3rd Party Image Hosting feature

[Don Tomas]

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/forum/images/editor/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!

[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.

[Don Tomas]

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?

[LM]

No..I didn't...but I removed my thanks and redid it and all is OK...Oh Well:lol:

[Gladiator]

Thanks DT for the link!

OK, let’s see the difference.

With ISOC:

http://news.insearchofchicas.org/forum/imagehosting/41684748f1dc6da6e.jpg

With the new third-party one:

http://content.imagesocket.com/images/Spinner095.JPG (http://imagesocket.com/view/Spinner095.JPG)

[Don Tomas]

Thanks Gladiator,

I am on the laptop right now and can't see a difference will look tonight on my new monitor!

[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.

[Don Tomas]

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/ErikS_/Nov2007/Bus/1-12/IMGP0525.jpg

vbImagehost
http://news.insearchofchicas.org/forum/imagehosting/35314749ef501a653.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.

[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:

[Gladiator]

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.

[WSJ3]

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.

[Don Tomas]

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.


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.

[Kevy]

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.


Ok here's an ErikS' pic:

Photobucket
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a50/ErikS_/Nov2007/Bus/1-12/IMGP0525.jpg

vbImagehost
http://news.insearchofchicas.org/forum/imagehosting/35314749ef501a653.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.
Look at the picture in post 188 of this thread
http://news.insearchofchicas.org/forum/showthread.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.