Requested option to save to website/service

[jdub]

I frequently find myself using irfanview for a quick image resize, cut or format conversion; saving it to my desktop, opening a new tab in FF for imageshack; selecting the file; and having to wait again to get the image codes.

I don't think I'm alone in my desire to have the option to save files directly to web services such as imageshack, ImageHost etc. Wouldn't be that hard to implement either would it?

Or would it be better to hope a plugin/addon is made to do this?

[j7n]

This kind of plugin would quickly get outdated. Filesharing/hosting sites want you to access them via a graphical web browser to see banners. Sooner rather than later they will change the upload form or links. Maintaining such a plugin would therefore be a hassle.

[Sam_Zen]

I agree. 'unstable' links

[jdub]

This kind of plugin would quickly get outdated. Filesharing/hosting sites want you to access them via a graphical web browser to see banners. Sooner rather than later they will change the upload form or links. Maintaining such a plugin would therefore be a hassle.

I understand this. It could be implemented in such a way as to allow for updates to its list and method of uploading - it could be supported by a community user base rather than a developer too, much like emule allows you to update its server list from any url you chose.

I don't think the file hosting sites really care about whether the uploader of the file sees some banners, that user base is small and frequently technically inclined (Firefox, adblock, noscript etc to remove ads) they care more about all the people who see the file uploaded knowing who hosted the image (CDN services) and banners individuals might see from clicking on the thumbnails provided.

Shelluploader worked for several years and the image shack site never explicitly forbid it, they just changed their configuration and the program wasn't updated iirc.

Edit: Shell uploader still works with image shack at least, though it hasn't been significantly upgraded for over 3 years. I honestly didn't expect that it still would.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

My preferred method is to use IrfanView's FTP upload from the thumbnail view. I think most ISPs provide 50 Mbytes or so of free server space. Why not use it and avoid all the hassles of advertising, delays, and limitation on direct linking?

[jdub]

Well most of the point of this would be to expedite getting the link for a webhosted image for a forum/IM message, if you upload to an ftp you'd have to have the url ready to copy/paste and append the images name etc. Even if you have a small url typing out ftp://username@ispname.etc:21/quicku...filenameis.etc is just as bad or worse than the method I currently use.

Didn't know the thumbnail gallery had an ftp option though. Might come in handy someday.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

If you upload to an ftp you'd have to have the url ready to copy/paste and append the images name etc.

There is nothing to type out — just bookmark your FTP folder and copy the link.

FTP Folder sorted by date.

[jdub]

That isn't a bad method but:

1. Not everyone has FTP space to spare
2. FTP won't automatically re size the image and provide easy forum links
3. Gallery functions are non existent on FTP.
4. It's much easier for the less technically inclined of the technically inclined. When was the last time you even got someones attention long enough to explain what FTP was much less teach them to use it? In my expirience if they didn't know about it already your chances are slim.

There are many advantages to the web service method that ftp just can't compete with.