+Derbyshire Dave Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 Hi, I was bemoaning the fact that Flickr does not allow you to show photos at full resolution. But also been thinking about how we store photos in the cloud and how we access them , and what is the most storage you can get for free. So I've been looking around at the various options for photo saving and sharing this morning. Found this article this morning .. https://www.theverge.com/21561171/photo-storage-service-google-amazon-flickr Really interesting article showing the various options for cloud storage generally. This obviously doesn't include specialist astronomy sites such as Astrobin. As Amazon Prime members we can store "unlimited photos" and some videos at no extra cost. Might be worth considering if you already have Prime membership. It does allow viewing to 100%, although the link embeds as a hyperlink in EMS, rather than a nice automatic photo you can click on like a Flickr link. Craig.. maybe you could advise on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 When you say full resolution, are you talking about the likes of uncompressed TIF images, or compressed JPG images? If the latter, if you upload say a 6000 x 4000 pixel 4Mbyte JPG image to Flickr, does it compress the image further by just increasing the compression so it is still 6000 x 4000 pixel but only 1Mbyte or does it reduce the image size so that it is a 3000 x 2000 pixel 1Mbyte image at the same compression? +Derbyshire Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Derbyshire Dave Posted October 21, 2022 Author Share Posted October 21, 2022 Hii, It's interesting Clive. Yes, I'm talking about jpgs, Tiff's would take up too much space. I think in the past I have uploaded Tiffs and the screen stretch is the same, so doesn't solve the problem. I don't know what Flickr does internally, but it would appear that the maximum it will show is about 33% of full scale. The left hand image is a snip at 100%. The right hand image is how it is presented on Flickr. I think realistically 100% might be too much to show, but certainly 50% would be nice. The amazon photo image dispays in EMS at 100%, but when you paste the hyperlink in, it appears as a link, rather than as an image which you can click on and expand. I'll message Craig to see if he has an answer to the link thing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 (edited) I guess they are doing some form of binning then? If you upload a X by Y image to flickr I wonder what size you view it (or can download it) at? Edited October 21, 2022 by Clive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 It's linking that way because of the way Amazon serves up images. You're not loading the image directly even when viewing it full screen, it's in a wrapper designed by Amazon to stop exactly the kind of hot-linking you're trying to do. An image link would typically end in a file extension (e.g., .jpeg) or, when the URL is pasted, the forum software would be able to identify the content type as an image. In this case, it doesn't have a filename extension and the content type is identified as a webpage. I'm not surprised Amazon has done it this way. Allowing hot linking of images doesn't yield any commercial benefit to Amazon. It wants you to view the image on Amazon because then it can try to sell something to the viewer (e.g., an Amazon Prime membership). +Derbyshire Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Derbyshire Dave Posted October 21, 2022 Author Share Posted October 21, 2022 5 minutes ago, Craig said: It's linking that way because of the way Amazon serves up images. You're not loading the image directly even when viewing it full screen, it's in a wrapper designed by Amazon to stop exactly the kind of hot-linking you're trying to do. An image link would typically end in a file extension (e.g., .jpeg) or, when the URL is pasted, the forum software would be able to identify the content type as an image. In this case, it doesn't have a filename extension and the content type is identified as a webpage. I'm not surprised Amazon has done it this way. Allowing hot linking of images doesn't yield any commercial benefit to Amazon. It wants you to view the image on Amazon because then it can try to sell something to the viewer (e.g., an Amazon Prime membership). Appreciate the full explanation Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now