Photo Quality Difference between File hosts.

[Smeeeb]

Yo, i've really been getting into photography lately with this came uploading. So lately i have noticed going from lightroom exporting it out then uploading to photobucket my photos seem to loose substantial quality so i tried three of the bigger image hosts.

Firstly my trusted host Photobucket.



Secondly Imgur



And last but not least Flickr


Test by Smeeeb, on Flickr

Anyway, i just wanted to see how this turned out. Also discussion image compression and what not.

[pomme]

Imgur and Flickr seem similar quality, but colours are different. Not sure what is closer to uncompressed... looking at that oil container in the reflection off the door, and blue.

Photobucket looks like balls.

[Smeeeb]

I think i'm going to use Flickr from now, not only better quality the photos uploaded faster.

[LankyVW]

Good comparison, maybe try upload one to 500px too. Read somewhere a while back that it's better than flickr, but I've never tried it. It'd just be splitting hairs though, flickr is close enough.

[manol]

Flickr is a dedicated photography website rather than the others that are just generic 'image' hosts.
The quality will always be better unless you're uploading the uncompressed/unresized versions. In that case, it doesn't really matter.

[Smeeeb]

Photo Quality Difference between File hosts.

Compressing as in going from a RAW file to jpeg after editing?

[manol]

Compressing as in going from a RAW file to jpeg after editing?

Nah, sometimes if you upload a high res JPEG even to one of those photo upload sites, you can get them to compress the image down to a small size/resolution.

I'm guessing that different sites would use different compression methods and therefore some would be better than others.