3rd Party Image Hosting feature
I have developed an interface for third party image hosting with a site that accepts hardcore adult pics!
Just click on the button http://news.insearchofchicas.org/for...r/uploadis.gifand follow the directions in the popup window. Then after hitting "Upload" you will be directed to the hoster's site and provided the [IMG] tags. Please note they do reduce the overall resolution size of uploaded pics by 75%, but no reduction in quality!
PS. ISOC in NO WAY guarantees the pictures you may upload to this site!
Re: 3rd Party Image Hosting feature
Went to give you "thanks" for the above post and I get this....:confused: but the "thanks" still works
LM, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Re: 3rd Party Image Hosting feature
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LM
Went to give you "thanks" for the above post and I get this....:confused: but the "thanks" still works
LM, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Odd your thanks showed up, did you copy the URL by chance?
Re: 3rd Party Image Hosting feature
No..I didn't...but I removed my thanks and redid it and all is OK...Oh Well:lol:
Re: 3rd Party Image Hosting feature
Re: 3rd Party Image Hosting feature
Thanks Gladiator,
I am on the laptop right now and can't see a difference will look tonight on my new monitor!
Re: 3rd Party Image Hosting feature
Oh of course there is no difference if you are using a Fred Flinstone camera.
But if you have a High Def 7 megapixel image you will notice the difference.
Hey I was just making a suggestion, please continue to post pictures using the ISOC hosting solution.
Who am I to gainsay any alleged difference in picture quality.
Just a thought look at any of ErikS' threads and compare and contrast the pictures that he posts using Photobucket and the ones using ISOC and tell me that there is no difference.
Re: 3rd Party Image Hosting feature
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WSJ3
Just a thought look at any of ErikS' threads and compare and contrast the pictures that he posts using Photobucket and the ones using ISOC and tell me that there is no difference.
Ok here's an ErikS' pic:
Photobucket
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a50...2/IMGP0525.jpg
vbImagehost
http://news.insearchofchicas.org/for...9ef501a653.jpg
Again on this laptop I can't see any difference. But the original pic is only 77kb, definitely something not from a 7 megapixel camera or if it was it's been coverted already.
Re: 3rd Party Image Hosting feature
I definitely find a difference with Image Shack and the Image Host here...and I upload pics that are at 1024x768....
Sometimes it significant...to my eyes anyway:lol:
Re: 3rd Party Image Hosting feature
The pic of the Thai spinner I posted below was taken with an Olympus FE-120, 6.0 megapixels - it's not professional equipment but isn't Flintstones' standard either
I obviously do see a difference when I compare my original with the below 2 compresed by the server, but from what I can see the difference between those 2 compresed pics below is minimal.
Re: 3rd Party Image Hosting feature
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LM
I definitely find a difference with Image Shack and the Image Host here...and I upload pics that are at 1024x768....
Sometimes it significant...to my eyes anyway:lol:
That was exactly the point that I was trying to make.
If the site is going to strive for excellence in other areas why not do the same for the images.
Granted the server has space issues but there are other image hosting solutions available that are far better than the ISOC hosting solution.
Re: 3rd Party Image Hosting feature
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LM
I definitely find a difference with Image Shack and the Image Host here...and I upload pics that are at 1024x768....
Sometimes it significant...to my eyes anyway:lol:
Try the new 3rd party hoster and let me know then, hence the point of this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WSJ3
That was exactly the point that I was trying to make.
If the site is going to strive for excellence in other areas why not do the same for the images.
Granted the server has space issues but there are other image hosting solutions available that are far better than the ISOC hosting solution.
Your words "far better" might be a stretch considering Gladiator's 6.0mp example. But again you requested an alternative for our users and again that is what this post is about; an alternative site that excepts even hardcore pics with a simple to use interface.
Re: 3rd Party Image Hosting feature
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WSJ3
Oh of course there is no difference if you are using a Fred Flinstone camera.
But if you have a High Def 7 megapixel image you will notice the difference.
Hey I was just making a suggestion, please continue to post pictures using the ISOC hosting solution.
Who am I to gainsay any alleged difference in picture quality.
Just a thought look at any of ErikS' threads and compare and contrast the pictures that he posts using Photobucket and the ones using ISOC and tell me that there is no difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Don Tomas
Look at the picture in post 188 of this thread
http://news.insearchofchicas.org/for...ad.php?t=55822
THis is the example of the quality loss. The faces get all wrinkled. There are other pictures in this thread in Photobucket that do not have that distortion. I think this is the point WSJ3 is making.
