Comparison of free hosting sites

S

Steveo_Hants

Suspended / Banned
Messages
763
Edit My Images
Yes
I just wanted to do a test between 2 popular hosting sites as I believe the last photo I uploaded was lacking in quality after I had hosted it.

Photobucket:
DSC_0618.jpg


Flickr:
2318000113_92caaac8ff_o.jpg
 
So there is a big difference in the colours. Anyone else had a problem with this?
 
Really? The first one is so washed out on my MacBook, the red trails in the second one are so much more vivid. Any idea why?
 
Peas in a pod from here too as far as colour goes. :shrug:

The Flickr shot is the better though, as it's a larger file and suffering less from compression. Consequently, it's sharper and has the better tonal range.
 
looking at it in safari (a colour managed browser) the colour looks much better in the flickr image
but looking in IE or firefox they look the same to me
 
Jamess can you expand on the colour managed browser thing please? Never heard about this before.
 
Here is a screen shot showing part of both photo's on my MacBook in Safari. You can see the difference.

2318060293_dc961e2b8f_o.jpg
 
Safari works a bit like Photoshop in that it is aware of the monitor profile and the colour space the image is seen in.

I.E.and Firefox don't and just work on screen pixels. There is a beta version of safari for PC, and viewing you post in Firefox and Safari, on a calibrated and profiled system I can't see any difference. Can you post a link to these images so I can have a look at the "raw" data
 
OK quick update.

Got the location of the images from the properties info , hope you don't mind.

Looked at both in Safari. There is a difference, but a very small one. Photobox looks slightly more saturated. And I mean only slightly. You only see it flicking from one to the other. repeated the test in Firefox same difference. Just opened I E 7 , this is getting complicated, here I see the reverse Fliker looks very slightly more saturated.

Don't know what this proves ???????:shrug:
 
Repeated the tests with your link.. Same
 
Ok thanks Chappers, do you see as much of a difference as I get in my screen shot above?
 
No the difference is so small you could really miss it . As I said it's only when you flick from one to the other in tabs that you see it. It looks like a red saturation diffrence, but as there are really no other colours then is difficult to say if its just one colour or all over. In Photoshop terms I would think about 5-7 sat units if that.

It's strange that you are seeng a much greater difference than any one else. May be a Mac thing I don't know. Would be interesting if any one else viewing on a Mac sees the same effect as you
 
On my Firefox browser the photobucket one isn't as good as the flickr shot, it's actually quite noticable when you look hard enough. Once you see it you can't stop seeign it.

The red trails seem slightly defoccused/fatter trails and not as vibrant as the flickr version.

This is on a dell 24" 2407 monitor, colour managed with a spider 3 elite.

Is there some sort of compression going on?
 
Byker28i said:
On my Firefox browser the photobucket one isn't as good as the flickr shot, it's actually quite noticable when you look hard enough. Once you see it you can't stop seeign it.

The red trails seem slightly defoccused/fatter trails and not as vibrant as the flickr version.

This is on a dell 24" 2407 monitor, colour managed with a spider 3 elite.

Is there some sort of compression going on?
Click to expand...

The Photobucket file is only 74 kb against the 365 kb of the Flickr one.
 
This may be part of the problem... JPEG tends to compress the colour information more than the luminance. But it is strange why some people see the problem and others don't
 
I viewing in Safari and can't see any difference in colour. The Flickr one appears to be a fair bit sharper though.
 
The flickr image is a bit lighter than the photobucket one on my screen. You cant see the strays of light from most of the lampposts in the photobucket image whereas i can see them all in the flickr image. No idea how im viewing it...

But i use photobucket and i find sometimes when viewing images they aren't as smooth as the original..
 
So Photobucket compresses photos more then Flickr.
 
Jayst84 said:
Huuuge difference on Safari my Macbook Pro. Flickr one is sharper, more saturated, better contrast. Can see a lot of artifacts in the Photobucket one too. But as said all probably just from the compression.
Click to expand...

Flickr is the future then!!!!!!
 
I still love those Pictures, no noticeable difference this end

Tony :thumbs:
 
Wow! Firefox not much of a difference.
Safari there is a big difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top