|
I used to host all sorts of images on Photobucket and have had an account there almost since the service was created, but this new auto-resizing of large images bullshit means I can no longer use it. I mostly have game screenshots on mine right now, plus a few other misc things, so I don't need a ton of storage. I am willing to pay for a good service if no free alternatives exist. I would like something with:
Do any image hosting services like this exist? I really don't want to have to get some webspace and FTP everything if I don't have do, but that may be my next best option at this point. Thanks for any suggestions!
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 00:08 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 18:54 |
|
|
What is your preferred way of adding new files? Amazon S3 might be an option: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3...iteHosting.html Seems to fit all your requirements. Variety of different ways to get files up to S3 so you could probably find one that fits your preference. You also only pay for the resources you use, and it's really cheap.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 02:59 |
|
|
Woah. I had never looked into that before; thanks for the suggestion. I always assumed S3 was for huge websites and stuff, but if it will handily work for hosting a couple hundred MB of images (with prices going up into the PB, I doubt I'd even show up on their radar), then why not! It seems fairly simple for what I want to do, i.e. just dumping static content into a "bucket" and then linking it out on the internet. Is there anything more to it than that?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:35 |
|
|
Buff Skeleton posted:Woah. I had never looked into that before; thanks for the suggestion. I always assumed S3 was for huge websites and stuff, but if it will handily work for hosting a couple hundred MB of images (with prices going up into the PB, I doubt I'd even show up on their radar), then why not! I think that's about all there is to it. You can even get a firefox extension called s3fox to manage your bucket from your browser. There are also programs you can get to map a networked drive to your S3 bucket, so you can access it just like it's a regular hard drive. I don't know of any free programs for that though, I think you gotta pay for them.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:54 |
|
|
Welp, this seems to work pretty well. The management interface leaves a little to be desired, but not enough to dampen the benefits of the service. And if I ever end up somehow using enough storage or bandwidth to require paying for it, it'll be dirt cheap. S3Fox also makes it a lot nicer. Thanks again for the suggestion! I will probably even use this as a cloud backup for stuff I don't want to lose.
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2013 18:49 |
|
|
Buff Skeleton posted:Welp, this seems to work pretty well. The management interface leaves a little to be desired, but not enough to dampen the benefits of the service. And if I ever end up somehow using enough storage or bandwidth to require paying for it, it'll be dirt cheap. S3Fox also makes it a lot nicer. What are you trying to do once you get the images on the Internet? The biggest problem I see with S3 is that if you link it someplace you are paying to have you stuff linked to. If a thread or picture goes viral it could cost you. Other options are buy hosting there are two in SA-Mart for cheap, Dropbox sharing which is free for 2GB, and imgur.com. I would only use S3 if you absolutely need to have this stuff on the Internet forever like for a personal blog. Random linking someplace I wouldn't pay
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2013 19:36 |
|
|
Buff Skeleton posted:Welp, this seems to work pretty well. The management interface leaves a little to be desired, but not enough to dampen the benefits of the service. And if I ever end up somehow using enough storage or bandwidth to require paying for it, it'll be dirt cheap. S3Fox also makes it a lot nicer. If you upload things that you want to keep private, be sure to set the permissions accordingly. Regarding gariig's comments, they are very good points that should be taken into consideration. I'm not sure if S3 lets you set a maximum threshold, so they would stop serving files and running up your bill after you hit the specified $ amount. I think you can do something like that now.
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2013 19:49 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 18:54 |
|
|
Hmm, good point. I hadn't considered that, but the stuff I'm hosting is very very unlikely to ever go viral. However, it might be prudent to just use S3 for backup storage that isn't linked and then use something else for linked images. I'll give Dropbox a try. [Edit] Hmm, yeah, Dropbox links are a horrendous mess and getting links is kind of a pain. I'm gonna see if I can just limit my S3 account. [Edit2] Looks like they only alert you if you reach the threshold you set, but don't cut you off, so you can still get a huge bill if you somehow manage to have something get linked all over the place. Definitely don't want that, so I guess just for the safety of my bank account I'll have to find something else.  drat shame too, because this service really does work just fine otherwise.I had considered imgur, but the filename scrambling was a dealbreaker for me. I am not sure if it does that if you have an account, but I think it does across the board. At this point, looks like web hosting is my best bet. Buff Skeleton fucked around with this message at Feb 28, 2013 around 20:43 |
| # ? Feb 28, 2013 20:17 |
|
