Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pbase

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 21, 2005 9:41:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

From what I have researched, Pbase seems to be the best value for the $. I
realize that there are free sites but I seem to be having trouble upload
batches of files. Pbase seems to be relatively trouble free. Or am I
missing something.

Thanks

Larry

More about : pbase

Anonymous
August 21, 2005 9:41:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21-Aug-05 10:41, Larry wrote:
> From what I have researched, Pbase seems to be the best value for the $. I
> realize that there are free sites but I seem to be having trouble upload
> batches of files. Pbase seems to be relatively trouble free. Or am I
> missing something.

PBase is sure excellent, with some serious problems in customer
support however, you may find some hot complaints on their forums.
Another excellent site comparable with PBase in price is
smugmug.

Thomas

>
> Thanks
>
> Larry
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 9:41:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <josephlbeattie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96B96CBC01C0Clarrybeattieshawca@64.59.144.76...
> From what I have researched, Pbase seems to be the best value for the $. I
> realize that there are free sites but I seem to be having trouble upload
> batches of files. Pbase seems to be relatively trouble free. Or am I
> missing something.
>
> Thanks

Pbase is fast (high bandwidth), has no limit on how many people can access
your photos, cheap, commercial free, allows full-res image upload (or any
you specify) and has been generally very reliable (save for the occasional
blip). The post about service complaints refers to something I'm not aware
of, as I've never run into any problems with them.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 9:58:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:

> From what I have researched, Pbase seems to be the best value for the $. I
> realize that there are free sites but I seem to be having trouble upload
> batches of files. Pbase seems to be relatively trouble free. Or am I
> missing something.

I've been with Pbase for just over two years now.. I've had no
problems with them.

As others say, the interface is clean, simple and fast.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 11:58:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Ta-dnd1VMMw1WZXeRVn-iw@comcast.com>, henrymot@coco.net
says...
> On 21-Aug-05 10:41, Larry wrote:
> > From what I have researched, Pbase seems to be the best value for the $. I
> > realize that there are free sites but I seem to be having trouble upload
> > batches of files. Pbase seems to be relatively trouble free. Or am I
> > missing something.
>
> PBase is sure excellent, with some serious problems in customer
> support however, you may find some hot complaints on their forums.
> Another excellent site comparable with PBase in price is
> smugmug.
>
> Thomas

Even with pBase's sometimes spotty record, I still prefer them over
everyone else because of the simple presentation of the photos. Makes
browsing and accessing your images easy. Can't say that for some other
hosting sites... many of which are SLOOWWW.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 22, 2005 2:01:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
>
>>From what I have researched, Pbase seems to be the best value for the $. I
>>realize that there are free sites but I seem to be having trouble upload
>>batches of files. Pbase seems to be relatively trouble free. Or am I
>>missing something.
>
>
> I've been with Pbase for just over two years now.. I've had no
> problems with them.
>
> As others say, the interface is clean, simple and fast.
>
>


Agreed... I also like the idea that when a particular image size is
selected for viewing, Pbase somehow remembers that choice for subsequent
images without having to re-select that same size agin, and agin and
agin... Gawd how I hate that on other sites.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
August 22, 2005 2:20:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
news:g37Oe.6269$Us5.2165@fed1read02:

>
> "Larry" <josephlbeattie@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96B96CBC01C0Clarrybeattieshawca@64.59.144.76...
>> From what I have researched, Pbase seems to be the best value for the
>> $. I realize that there are free sites but I seem to be having
>> trouble upload batches of files. Pbase seems to be relatively trouble
>> free. Or am I missing something.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> Pbase is fast (high bandwidth), has no limit on how many people can
> access your photos, cheap, commercial free, allows full-res image
> upload (or any you specify) and has been generally very reliable (save
> for the occasional blip). The post about service complaints refers to
> something I'm not aware of, as I've never run into any problems with
> them.
>
Thank you for all your comments. I checked out SmugMug and the difference
seems to no limit to the volume you upload, whereas Pbase does limit you
based on how much you (like I would ever reach the limit any time soon).

Larry
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:20:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <josephlbeattie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96B99BFC0C7B6larrybeattieshawca@64.59.144.76...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
> news:g37Oe.6269$Us5.2165@fed1read02:
>
>>
>> "Larry" <josephlbeattie@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96B96CBC01C0Clarrybeattieshawca@64.59.144.76...
>>> From what I have researched, Pbase seems to be the best value for the
>>> $. I realize that there are free sites but I seem to be having
>>> trouble upload batches of files. Pbase seems to be relatively trouble
>>> free. Or am I missing something.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> Pbase is fast (high bandwidth), has no limit on how many people can
>> access your photos, cheap, commercial free, allows full-res image
>> upload (or any you specify) and has been generally very reliable (save
>> for the occasional blip). The post about service complaints refers to
>> something I'm not aware of, as I've never run into any problems with
>> them.
>>
> Thank you for all your comments. I checked out SmugMug and the difference
> seems to no limit to the volume you upload, whereas Pbase does limit you
> based on how much you (like I would ever reach the limit any time soon).

