Flickr vs Multiply

I'm looking for a place where I could back up my photos, specifically my most loved non-vain travel photos, as my laptop's HD space is small now and I don't want to solely rely on one HD which I'm planning to buy soon. It just sounds too scary to keep everything in one tangible thing and it's not that convenient when it comes to searching-and-sharing.

SO, I made little research about Flickr ($24) vs Multiply ($17). In most forums, people testified that Multiply does so much with the photos' quality, making them more dull when displayed. Some made remarks on the color rather than the clarity, but either way, more votes went to Flickr. SO, I made a comparison myself (I took screenshots!):


left: multiply (actual pic here)
right: flickr (actual pic here)

AND they're right! now this explains why there were times when, after seeing really clear food pics from some friends using flickr, I've always asked "Why can't I show off such pics in my multiply site?!" Gee, all along I thought it's because they're using SLR, while I'm using point-and-shoot, or because they know more about taking macro shots (which is the case sometimes, actually. hehe. but, get my point?!)

MULTIPLY BETRAYED ME! and it insulted my cameras so deeply! I'm hating you from now on, multiply! I will use you just to share my non-travel photos! and to some of my photographer friends (I hope you can read me): Why are you settling in multiply? don't waste the beauty of your shots!

So there, I'm choosing Flickr ...then I'll think about Flick Pro later on (so I could display more than 200 pics) because for now I still have to buy a new HD, which will cost a lot. hehe.

click here for my Flickr photostream. It's still quite bare though, as I've used it so far for comparison. hehe.