online image storage comparison

[realspeed]

done with image shack SRGB

photo bucket version






Flicker version



Still its an interesting comparison between online storage systems done exactly the same to put on here.

Comments welcomed on different version quality not so much on the actual photos themselves as that was not the intention of posting them

Realspeed

 

[Lyonspride]

Hmmm, I don't get it.... Why should there be any difference?
Another reason why I prefer to host my own images......

 

[Pookeyhead]

The first one is embedded with sRGB, the second and third have no profile attached. If the hosting is removing the profile, then that's why.


Having said that, your third example is Flickr, which I know doesn't alter anything... so it's looking like the fault may be something you are doing.


Hang on.. let me see....

Flickr

Photobucket

Image Shack

Imgur

There are differences in JPEG compression, with Photobucket being the worst, but gamma and colour are the same for me... you're doing something wrong. Flickr appears to add sharpening to it's smaller previews... which can be annoying if you've already done so.


Are you embedding your images with a colour profile? You need to save with sRGB as the ICC colour profile, or they'll be problems online.

 

[realspeed]

David you might well be right but it really shouldn't make that amont of difference. Have to say it was done on my old work computer not my one i use for photographic work

Realspeed

 

[Pookeyhead]

An image not having a profile can make a MASSIVE difference in some browsers actually. I uploaded some to the same hosting services you did, and had no colour differences whatsoever. That should demonstrate exactly how important it is to tag images with sRGB when posting to the net.