photobucket:


Flickr:

 

um first photo doesn't show up.

 

its even larger and it's sharper/crisper!

 

u know u can tell PB to make the images larger for larger screens and all that?

 

meh, flickr is sharp at all the sizes it already provides

 

Dude, Alas, I was looking at your Flickr last night..

to you.

 

your own server > all

 

lol

 

alas has some incredible incredible work,

and ericson its sciontc'06 from ystc aka jake hahah

 

i LOVE flickr. i researched many sites before choosing flickr as my photo-home. everyone told me to get smugmug but it was just too "look at me i think im a professional" when people really aren't. black frames around your picture with a little watermark does not make you photos any better! lol.

the only thing i wish flickr did was have a size between medium and large. i want to be able to post photos places that are like 640 wide but am stuck with either 500 (too small) and 1024 (too large).

oh well, maybe one day im hoping they will add more sizes.

 

i switched to flickr. IT IS a lot better than photobucket.

snow: what do you mean that they will add more sizes? can't you just upload the image size you want and go from there? i know i did that and they did not crop my image, unlike photobucket, that they have specific sizes that you have to go.

 

i have a question.
Ive been using flickr and it wasnt until this thread I heard about smugmug.


Im fairly new to the photography world but extremely familiar with the photoshop world.
I dont get it. whats the general rule of photography in terms of post processing?

Ive always thought minimal to no processing was what most photographers do? but when I look at popular rated photos on smugmug many of them have been run through photoshop and completely processed, altered and enhanced dramatically, but are incredibly beautiful and captivating to look at... Ive always thought photographers frowned upon heavy alterations? Was my thinking incorrect? Ive been working with photoshop long enough to know what there are heavy filters and alterations applied to a photograph.

I remember taking a digital imaging photo class and they told me it was frowned upon to do heavy alterations or to add or subtract from a photo something that wasn't there.
whats the street knowledge on this topic? im confused on what the ethics code is for the serious photographers world is?

 

Personally, about 95% of my photos are raw from the camera. i dont like doing post processing even though i know that they could help my shots dramatically. i think its all up to the photographer/editor depending on what he/she is trying to get accross in the picture.

 

all pro work is post processed like crazy. That is one of the main differences is cause amateurs don't know how to use PS. Also the main reason pros shoot in RAW format.

 

that why i hate it that some people make a profession out of photography when all theyre good at is editing.

 

i spent about 2 seconds in photoshop if i really want to. the majority are raw.

 

Since we're discussing hosts.. I don't like smug mug's lay out. Photobucket compresses. Flickr is great for a free host. Your own server does own all but I'd rather not pay for it at the level I'm at right now.
The only thing photobucket's got goin' for it is the instant copying.

Some more crap from a 365 project:

 

Happy Holidays? =D
50mm f/1.8

 

how did you get the highlights to form hearts?

thats freakin badass.

 

clean shots alas and dope shot joes.