High Volume Picture Hosting - Transfer From PhotoBucket

I'm going to make one more comment here about picture size, then get to work on other stuff. ;)

I use my camera software to resize my pictures (convert) before upload to Photobucket. I have been doing the max Open Roads allowable size, 800 picture resolution on the long edge. Some have said 640 x 480 is good enough. (Short size depends on the picture width you have shot, so I only mess with the long edge and accept the setting to keep the aspect). I also strip the metadata out (privacy as well as reduced upload/download file size).

Today I just converted (resized) my five next photos. Used 640 instead of 800, and I changed the quality selection (in my software) to "Good Balance" instead of the previous setting I had which was "Highest Quality".

Those two simple changes created a file size of about 37 KB to what a previous photo shows as about 500 KB.

From here on out I will size to 640 and Good Balance. In future, I MAY go into Photobucket and at least resize to 640, but maybe not. One pic at a time, that's worse than mowing the lawn!

Anybody find the Photobucket (current free service web version) instructions for re-sizing or re-sampling (smaller download size) to smaller, bunch-o-pics at one time, let me know and thanks in advance!

Well I spent a few minutes and it seems this feature is not available to me. Maybe it's a previous Photobucket web version? Tried it with adblocker on and off.

All I can do now is to resize picture resolution one at a time. Not sure that would even change the bandwidth issue I am having anyway (after reading that article).

I think Photobucket removed the capability once they discovered a way to press people into a subscription? Bandwidth download by viewers, no easy change to photo download size, remove viewing use for the last half of the month (bandwidth exceed), make people okay with another monthly subscription? Just my feeling.

Beautiful article! Let's see if I understand. In PhotoBucket, I choose a photo. Then I resample it, not resize. I make it fewer pixels with a bicubic sharper setting. This ends up making the downloaded data "less" making my post with that photo viewable for more of the month. Can I resample multi-selected photos at once? I think I'll check.

If excessive bandwidth is the problem you could re-sample the images, not the same as re-sizing.
The same size image would be a smaller byte value.

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/resizing-vs-resampling/

I might ask one more question.

If I'm going to need to pay a fee, is there a preferred "writing" blog site people could start recommending? I've thought of going somewhere for that anyway.

My blogs aren't just Open Roads, they are in a couple old Jeep forums too, several in Open Roads, and I wouldn't mind beginning to write on a range of topics which don't fit into an RV or Jeep forum. Maybe there is a low fee, easy pay method for a writer's blog site which gives more freedom of subject and stores the photos right there at the same place? Anybody?

These replies are very helpful. Without taking time to research (guess) and start trial and error, instead you are helping me understand the real issues.

I've heard Imgur suggested before. Maybe I'll try there next. It looks like my solution is...

1- wait until the beginning of each month, when the bandwidth download "limit" is reset and starts again, (viewer's computers downloading the myriad of pics in the current "page" of my post they are viewing) so that all the existing stuff might be seen again, for part of the month. ;)

2- Start now at a new site I am happier with (functionality - maybe Imgur) and just go that route from here on out, provided they have a similar bandwidth download limit, and not MUCH less, for example.

3- Transfer old stuff over manually as desired, or leave it all as is and "well enough alone".

or, I could just let it all stay "as is" and for part of each month, my stuff will be view-able.

or, I could pay the price for a ticket to the show.

But the real answer is, "it appears no software or app company has made such a beast. Seamless transfer (automated "kill the original link and change the link words to the new software link words - based on the picture folders structure which exists and are copied to the software's base "library").

Seems like a market to tap? I mean I don't know exactly how these companies make money, but are apparently doing so, without the user paying. Facebook for example. Imgur? Photobucket is almost unusable due to their advertising method.

Sears also has an awesome online shopping capability, but they're going under (management, too much invested in brick and morter, inability to take advantage of online shopping mindset). And yet Amazon is one of the biggest money makers. Of course they're doing a bunch of that though Prime subscriptions, so there is some example of user fees, not just advertisement.

Thanks again folks. Still want additional thoughts or suggestions.

It's not the number of photos that are causing the problem it's the bandwidth usage from heavy downloads. This is a problem that will probably follow you no matter where you go.

nothing is going to be seamless
nothing is going to goto your postings and change links

pick the one you think you will like
and start uploading NEW photos there

gradually as you have time upload your old pictures to the new host

I think I've used most of the picture storage places.

Google
Photo Bucket
2 or 4 other places
And now Flickr.

All were free until Flickr. $3.99 a month unlimited was a sale price. All my phone pics auto upload to Flickr. When I use the cameras, I up load them from the computer.

It's pretty easy to share a picture to a forum. I copy and past the link and chop off the extra flickr link info. Paste it right into the text.

A May trip to AK 2017

That's very helpful information John. Thanks! Mine are all size down to 800 on the long edge. But I also have a LOT of pictures loaf each view page.