Photo hosting?

@Shermozle:

No ads, no reducing the size of the images. I'm happy to pay, but it would want to be better than $5/month/gig.

Darn, I was about to suggest reducing the size of the images. Heh, it seems to me people don't usually need to view a 3+ megapixel image on their little 1280x1024 screens (1.2 mp). Usually you can use a stronger compression ratio as well. It's kinder on your bandwidth, and the viewer's bandwidth too. :)

I'd say he uploads them full size as a way of archiving them - the software (such as Gallery) scales them down for the viewer. That's certainly what I do.

I have friends using http://www.flickr.com which is $25 a year for unlimited space. The interface compares well with Gallery. But for $25 you get 5 Gig at Linode - and that's a lot of pictures :-)

Graham.

@Shermozle:

I'm happy to pay, but it would want to be better than 5/month/gig.

You could always upgrade to the next size Linode and get more memory and bandwidth for virtually nix, when you take the $5/month/gig into account.

Yes next size Linode would be nice, but US$120/year extra isn't really value-for-money. The extra RAM would be nice anyway though 8)

Yes, I do use full-size uploads as a way of archiving the photos. I guess I should just resize down and archive offline. Probably the sensible option, really.