?? I don't think you quite finished that last sentence... ?
Pbase limits you only to what your space allows. Their free trial accounts
have limits, but I don't think others do.

I have a full gigabyte available to me, but I have discovered that you have
to be a machine to need that much. :)  -Or...you have to be uploading lots
of full-res, low-compression images. I tend to upload images for viewing
only (rather than printing), so I limit the res to about 1024x768 for the
"high res" image.

The other thing that's nice about Pbase is that it automatically generates
smaller versions of each image you upload so that those with slow
connections can comfortably view your images. With this in mind, if by
chance you want people to view your images at their best, you can simply add
"/original" to any link you post or send, and this link will then direct
them to whatever your full res image is, rather than their default size,
which may be set to a smaller compromised-resolution version.

Example:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/original
By changing "/original" to "/large"... you get this image:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/large
It's the same image, but smaller and less clear. Again, this allows those
with slower connections to view without pain, and this option for posting
links allows you to FIRST offer your best version.
I don't know what other services provide this, but it makes things much
simpler.

-Mark
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:32:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Ke7Oe.6271$Us5.3276@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/original
> By changing "/original" to "/large"... you get this image:
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/large
> It's the same image, but smaller and less clear. Again, this allows those
> with slower connections to view without pain, and this option for posting
> links allows you to FIRST offer your best version.
> I don't know what other services provide this, but it makes things much
> simpler.

That's small time!
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/image/31549988/original

Full res!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:32:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d72caf7e6e8fde4989919@news.verizon.net...
> In article <Ke7Oe.6271$Us5.3276@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/original
>> By changing "/original" to "/large"... you get this image:
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/large
>> It's the same image, but smaller and less clear. Again, this allows
>> those
>> with slower connections to view without pain, and this option for posting
>> links allows you to FIRST offer your best version.
>> I don't know what other services provide this, but it makes things much
>> simpler.
>
> That's small time!
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/image/31549988/original
>
> Full res!

Ya ya ya...
I was just domonstrating the ability to point people to specific resolution
renderings.
Personally, I don't like people to view my images at the reduced settings,
since their compression always gives a blurrier rendition.

But ya... I'd like to see some full res images too.

If you REALLY want some, I'll post a few, but I think you were just being
smart...
:) 
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:42:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

One of the great advantage of PBase is the availability of customizable
style sheets. They are great and allow you to present your work with the
effects most suitable. I have not seen this kind of flexibility with other
sites. - PBase had some serious problems a few months ago. In the meantime,
they upgraded to new servers and the performance of the site improved.

Gregor

"Larry" <josephlbeattie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96B99BFC0C7B6larrybeattieshawca@64.59.144.76...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
> news:g37Oe.6269$Us5.2165@fed1read02:
>
>>
>> "Larry" <josephlbeattie@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96B96CBC01C0Clarrybeattieshawca@64.59.144.76...
>>> From what I have researched, Pbase seems to be the best value for the
>>> $. I realize that there are free sites but I seem to be having
>>> trouble upload batches of files. Pbase seems to be relatively trouble
>>> free. Or am I missing something.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> Pbase is fast (high bandwidth), has no limit on how many people can
>> access your photos, cheap, commercial free, allows full-res image
>> upload (or any you specify) and has been generally very reliable (save
>> for the occasional blip). The post about service complaints refers to
>> something I'm not aware of, as I've never run into any problems with
>> them.
>>
> Thank you for all your comments. I checked out SmugMug and the difference
> seems to no limit to the volume you upload, whereas Pbase does limit you
> based on how much you (like I would ever reach the limit any time soon).
>
> Larry
>
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:54:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Or7Oe.54$5k1.24@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com says...
> One of the great advantage of PBase is the availability of customizable
> style sheets. They are great and allow you to present your work with the
> effects most suitable. I have not seen this kind of flexibility with other
> sites. - PBase had some serious problems a few months ago. In the meantime,
> they upgraded to new servers and the performance of the site improved.

They were also decent chaps and extended the account length of their
subscribers to make up for the downtime.

