson

I'm pretty sure that's the case with Flickr.  At least they don't seem to edit photos in any way.


----------



## CW Jones

Flickr hands down.


----------



## Big Mike

What about just registering your own site and some cheap hosting?  You don't have groups and all that BS...but then you don't have all that BS


----------



## robertwsimpson

hosting your own site = ~$100 per year
flickr = $25 per year


----------



## Dory2006

Thanks, everybody. 

I'll keep all you've said in mind.

I signed up for a free webshots, which gives me space for 1000 pictures, so I don't need to upgrade any of my accounts yet. Each month you're a member you can post 100 more pictures. 

Webshots, if you want to upgrade, is $19.99/year for 5000 photos and 500 more for each month of membership. 

Flickr seems best for sharing pics, but both are good for storing them. Webshots lets you order pictures and put them on mugs and cards and stuff. Granted, you can do that with other sites, but it's handy that you can order prints right through Webshots.  
Flickr Pro is unlimited space. Photobucket Pro is 25 GB and Webshots pro is 5000 pictures with 500 added each month. 
Price: Flickr - $24.95 a year. Photobucket - $24.95 a year. Webshots - $19.99 a year. 

I don't know. I still can't decide. I'll use Webshots for a while and maybe after Christmas I'll decide something. 

I do appreciate your advice.


----------



## PhotoXopher

I use SmugMug, I guess I'm an outsider


----------



## Big Mike

> hosting your own site = ~$100 per year


It doesn't have to be that much...but it's more than $25.


----------



## itznfb

Does flickr still mess with the color space?
I also didn't like flickr because any image I uploaded was almost instantly stolen. Obviously this can happen anywhere but it seems to be rampant on flickr.


----------



## CW Jones

Hmm I have never had an issue with Flickr.... colors seem to be much better than on photobucket. I also have never had anything stolen from me (to my knowledge) on there. I probably have nothing worth stealing but it still seems pretty safe. Especially if you put the images so only friends and family can see them


----------



## NateWagner

yeah, I'm hosting my website for a year for 44bucks, not too bad at all.. especially since I can put anything on there not just images. And it allows me to host my own website and blog as well.


----------



## musicaleCA

itznfb said:


> Does flickr still mess with the color space?
> I also didn't like flickr because any image I uploaded was almost instantly stolen. Obviously this can happen anywhere but it seems to be rampant on flickr.



Go sue them then and look at Flickr as a wonderful way to make money.  

And what the heck do you mean by "mess with the colour space"?


----------



## Rekd

NateWagner said:


> yeah, I'm hosting my website for a year for 44bucks, not too bad at all.. especially since I can put anything on there not just images. And it allows me to host my own website and blog as well.



I considered that method also. However I quickly realized that the upload and display features in Flickr make it much easier than loading up a ton of photos then trying to categorize them.

I suppose I could use a photo album package but I haven't found one that I like yet that falls into my "free" budget.


----------



## NateWagner

well, that's true, although you can just do it by uploading the images via FTP in their own folders. So basically you categorize them prior to uploading. 

I do agree that for ease of use etc. Flickr etc. is great. I wouldn't host myself just for pictures, I mostly do it because I want the website, and hosting the other stuff is just gravy.


----------



## itznfb

CW Jones said:


> Hmm I have never had an issue with Flickr.... colors seem to be much better than on photobucket. I also have never had anything stolen from me (to my knowledge) on there. I probably have nothing worth stealing but it still seems pretty safe. Especially if you put the images so only friends and family can see them



I believe Photobucket uses a compression algorithm when you upload jpg's. Not 100% sure on that but it would be a good reason as to why they don't look as good on Photobucket.



musicaleCA said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does flickr still mess with the color space?
> I also didn't like flickr because any image I uploaded was almost instantly stolen. Obviously this can happen anywhere but it seems to be rampant on flickr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go sue them then and look at Flickr as a wonderful way to make money.
> 
> And what the heck do you mean by "mess with the colour space"?
Click to expand...


Egh, if they were commercial shots I would care more. Plus I'm pretty sure flickr couldn't be held liable in any way.

This was a couple years ago so they may not do it anymore but they used to strip out the color profile/space when you uploaded a jpg. So your photo on your PC may not match what gets uploaded.


----------



## yogibear

Im all for flikr.  Photobucket does nothing special for me that I cannot already do on flikr.  Im finally getting to the point where I want to show off some of my images on my own website.  However Flikr has served me well over the years and being able to link to sets of images has helped organize and point clients to previews.  

RIP photobucket

/love flikr


----------



## itznfb

If you have a spare computer you're willing to leave run 24/7 you can easily host your own website for about $10/yr or less with the purchase of a domain name and a DynDNS registration (Free).


----------



## musicaleCA

itznfb said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does flickr still mess with the color space?
> I also didn't like flickr because any image I uploaded was almost instantly stolen. Obviously this can happen anywhere but it seems to be rampant on flickr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go sue them then and look at Flickr as a wonderful way to make money.
> 
> And what the heck do you mean by "mess with the colour space"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Egh, if they were commercial shots I would care more. Plus I'm pretty sure flickr couldn't be held liable in any way.
> 
> This was a couple years ago so they may not do it anymore but they used to strip out the color profile/space when you uploaded a jpg. So your photo on your PC may not match what gets uploaded.
Click to expand...


Oh please, I wasn't talking about suing Flickr. There's a perfectly clear clause in the ToS that protects them from other people stealing your images. I meant the people stealing your images. 

As for stripping colour space, nope, doesn't happen. Of course, that won't stop anyone from being dumb and uploading JPEGs in ProPhoto or Adobe RGB and making them look like muck to the rest of the world.


----------



## Renol

Personally I like photobucket, but its more because that's what I'm used to. I don't have my account on public access though as according to the TOS (as pointed out previously) they can use your photos if its on public. Typically though I use it for posting simple stuff on the net or showing off a bunch of photos at once to my friends. For the shots I think are best and want to share to many, I post up on deviantart.


----------



## Garbz

itznfb said:


> This was a couple years ago so they may not do it anymore but they used to strip out the color profile/space when you uploaded a jpg. So your photo on your PC may not match what gets uploaded.



If they did, or still do it doesn't matter. You can't upload an image that is not the standard sRGB space on the internet and expect to see the correct colours. More likely flickr's uploaded didn't understand colour spaces, in which case you still can't upload pictures to the internet and expect to see the correct colours. 

If an image is stripped of it's colour space it is assumed to be sRGB. If you upload sRGB like you should then you don't have an issue. Browsers in general aren't colour aware.



itznfb said:


> If you have a spare computer you're willing to leave run 24/7 you can easily host your own website for about $10/yr or less with the purchase of a domain name and a DynDNS registration (Free).



I actually do this with http://www.garbz.com. That redirects to a small linux box I have here running Apache, with one little twist. I have loaded the flickr API into my website so that my galleries are auto generated from what is on that flickr account. That way my website stays snappy even when I am hammering my internet connection, or more importantly my computer games stay snappy when someone is hammering my website


----------

