Cloud storage

daren74

daren74

Messages
59
Edit My Images
No
Is anyone using cloud storage to keep there photographs? If so what sites are you using any suggestions on the best out there? So many to choice from. Thanks Daren
 
Hi I use carbonite its great peace of mind for 40 quid a year
Initial upload takes ages tho
 
Hi Darren, i spent a while looking at cloud storage recently and found the best appeared to be crashplan. I also looked at Carbonite, but they throttle uploads after you get to a 35gb, and again at 200gb.
Dropbox and sugarsync are just too expensive for me...
 
Great idea in principle but until we all have unlimited quotas and at least 100Mb speed, they are just to slow to be useful. Still better to use raid at home and keep a portable HD at work or somewhere else.
 
Mountaineye said:
Great idea in principle but until we all have unlimited quotas and at least 100Mb speed, they are just to slow to be useful. Still better to use raid at home and keep a portable HD at work or somewhere else.
Click to expand...

I keep all my photos on an external drive in an Aperture folder on my iMac and its all backed up hourly using Time Machine. I have Dropbox and iCloud but don't use them for photos because they are too slow unless I need to share them or access them from somewhere else.
The trouble with cloud storage is that you are constantly uploading and downloading.
Lifes too short!
Allan
 
I keep my archive on Photoshelter, it's a bit more than just cloud storage though, it's a website and sales channel too.
 
I use Backblaze which backs up my whole computer, photographs included for a very small fee. The intial backup takes days, but it doesn't slow your system. Subsequently backup is in almost real time. Great value.

http://www.backblaze.com/
 
Cloud storage is fine in theory. But will your business survive during the time it takes to restore all your files?

Nick Froome
 
cloud storage is my backstop. I also backup my shots to a separate hard drive which is stored away from my PC. The cloud provides insurance for serious disasters.
 
Mountaineye said:
Great idea in principle but until we all have unlimited quotas and at least 100Mb speed, they are just to slow to be useful. Still better to use raid at home and keep a portable HD at work or somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Until such time bandwidth is readily available and backing up TBs of data is cost effective personally I'd stick to external hard drives stored off site to your main storage.
 
Keep all my 'keepers' on Dropbox.. Nice idea keeping it backed up at home but what if your house burns down? Keep an external drive in your desk at work/in the car!
 
shaylou said:
What about flickr or sites like that. Isn't that a way to back them up?
Click to expand...

If you use jpegs then possibly. I think i've heard that flickr process images on upload, and i'm not sure how easy it would be to bulk download from flickr either.
 
i was going to use cloud storage but i chose instead to get the LG nas home server, i have 2 terabytes of drive space formatted into a 1 terabyte raid 1 drive, it has a gigabit connection and a web server, i can access my files anywhere in the world, i can also host a web site fro m the server at no extra cost and just direct my url to it, although i have not done it yet.
 
The car is still better than the house (providing it's not built in to the house obviously..)!
 
Another Crashplan user here. Very cost effective, relatively easy to use and very clever piece of software. I'm one year into a four year subscription and have no complaints. It has taken a while to upload 1.2 tb of data though! :)

I also have other backup solutions. Never rely on just the one. But for Cloud, defo Crashplan.
 
Sponge said:
Another Crashplan user here. Very cost effective, relatively easy to use and very clever piece of software. I'm one year into a four year subscription and have no complaints. It has taken a while to upload 1.2 tb of data though! :)

I also have other backup solutions. Never rely on just the one. But for Cloud, defo Crashplan.
Click to expand...

1.2tb wow bet that took ages.

I was thinking of going with backblaze but will look at crash plan now too
 
Rapscallion said:
i'm not sure how easy it would be to bulk download from flickr either.
Click to expand...

It's easy enough using 'FlickrEdit' or other tools that support bulk backup.

But yes, even the flickr 'original file' is reprocessed from the image you uploaded, better to keep a second copy somewhere else at the upload point in time.
 
NikkiA said:
It's easy enough using 'FlickrEdit' or other tools that support bulk backup.

But yes, even the flickr 'original file' is reprocessed from the image you uploaded, better to keep a second copy somewhere else at the upload point in time.
Click to expand...

really? i thought it was widely said the original was untouched and it was only the sized versions that were processed?
 
shaylou said:
What about flickr or sites like that. Isn't that a way to back them up?
Click to expand...

This is what I do with Photoshelter, but the back up is only a processed jpeg.
 
the cloud is okay till the US gov decides to shut it down,because some clown stored a dvd rip off on it.

( wearing paranoid tin foil hat ) -You have no control over the data despite any reassurances they give, It seems if the US decides your farm contains even a hint of pirate data they can shut you down.
 
neil_g said:
really? i thought it was widely said the original was untouched and it was only the sized versions that were processed?
Click to expand...

They certainly don't match hashes for me, so they're certainly not 100% bit-for-bit copies of what I uploaded.

It's possible that they're losslessly rewritten, or just re-encoded at 100% quality, but they're not the exact files I uploaded.

There again, my 'Originals' are full OOC size, and IIRC the claim of the 'original being untouched' is only if you upload images smaller than 1024 pixels wide/high.
 
NikkiA said:
They certainly don't match hashes for me, so they're certainly not 100% bit-for-bit copies of what I uploaded.

It's possible that they're losslessly rewritten, or just re-encoded at 100% quality, but they're not the exact files I uploaded.

There again, my 'Originals' are full OOC size, and IIRC the claim of the 'original being untouched' is only if you upload images smaller than 1024 pixels wide/high.
Click to expand...

interesting, never been that bothered to check hashes but i got smacked down when saying flickr processes all shots previously.
 
Thank you all for the information, I think I shall back up my photos on another HD and keep it at work.
 
Prints.
Have you not watched the movies? Armageddon will come and there will be no elastic-trickery, no computers, no HDD's. You will just have one artistically torn and battered 70's look polaroid of your kids.

But seriously, multiple backups on external HDD's is the way to go, it costs pence per GB these days.
 
sp0rk said:
The car is still better than the house (providing it's not built in to the house obviously..)!
Click to expand...

Not to be argumentative but the likelihood of your house burning down, hmmm lets say 20%. On the other hand the likelihood of your cars trunk getting 120F, - 100 percent it will happen and happen often in many climates. Even if you leave it inside the interior it will still happen. Probably not as often but trust me (18 years Automotive bizz) I have seen things that you would have never imagined melt....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top