Live data from Hacker News

Storage for Photographers

paulstamatiou.com

21–30 of 186 posts

Re: Storage for Photographers

#21
This is exactly what I was thinking about... I want cloud based storage which I am not locked into with a decent UI , way to browse and basic image management (something like ThisLife for the fronted)

I think it's possible to have a either S3 or GDrive based system that has a Angular.js (or some other JS MVC) that can operate without a backend for very simple browsing features and connecting to the S3 via apis.

I think it's doable ...

Re: Storage for Photographers

#22
post #8

Backup is about having several copies. If you delete files after you uploaded them to the cloud, you don't have a backup - with all the problems that come with it (say, if you delete a file by accident there will probably be no way to restore it). If your files are important to you - you need a back up. If not - just get rid of them in the name of simplicity :) PS. Also, uploading many gigabytes over a typical ADSL c…

I wanted the benefit of Glacier plus backup functionality so I went with Arq. It encrypts everything and supports Glacier. Works really, really nicely.

Re: Storage for Photographers

#23
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The large part of this post for me is about the local thumbnail exports of the RAWs so I actually know what files are what without having to go just by album names, dates et cetera.

You could keep the thumbnails local and annex the raws. Based on the thumbnails, you could selectively git annex get from the remote glacier

good point

Re: Storage for Photographers

#24

If you want to avoid having any backup devices yourself, would you need to upload to two or more Glacier-like services? I also trust Amazon to stay in business but mistakes can always happen (not just hardware but ID theft, card expiry while you're on a 6 month hike, etc) and unless you're prepared to say "losing these is OK" using one service would be risky.

This is true, but what other Glacier-like services are there that have $0.01/GB/mon storage + retrieval?

Re: Storage for Photographers

#25
post #8

Backup is about having several copies. If you delete files after you uploaded them to the cloud, you don't have a backup - with all the problems that come with it (say, if you delete a file by accident there will probably be no way to restore it). If your files are important to you - you need a back up. If not - just get rid of them in the name of simplicity :) PS. Also, uploading many gigabytes over a typical ADSL c…

I wanted the benefit of Glacier plus backup functionality so I went with Arq. It encrypts everything and supports Glacier. Works really, really nicely.

I use Arq as well. Easily one of the best backup options for Macs.

Re: Storage for Photographers

#26
I still prefer local storage and self-hosted storage, but what I'd like is a good plugin for Lightroom to manage cloud storage and multiple, versioned USB drives (or network locations) for images, from within the Lightroom interface.

(for local storage, once you go beyond individual USB drives, I'd go with a Synology 1813+ NAS ($999 chassis, 8-bay) or an Areca ARC-8050 thunderbolt raid ($1499, 8-bay).)

Re: Storage for Photographers

#30
"I open the folder where Lightroom imports are stored and drag these shots to the RAWbox (fake name for this ideal photo app) desktop application."

You shouldn't be touching the directory structure. This tool should be either a plugin for Lightroom/Aperture/Photoshop or an entirely separate application.

I would lean towards separate application. It could be a background agent that detects when new files are added, would work for any known editor or user-defined directory.

Post reply on HN