Photobucket users beware.

[FluffyChicken]

Re:

Google and OneDrive, two of the biggest companies is what I use.
Bothered work, if you let Google backup with their compression then it doesn't use any of the Gb limit.

Fast and works, never had a problem over the many years they've been doing it.
Google photo section may have changed it name over the years, but they always made it easy.

 

[mattr]

I just pay for the 100GB storage (20 quid a year or something) and upload at full quality.

 

[Silvergoat]

Re:

Don't rely on the 'Cloud' to keep your precious files and data safe. Don't bank on online companies to always be there in existence to preserve your files and data storage long term. Always backup and archive your files and data across a variety of your own storage media and devices. Do this on a regular basis moving your archives forward as hardware, apps, operating systems upgrade. Hardware, apps, operating systems are always driving forwards with little regard for 'legacy' files and data. We are generally sleep walking into the potential of being unable to retrieve older 'legacy' files and data because they're obsolete and no longer compatible with newer technologies and systems.

 

[Trebz]

I have a HP Proliant Micro Server running Freenas. I store most of my data on that but I had to use Photobucket or similar in order to post pictures of my rides and bikes etc.

Still no reply from Photobucket. Guess they just don't care.

 

[mattr]

Re: Re:

Don't rely on the 'Cloud' to keep your precious files and data safe. Don't bank on online companies to always be there in existence to preserve your files and data storage long term.

I don't, i have 4 versions, as per my first post.

Server, NAS, Cloud and PC.

And a portable hard drive.

Oh, now i write it down, i realise i have 5 copies of some things.

 

[Silvergoat]

Re: Re:

Don't rely on the 'Cloud' to keep your precious files and data safe. Don't bank on online companies to always be there in existence to preserve your files and data storage long term.

I don't, i have 4 versions, as per my first post.

Server, NAS, Cloud and PC.

And a portable hard drive.

Oh, now i write it down, i realise i have 5 copies of some things.

Ah, yes. The other thing is losing track of where you with all the duplicates and different versions :facepalm: something I'm guilty of despite best efforts to be organised...

 

[mattr]

I need a spreadsheet..........

which i'll probably lose. :/

 

[Titiritero]

Re:

Don't rely on the 'Cloud' to keep your precious files and data safe.

100% agreed. Not only for fear of losing the pictures, but also the lack of privacy by "sharing" your pictures with a third party, no matter how well intended they might be. Nowadays, what companies want is our data, that is money for them. I'd rather keep a local copy.

Also, now that "minimalism" is in fashion (to me it was always on, I'd call it "don't pile up sh*t you don't need"), I also apply it to my digital stuff. I regularly go through my pictures and clean up all the bad ones, duplicates, that curious flower nobody cares about...

When I want to see my pictures from let's say "holidays 2008", I want to see the best 100, not the 2000 I actually took!. It makes backups and file management much easier and faster.

 

[ExpertTools]

I just pay for the 100GB storage (20 quid a year or something) and upload at full quality.

Even if you pay for extra storage and upload at "full quality" I do not believe they keep the full resolution of the original picture files; only enough to satisfy the resolution needed to post on the internet, or print a modest sized photo.

 

[FluffyChicken]

I just pay for the 100GB storage (20 quid a year or something) and upload at full quality.

Even if you pay for extra storage and upload at "full quality" I do not believe they keep the full resolution of the original picture files; only enough to satisfy the resolution needed to post on the internet, or print a modest sized photo.

Google keep the original file.
The normal free upload using their new compression and you don't really loose anything.
Especially for normal photo's.

Of it's a Professional DSLR camera then maybe. I've not read anything for a while but the comparison with quality compact ultrazooms (like panasonic TZ) is to use Googles compression.
It is however recompressed, so there must be some loss.
Still you can pick and choose.
(If anyone knows of any recent reviews?)


Though that's not what photobucket was about, that like imgr etc and for posting picks easily, if crapply, on forums and such like)