recommend photo hosting?

[cos]

Yahoo's mistreatment of flickr has been annoying me at a low level for a while, but I'm still using flickr out of inertia, even though I hate yahoo. I think my inertia just got a kick:

Hey cospics! About your photos...

You've run into one of the limits of a free account. Your free account will only display the most recent 200 photos you've uploaded. All of your photos beyond 200 will remain hidden from view until you either delete newer photos, or upgrade to a Pro account.

None of your photos have been deleted, and if you upgrade, they'll all come back unharmed.

Looking at the "limits of a free account" page, I also see this: "If your free account is inactive for 90 consecutive days, it will be deleted."

In other words, if I wanna stay with flickr, I'd better pay Yahoo. Yuck. So tell me what other photo hosting sites are good, ones I won't feel dirty giving money to. Snapfish? Photobucket? What do you use and what do you think of it?

EDIT - I want:

• Raw linking for hosting photos for posts elsewhere
• Tagging, and easy URLs for tag sets
• Automatically generated resized images & flexible thumnail views
• ... a Facebook app would be nice too

I don't care much about weekly / monthly upload limits: I don't post enough photos for it to matter. A more localized rate-limit could be a problem, because I might upload all my photos in a particular month in one evening.

Comments

Picasa really is the only other alternative

[regorfa.livejournal.com]

I use photobucket quite a bit because it has integrated well with LJ, but when I went on a trip and had over 500 photos, picasa was by far the easiest to upload quickly. Plus it integrates well with my iGoogle account that I already have. But I gotta echo the sentiments above - to a large extent, google owns me. I use iGoogle, google reader, google calendar...it's not good for a diversity of styles.

Re: Picasa really is the only other alternative

[coraline]

does picasa allow static image names for raw linking from elsewhere?
and does it have a mac client now? those were my two stumbling blocks when i was considering it before...

Re: Picasa really is the only other alternative

[feuervogel]

The Mac client, such as it is, is an iPhoto plugin, which allows for easy uploading. I don't know if there's a port of the editing version, since I use iPhoto and Photoshop Elements (it was free with my scanner.)

Re: Picasa really is the only other alternative

[coraline]

...but does it have static image locations for embedding images elsewhere?

Re: Picasa really is the only other alternative

[feuervogel]

The webclient does. You have to click a 'share this photo' button hiding on the right and copy-paste an URL. It doesn't allow naming AFAIK, so the static link is a string of identifying numbers.

Re: Picasa really is the only other alternative

[miraclaire.livejournal.com]

It's not just for iPhoto, you can also use it on its own.

Re: Picasa really is the only other alternative

[cos]

Huh, what was the limitation you ran into that prevented raw linking?

Re: Picasa really is the only other alternative

[coraline]

i haven't used picasa because when i considered it, it didn't have mac client. but i had thought i'd remembered someone telling me it was DB-based and so the picture names weren't static.

but it looks like there's a way around that, even if it's more annoying than one would like.