Personally, I can't stand browsing pictures on other sites... so...
slow...
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:56:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Ez7Oe.6280$Us5.3798@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> Personally, I don't like people to view my images at the reduced settings,
> since their compression always gives a blurrier rendition.

I tend to resize my stuff at with 800 pixels in the long direction
first, then USM 100/.4/0 as a final sharpen

> But ya... I'd like to see some full res images too.
>
> If you REALLY want some, I'll post a few, but I think you were just being
> smart...

I think I was being stupid.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:56:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d72d0926b3bf63898991f@news.verizon.net...
> In article <Ez7Oe.6280$Us5.3798@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>> Personally, I don't like people to view my images at the reduced
>> settings,
>> since their compression always gives a blurrier rendition.
>
> I tend to resize my stuff at with 800 pixels in the long direction
> first, then USM 100/.4/0 as a final sharpen

I tend to sharpen my nicer tiff file, then re-size a copy and convert to
jpeg.
This means only one stage of sharpening necessary, as my downsizing seems to
retain decent sharpness in the smaller image.

>> But ya... I'd like to see some full res images too.
>>
>> If you REALLY want some, I'll post a few, but I think you were just being
>> smart...
>
> I think I was being stupid.

Well ya...
:Smart"...as in...smart-arse.
:) 
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:15:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ThomasH" <henrymot@coco.net> wrote in message
news:Ta-dnd1VMMw1WZXeRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> On 21-Aug-05 10:41, Larry wrote:
>> From what I have researched, Pbase seems to be the best value for
>> the $. I realize that there are free sites but I seem to be having
>> trouble upload batches of files. Pbase seems to be relatively
>> trouble free. Or am I missing something.
>
> PBase is sure excellent, with some serious problems in customer
> support however, you may find some hot complaints on their forums.

Not to even name their TOTAL LACK OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION.
Your images are up for grabs, for anyone that likes to make money from
(or ridicule, or ...) them, be very aware before you put any
recognizable people images or potentially sellable images on their
sites!!!

Bart
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 3:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:15:00 +0200, Bart van der Wolf, <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

> Not to even name their TOTAL LACK OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION. Your
> images are up for grabs, for anyone that likes to make money from (or
> ridicule, or ...) them, be very aware before you put any recognizable
> people images or potentially sellable images on their sites!!!

This should be a FAQ entry, and probably listed on the various "urban
legends" websites. *YOU CANNOT "PROTECT" ANY VIEWABLE IMAGE* unless you
control the entire chain of hardware and software from end to end...
period... end of story... deal with it. If it can be loaded into memory
on an average machine and rendered on an average monitor, it can be
captured and saved to disk. Anybody who tells you otherwise is at best
abysmally ignorant, and at worst lying through their teeth. WYSIWYG...
What You See Is What You Get. If the displayed image doesn't have a
watermark or whatever, neither will the captured image.

There is supposed to be work going on to allow that type of
draconian end-to-end control in the future under Microsoft Vista. It'll
require...
- a PC with a special cryptographically signed authorizing chip and
BIOS that will refuse to boot anything but...
- MS Windows Vista or some other cryptographically signed OS that
will boot only on a PC with a cryptographically signed CPU and BIOS
and will only run special cryptographically signed applications and
send output only to special cryptographically signed video cards
- a special cryptographically signed application that will only run
under a cryptographically signed OS
- a video card with a special cryptographically signed authorizing chip
- and a monitor with a special cryptographically signed authorizing
chip and image decoder. The final image decoding *MUST* be done
*INSIDE THE MONITOR* so that standard screen captures become
impossible.

The requirements boil down to...
- data on your PC is heavily encrypted and you do not control the data
- your computer is cryptographically signed to hell and back and you
do not control your computer
- your OS is cryptographically signed to hell and back and you do not
control your OS
- your programs are cryptographically signed to hell and back and you
do not control your programs
- your video card is cryptographically signed to hell and back and
you do not control your video card
- your monitor is cryptographically signed to hell and back and you
do not control your monitor

For further reading, try the following 3 Google searches...
"trusted computing"
+microsoft +palladium
+microsoft +vista +HDCP

--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 12:18:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)"
<wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote in message
news:430da64c$0$1582$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:15:00 +0200, Bart van der Wolf,
> <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
>
>> Not to even name their TOTAL LACK OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION. Your
>> images are up for grabs, for anyone that likes to make money from
>> (or
>> ridicule, or ...) them, be very aware before you put any
>> recognizable
>> people images or potentially sellable images on their sites!!!
>
> This should be a FAQ entry, and probably listed on the various
> "urban
> legends" websites. *YOU CANNOT "PROTECT" ANY VIEWABLE IMAGE* unless
> you
> control the entire chain of hardware and software from end to end...
> period... end of story... deal with it.

