151–160 of 380 posts
I uh, kinda just don't. I save some pictures to Google drive and otherwise just embrace ephemerality.
I've found that the greatest benefit of cloud storage is not as a backup, but as our primary place to keep and look at photos. We started uploading and organizing everything in Flickr a few years ago, and now we spend more time enjoying our photos with Flickr's web and mobile apps than we ever did when they were scattered across our laptops and backed up to an external hard drive.
I still have the photos stored locally on my laptop and an external hard drive, and I fully expect that I'll need to upload them again to another service (maybe Google Photos, if that still exists) when Flickr finally fails as a business.
I use iCloud, and would pay for a solution that allows me to automatically archive on a monthly basis to Amazon Glacier. Anyone know of such a solution?
So I gave up. Unfortunately I still have to do manual export all media from i$$$ devices, move them to linux/android-based system. "move" really means that, because I never pay icloud again.
(Very) old school: you get a multi-TB disk of some sort, doesn't have to be fast or high quality. Back up the media to that disk, and then take it down to your safe deposit box. No absurd monthly fees, no Terms of Service, it's off-site so if your house burns down, you're covered. "Your what ?" Yeah, the banks still have those. Mine costs $15 a year. If you die, your next-of-kin will have to bring in a death certific…
But I see little if any point to offline-only backups of something like family photos. Usable and backed-up is what I'm after, and preferably not just usable but very convenient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's security by obscurity - either do it right (if your data demands it) or don't put any effort in it at all, IMHO.
> That's security by obscurity Exactly. And in instances of securing physical objects, depending on the threat model, obscurity can an effective barrier.
I have a primary SSD for my OS and applications, a secondary SSD where I store my latest/active Lightroom catalogues/files and a large 4TB (spinning disc) hard drive for local backup.
After a shoot I'll import the files onto my secondary SSD and then manually copy them over to the local HDD once I've done my picks and culled things a bit. That HDD is automatically backed up to Backblaze so there's always an original copy of the files either local or in the cloud. Any images that I edit/pick/export will be manually uploaded to Google Photos (usually in it's own album) and I try to annually pull down files from Google to go into another 'jpg/exported' folder on my HDD that's backed up to Backblaze. My wife and I also have our iPhones backing up to Google photos automatically plus we have Apple storage/backups - so we tend to have double coverage on most things.
Some of it is a bit overkill probably but I'm particular about having access to all my photos and I've definitely gone back to look at and edit old photos/shoots so it's worked out ok for me so far.
(Very) old school: you get a multi-TB disk of some sort, doesn't have to be fast or high quality. Back up the media to that disk, and then take it down to your safe deposit box. No absurd monthly fees, no Terms of Service, it's off-site so if your house burns down, you're covered. "Your what ?" Yeah, the banks still have those. Mine costs $15 a year. If you die, your next-of-kin will have to bring in a death certific…
Lesson: never rely on a single backup for what's important to you.
First, I'd recommend thinning out - multiple terabytes sounds very extensive and can be thinned by removing duplicates and by using better compression like webp or x265, removing unnecessary raw-files, etc. My personal backup is the usual 3-2-1: 3 backups, 2 places, 1 offline. I have one copy on my local harddrive (that I work with), one automatically synced copy via seafile on one of my dedicated servers (which also…
> better compression like webp or x265, removing unnecessary raw-files, etc. OP is talking about digitized videos, so asking to re-compress the videos is a https://xkcd.com/1683/ in the making.
Yea you are technically correct, but if the distance from the original is just a handful of encodes, good luck noticing any lower quality that's not simply due to poor encoding settings. And when a proper encode can be a 10th the size with hardly any drop in quality, in a video file you might view <12 more times in your life, does it really matter.