Online photo storage.

[Wingryder]

I apologize for starting a few threads here but I have a bunch of oddball questions that I am finding difficulty answering on google. I have tons of photos that I have taken over the years and only store them on 2 external Hard drives. I was curious about online storage, Flickr, ImageShack, Photobucket, Google photo, etc. and what are the considerations.

I mainly want it to share photos for critique and so forth on photography sites, perhaps also for offsite storage of all my images. I guess I'm a bit old-school because I am still a bit leary about online storage, having concerns about privacy, ownership, security, etc.

I would appreciate it if we could have a dialog about it. I don't know enough to ask the right questions.

Thanks in advance for the assistance.

 

[CAP]

I like shutterfly as they are the only one with that has no limit on space and can upload images of any size. and its simple and of course free.

 

[sscarmack]

I use flickr


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wingryder]

Do any of the accept RAW files? I'd like to be able to pull them straight from the camera and upload for later editing.

 

[Judobreaker]

RAW files are generally not recognized as images by anything on the internet so they count as normal file storage, not image storage.
If you'd want to store RAWs you'd have to find a place where you can store any files, but those are usually paid.

 

[tecboy]

You can try Dropbox. https://www.dropbox.com/pricing

 

[Ido]

RAW files are actually data files, not image files. Each RAW application interprets the data differently, so the image shown in Lightroom / ACR will probably look different from the image shown in another RAW converter.
Storing RAW files in the cloud can be done in Dropbox, Google Drive, or any other cloud storage service that isn't dedicated to photos and photos only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mashburn]

Do any of the accept RAW files? I'd like to be able to pull them straight from the camera and upload for later editing.

Seeing how you want to do this for people to critique you. My suggestion is that you will be editing them. Therefore just export them as a JPEG. there really isn;t that much of a point for RAW vs JPEG if you are putting on the internet for someone to critique. Unless you are planning on people to critique and edit. And if you have a lot of friends who critique and edit, can you please give them my contact information? I have a load of pictures from years ago I still need to work on.

 

[Wingryder]

Ok, so it sounds like online photo storage is still not exactly what I want. If I can only store images as jpegs, then I will have to keep my RAW files stored at home. If I upload all my RAWs as data files, I assume I don't get thumbnails... therefore recalling them for later edit is difficult. I was looking at Google, they accept RAW file photos, but from research, it seems to be a convoluted mess. Google photo, google drive and google plus are all intertwined. I was hoping to avoid a monthly fee.

For now, I may just open a Flickr account and upload only the photos that I want people to look at. From what I gather, Flickr is the photosite of choice for most.

Thanks for all the help!

EDIT: BTW, has anyone experienced any privacy/security issues with cloud storage? I don't use facebook anymore... I don't like the fact that they OWN your images if you put them online.

 

[cynicaster]

EDIT: BTW, has anyone experienced any privacy/security issues with cloud storage? I don't use facebook anymore... I don't like the fact that they OWN your images if you put them online.

Another option is to set up a NAS (Network Attached Storage). It's basically like a low-power "computer" that sits on your home network, whose sole purpose is to store files and serve them to you on your devices. Some NAS systems provide the capability of sitting out on the internet so you can access the content from anywhere (i.e., outside of your own Wi-Fi network). Essentially, this is like having your own personal "cloud". In fact, Western Digital calls their system just that: "MyCloud".

There are tons of different brands out there, so if you're interested in that route, be sure to do your research.

The only problem with this idea is that it still doesn't provide you with physical "off-site" storage. Heaven forbid, but if your house gets swallowed by a tornado the NAS goes with it.

 

[The_Traveler]

Zenfolio takes RAW files.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I use Flickr but not a lot, just have it viewable by people I know (I don't have time to look at that many people's photos either! so that's enough for me).

I have an external hard drive, I shoot film and have been scanning in select photos that I want in a digital format - if I try to scan in everything from several years' worth of photos I'll never get done! And I'm not going back all that far with it, if there are some older photos I find and want to scan in I probably will but I'm not going for having everything as a digital copy.

I follow a sports photographers' website and I remember sometime in the past several years there was a site many of them used and they didn't get much notice that the site was going down and going out of business - many were working pros and they were scrambling to get their photos and many lost images in the process. So I am not big on going that route at least not without photos being also stored elsewhere - I feel like with film my negatives are a backup.

Now that I think about it, so far I have everything still on the media cards - I'm up to three now! lol which I guess tells you how much I shoot digitally compared to years' worth of film.

 

[KmH]

The Raw file includes a JPEG thumbnail image.
That embedded JPEG thumbnail is what is displayed on a DSLR's rear LCD .

Do not trust online storage.

The only storage you can trust is offline storage you maintain.
You need to keep your original, and at the least 1 backup copy of your originals. But 2 backups is better as is one backup copy stored off site.

 

[Wingryder]

Do any of the accept RAW files? I'd like to be able to pull them straight from the camera and upload for later editing.

Seeing how you want to do this for people to critique you. My suggestion is that you will be editing them. Therefore just export them as a JPEG. there really isn;t that much of a point for RAW vs JPEG if you are putting on the internet for someone to critique. Unless you are planning on people to critique and edit. And if you have a lot of friends who critique and edit, can you please give them my contact information? I have a load of pictures from years ago I still need to work on.

i don't have lots of friends that critique photos, I was planning on doing that here...and a couple of other forums. Most forums don't allow uploads only links. I have a few photos that I share on various groups uploaded on Imageshack, but they are now charging a fee, so I don't want to continue with them.

I have shot mostly in JPEG for years and only shot raw for landscapes and birds and such. I want to get serious and start developing my craft rather than just vacation snaps. So, I'm want to start shooting RAW full time.

I would like to store ALL my images online as a backup, but it seems that's not quite feasible yet... At least not without a fee. Another concern I have is what happens to my images if the storage site goes out of business or is bought out? So it seems the best option for now is to keep all images local and upload only a small percentage as JPEGs.

 

[Wingryder]

The Raw file includes a JPEG thumbnail image.
That embedded JPEG thumbnail is what is displayed on a DSLR's rear LCD .

Do not trust online storage.

The only storage you can trust is offline storage you maintain.
You need to keep your original, and at the least 1 backup copy of your originals. But 2 backups is better as is one backup copy stored off site.

Very true. I thought I was just being "old school" in my learyness of online storage...