Where do you store your photos?

gregmcc

gregmcc

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
29,772
Reaction score
10,997
Location
Somewhere in the world
I've been using Picasa for a while now butwith my new Canon and bigger pics I'm running out of space again fast and might need to get 100GB of storage space.

Before I upgrade again where does everyone else store their pics - on a local drive? In the cloud? Dropbox/Picasa/Box.net/other?

If you are not using Picasa how do you sync your pics to the cloud?
 
I use iPhoto generally which I have syncing to Copy.com via an alias.

https://copy.com?r=ME8zCd

Use my link and you'll have 15gb instantly. Then invite your friends (or use other email addresses) and you'll be up to 100gb rather quickly.

Photostream helps me to auto-sync.

*****

Apparently Google+ has unlimited photo storage now and is replacing Picasa. Don't know how much truth is in that.
 
I use Aperture to manage my libraries across a mountain of HDDs. Cloud is just not going to work for me while my upstream bandwidth is so poor.
 
SauRoNZA said:
Apparently Google+ has unlimited photo storage now and is replacing Picasa. Don't know how much truth is in that.
Click to expand...

You can store an unlimited number of standard size (2048 pixels on the longest edge) photos and an unlimited number of ≤15min ≤1080p videos on Google+. Full size photos and 15min+ or 1080p+ video uploads will count against your Google Drive storage quota. Source
 
bwana said:
I use Aperture to manage my libraries across a mountain of HDDs. Cloud is just not going to work for me while my upstream bandwidth is so poor.
Click to expand...

Use the Cloud for backup, not live storage. That eases the upload pain.

ld13 said:
You can store an unlimited number of standard size (2048 pixels on the longest edge) photos and an unlimited number of ≤15min ≤1080p videos on Google+. Full size photos and 15min+ or 1080p+ video uploads will count against your Google Drive storage quota. Source
Click to expand...

That's good enough for me, but avid photographers probably want RAW at all times.
 
SauRoNZA said:
Use the Cloud for backup, not live storage. That eases the upload pain.
Click to expand...
My archives are in the region of terabytes and conservatively I'll add a minimum of 20gb per week. Maybe you can work out exactly how long it will take for me to get caught up with a 4mb ADSL line but I'll just say my death +5 years? :)
ld13 said:
You can store an unlimited number of standard size (2048 pixels on the longest edge) photos and an unlimited number of ≤15min ≤1080p videos on Google+. Full size photos and 15min+ or 1080p+ video uploads will count against your Google Drive storage quota. Source
Click to expand...
Standard? :confused:
 
SauRoNZA said:
Apparently Google+ has unlimited photo storage now and is replacing Picasa. Don't know how much truth is in that.
Click to expand...

Yes its true. You have unlimited space for photos BUT this only applies to photos where the maximum size of the photo does not exceed 2048.

So whichever side of the photo (height and or width) is the greatest may not exceed 2048. If it does then it does count towards your normal space i.e. the 5Gb they give you.
 
bwana said:
My archives are in the region of terabytes and conservatively I'll add a minimum of 20gb per week. Maybe you can work out exactly how long it will take for me to get caught up with a 4mb ADSL line but I'll just say my death +5 years? :)Standard? :confused:
Click to expand...

Ouch.

I have a library of about 50gb of photos and will add probably no more than a gig a month.

Your best solution would be a NAS drive of some sort then.
 
MKFrost said:
That is about 900 photos a week (at 25mb raw each if shot on a 24mp camera) or around 130 a day. What the hell do you do or are you just hoarding photos?
Click to expand...

Actuality it's more like thousands per week and they're mostly jpg. :)
 
bwana said:
lol, yeah, sports photographers do that. :)
Click to expand...

I understand the keeping of photos but do you actually look at any of them again? Not trying to be funny or anything but:

I see many photographers who have tons (TB's) of photos which are all kept in their original format i.e. RAW or the max as it came out of the camera. About 90% of those photos never see the light of day in that they are never looked at again except maybe say once a year or so when these photographers rearrange their vast archives of photos.

The other 10% of photos will make it onto Google, Flickr, 500px and the like and then usually in around 2000px or even less. These photos are then viewed with browsers and showed off etc... at about 20% of their original splendor. Everybody is going on about being able to save full size yet 90% of the monitors in use today are around 200px wide so no matter how big you save your photo, it will be viewed in 2000px or less.

In my opinion all they are actually doing is frustrating the viewer as it takes so long to get their photo onto the viewers screen. I will rather move on to the next guy who saved all his in say 2000 x 1000 (or similar) and saved it optimised for the web meaning it takes a second or two to display on my screen.

I then also know other photographers who take thousands of photos each week from which they may select and keep say 10 or so (if that many) and of these maybe 1 or 2 will go on to be printed (so large formats needed) and these will be kept.

You being a sport photographer, yes I can understand keeping so many, but is it really necessary? Are they all of the quality to be kept?

Not trying to be negative or funny, just don't understand why people keep thousands of photos which will never be looked at again or be seen by anybody....
 
MKFrost said:
I understand the keeping of photos but do you actually look at any of them again? Not trying to be funny or anything but:
Click to expand...
I have to file up to 100 photos from a match on the day but I've been asked to go back and check to see if I have any shots of so-and-so in such-and-such a match. I've also been asked for compete archives of various events etc.

MKFrost said:
You being a sport photographer, yes I can understand keeping so many, but is it really necessary? Are they all of the quality to be kept?
Click to expand...
Of course, all my photos are awesome… :p :D

Bit seriously - it takes way more time and effort to go through all my images and weed out the bad ones than it does to buy a new drive and just archive the lot.
 
bwana said:
I have to file up to 100 photos from a match on the day but I've been asked to go back and check to see if I have any shots of so-and-so in such-and-such a match. I've also been asked for compete archives of various events etc.

Of course, all my photos are awesome… :p :D

Bit seriously - it takes way more time and effort to go through all my images and weed out the bad ones than it does to buy a new drive and just archive the lot.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed reply, I can now better picture your situation and yes, buying a new HD sounds much easier.
 
Smugmug. $40pa unlimited storage. I still pay $30 as they have a grandfathering clause.
 
MKFrost said:
That is about 900 photos a week (at 25mb raw each if shot on a 24mp camera) or around 130 a day.
Click to expand...
Daaamn! I do not think that I have taken 900 photos in my entire life, and I recently turned 50! Clearly I am no shutterbug!
 
Lots of interesting info - thanks guys.

@SauRoNZA - nice link. I"ll sign up.

It will be great if google + replaces picasa. I love the picasa interface.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X