Saving images: Flickr vs. Picasa, which one do you prefer?

[Alfred D.]

Originally Posted by parthiv91
flickr just because I have every thing from google.

Like baseball picture cards...

Hate to break it to you, but Flickr is owned by Yahoo.

LOL!

 

[AmericanJesus]

PhotoBucket

 

[PhilGarber]

I used to have yahoo pictures and they moved mine to flickr. I love it!! my friend has picasa and it (sorry) sucks...its hard for people to comment and she says she has problems uploading the pictures. flickr is awesome, its so easy once you download the uploader. I can only tell you good things about it and I have about 7000 pictures stored there!

I only use the Picasa photo editor and that is a great program..

I used Flickr for a bit... nice site, not much traffic it seemed though.:er:

 

[SoCalJeremy]

My brother just lost over 8,000 photos when his external hard drive decided it had better things to do than run correctly. I don't have experience with any of the sites, but what I do know is get a couple of baskets for your eggs, and it won't really matter if you chose the "best" one.

 

[Village Idiot]

My brother just lost over 8,000 photos when his external hard drive decided it had better things to do than run correctly. I don't have experience with any of the sites, but what I do know is get a couple of baskets for your eggs, and it won't really matter if you chose the "best" one.

That's why you're supposed to have two copies of your backups.

 

[pm63]

Out of the two sites you mentioned, FLCKR + UPLOADR!

But the thing to remember is that neither of them are backup sites, they are merely websites to display/comment on photos and interact, and you will find that that is what they are built to do, and how they will feel in usage.

If you just want to backup your photos, get an external drive.

 

[Alfred D.]

Originally Posted by SoCalJeremy
My brother just lost over 8,000 photos when his external hard drive decided it had better things to do than run correctly. I don't have experience with any of the sites, but what I do know is get a couple of baskets for your eggs, and it won't really matter if you chose the "best" one.

That's why you're supposed to have two copies of your backups.

No: you need three copies of your backups, one off-site (e.g. at your office, or a friend's place, which you swap with one of the other HDs once a month), because your house can burn down, your IT gear can be burgled (including your HDs), or a 20 storey building crane can collapse on top of your high-rise NYC appartment building. Etc. etc.

These things do happen!
And even the best insurance in the world cannot recover lost data/photos!

 

[Rhys]

Hmm... I have a free 20GB of photo storage with my webhost. Never used it though. I use a portable hard drive as backup and also save photos to DL DVDs. I have 2 copies - 1 in my fire safe and one in the bank.

 

[*Mike*]

I'd never have even thought to consider Flickr (or Picassa, or photobucket, etc.) as a true backup system. It's not their intended purpose...

Few other options... DVD's. External drives. Your own hosting account.

We keep a working copy of a file on one drive. Then we have backups on two different external drives, and a DVD set. As files age, and their income potential goes down, we clear them off the hard-drives.

 

[Rhys]

I'm not much of a fan of storing images on hard drives ad infinitum. Let's look at it like this...

I bought a Macbook. While it will read from my NTFS formatted hard drive, it will not write to it.

A way around this would be to set up a hard drive running off your router or via a Linux-based server. Then, of course, you're restricted to an ETH0 formatted drive for your server.

It therefore becomes important to realise that whatever system you use to store your data, you must be able to retrieve it. I thus suggest that only optical storage has the potential to be usable in all systems.

I can't write to NTFS or ETH0 from Mac. I can't write to HFS or ETH0 from PC. I can't write to HFS or NTFS from Linux. All 3 will however work with optical storage.

Certainly FAT32 drives can be used by all 3 systems but FAT32 is forever going bad with the infamous lost clusters. FAT 16/32/64 are not worthwhile drive formats.

In conclusion I will say that only optical storage will survive an EMP.

 

[Alfred D.]

I can't write to NTFS or ETH0 from Mac. I can't write to HFS or ETH0 from PC. I can't write to HFS or NTFS from Linux. All 3 will however work with optical storage.

UNTIL the burned optical media go bad, which they do after 5 to 10 years. Then your optical medium will be illegible. And UNrecoverable.
Re-burn your optical archival CDs and DVDs every 3 years on A brand disks (and trash the old ones).

Certainly FAT32 drives can be used by all 3 systems but FAT32 is forever going bad with the infamous lost clusters. FAT 16/32/64 are not worthwhile drive formats.

Which is why you need double redundancy: you need to backup the backup (mirror it). Then you'll be fine.

In conclusion I will say that only optical storage will survive an EMP.

"EMP"? Luckily I'm not expecting any nuclear detonations in my hood anytime soon...

 

[randerson07]

All this talk is saddening, I dont have the time or patience to backup to DVDs and multiple HDs. My mom just lost her 2nd HD worth of pictures, mostly because her and my sisters treat the computer desk like a dinning table. But all the pics of me as a kid on film are still good and they are in no apparent order in a big ole box in the closet. Usually not in any sort of protection.

Maybe Ill just keep shooting film, the negatives should out last me right?

 

[Alfred D.]

Maybe Ill just keep shooting film, the negatives should out last me right?

Keep dreaming: negatives go brittle after 30 to 50 years and will simply disintegrate into dust...
So for longer storage you will need to do something, even to negatives!

 

[randerson07]

Lame.

I quit



LOL

 

[dgreen]

I use Carbonite dot com online backup.
It is unlimited storage for $50 a year.

It automatically backs up the folders you tell it to.
Very easy.