I don't know what spitbite is like, but yahoo etc aren't a problem for cost of archiving (I think, at least until possibly reaching some possible size limits), but if cost IS involved, the risks arises of assigning costs.
For example, APUG images are for the most part subscriber (not just member)- based.
Photo.net seems to limit portfolio space to a tiny quantity without pay-subscription, and Flickr requires a pro subscription to have the simple ability of separating postings into directories versus one large chaotic directory.
Even if subscription is cheap, the question of how many groups to subscribe to does then become a decision for many.
So I see where that could go.
I haven't read most of the responses, so I apologize for a possibly redundant redundant observation: Look at the bright side...if you post somewhere and list a link, you can post at the resolution/size you want, not limited to 511 pixels/side or whatever.
Murray
_______________________________________________
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
pinhole-discussion mailing list
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html
Received on Fri Aug 31 12:10:35 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 21 Jan 2008 - 02:00:01 PST