So much is obvious, if posted it can be copied, but that's not all.

How about someone posting a copy (or a derivative work) of someone
else's copyrighted images on their Pbase space, and Pbase refuses to
remove the image even after the copyright holder proves his ownership
and points out the copyright infringement???

They don't give a hoot about Copyright.

Bart
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 2:53:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>Bart van der Wolf, <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
>> Not to even name their TOTAL LACK OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION. Your
>> images are up for grabs, for anyone that likes to make money from (or
>> ridicule, or ...) them, be very aware before you put any recognizable
>> people images or potentially sellable images on their sites!!!

> This should be a FAQ entry, and probably listed on the various "urban
>legends" websites. *YOU CANNOT "PROTECT" ANY VIEWABLE IMAGE* unless you
>control the entire chain of hardware and software from end to end...

Copyright protection is not the same as "copy protection". That's
what you're saying boils down to, and it is true. The two things
are chalk and cheese.


If you put "(c) 2005", your image is copyright by virtue of your
express desire for it to be so. It doesn't matter what Pbase's
policy is, if it is your image and you want copyright and say so,
it is yours.

Granted, maybe Pbase won't deal with customer copyright issues.
That's a customer service issue, not a lack of copyright protection.
They are under no obligation to check or assert the copyright of
displayed images.


--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 2:53:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 25-Aug-05 15:53, Ken Tough wrote:
> <wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>
>>Bart van der Wolf, <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
>>
>>> Not to even name their TOTAL LACK OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION. Your
>>> images are up for grabs, for anyone that likes to make money from (or
>>> ridicule, or ...) them, be very aware before you put any recognizable
>>> people images or potentially sellable images on their sites!!!
>
>
>> This should be a FAQ entry, and probably listed on the various "urban
>>legends" websites. *YOU CANNOT "PROTECT" ANY VIEWABLE IMAGE* unless you
>>control the entire chain of hardware and software from end to end...
>
>
> Copyright protection is not the same as "copy protection". That's
> what you're saying boils down to, and it is true. The two things
> are chalk and cheese.
>
>
> If you put "(c) 2005", your image is copyright by virtue of your
> express desire for it to be so. It doesn't matter what Pbase's
> policy is, if it is your image and you want copyright and say so,
> it is yours.
>
> Granted, maybe Pbase won't deal with customer copyright issues.
> That's a customer service issue, not a lack of copyright protection.
> They are under no obligation to check or assert the copyright of
> displayed images.
>

Personally I cannot see why Bart assumes that Pbase protects
"less" than any other of the other services. Every image can be
copied, at a last resort per screen dump. Aside of watermark,
the best protection is to post low resolution images! Such are
mostly commercially not usable and not sellable.

Thomas
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:32:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ThomasH" <henrymot@coco.net> wrote in message
news:p POdnarF96lSNJPeRVn-qg@comcast.com...
SNIP
> Personally I cannot see why Bart assumes that Pbase protects "less"
> than any other of the other services.

They claim to remove copyrighted material not owned by the person
putting it up. It's a confidence trick. They don't remove, they don't
care, they only want the money if more than a certain amount of
storage is used (so, storing somebody else's copyrighted work gets
them there faster).

I'm not saying there aren't others with the same poor attitude, but
that doesn't excuse Pbase.

Bart
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:04:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 26-Aug-05 06:32, Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "ThomasH" <henrymot@coco.net> wrote in message
> news:p POdnarF96lSNJPeRVn-qg@comcast.com...
> SNIP
>
>> Personally I cannot see why Bart assumes that Pbase protects "less"
>> than any other of the other services.
>
>
> They claim to remove copyrighted material not owned by the person
> putting it up. It's a confidence trick. They don't remove, they don't
> care, they only want the money if more than a certain amount of storage
> is used (so, storing somebody else's copyrighted work gets them there
> faster).
>
> I'm not saying there aren't others with the same poor attitude, but that
> doesn't excuse Pbase.
>
> Bart
>

Ou, now I understand what do you mean.

Well, since end 2003/begin of 2004 as Pbase became really big
in terms of number of users and images, their customer service
became virtually nonexistent. For example we wait since April
of 2004 for completing the really not very big film database.
I have send them the list of films maintained by Bill Tuthill,
this would be a 15min of work, done.

Considering this, I doubt that if they wanted to, that they
have really a physical ability to filter out and to verify
copyrighted material poster here. Its a logistic impossibility.

Thomas
!