Flickr

[EdT]

Currently the last 10 years of photos are sitting on Amazon'c Cloud service, which is reaching it's 20GB amount (can get more of course, but costs more)

Being tempated by Flickr's 1TB (!) free storage. Did a few tests last night & it seems OK. My concern is, I feel I can trust Amazon wont mess up - no danger of their technology failing & losing everything. Flickr is an unknown bunch to me - should I be wary ?

[Otispunkmeyer]

I have been a flickr pro account user for years now. Never had a single issue.

I wouldn't be worried if I were you and if you are, hard drives are cheap, get a small portable one to keep a back up.

[EdT]

Fairs do's. Took me a min to tune in to the Flickr way of doing things, but it seems to work really well.

Backup hard drive, noted!

[jmorgan]

Flickr is a bit unusable at the moment, seems they are having a major revamp aimed at a different customer and peeing off existing especially the pro users. I had Pro through my BT account so used it as another place to stash mine, already backed up across several drives and an off site drive. 2007 started, no David Baily here so not much on the traffic to my pics but what the heck, another place to stash. Just mark up private what you want kept for your eyes only. You can get family passes etc if you want to pass them around family and so on.

I think 1tb is a bit of a gimmick but there we go.

[ian in lancs]

SmugMug is on Amazon too and I'm happy with the service

[EdT]

9,000 photos & counting...

Edited by EdT on Tuesday 16th July 09:56

[The Jolly Todger]

If they let me store RAW files I would use it wayyyyy more. I can see why they don't though.

[K12beano]

The Jolly Todger said:

If they let me store RAW files I would use it wayyyyy more. I can see why they don't though.

That would be cool. Been thinking about the Dropbox-type solutions. Really get away from multiple hard drives etc.....

After living with the "new" Flickr for a while it's starting to grow on me.

[Craikeybaby]

The Jolly Todger said:

If they let me store RAW files I would use it wayyyyy more. I can see why they don't though.

The problem with storing raw files on a service like flickr is that they would look crap when displayed.

[probedb]

Craikeybaby said:

The problem with storing raw files on a service like flickr is that they would look crap when displayed.

And take a whole lot more space for them to store them. That and the fact there are so many different formats for RAW.

[flat-planedCrank]

Craikeybaby said:

The Jolly Todger said:

If they let me store RAW files I would use it wayyyyy more. I can see why they don't though.

The problem with storing raw files on a service like flickr is that they would look crap when displayed.

Indeed, raw files aren't really images as such, they are sensor data that needs to be processed into actual images. They do sometimes have an imbedded pre-rendered image though

[dxbtiger]

I uploaded a few photos for the first in ages the other night, since the revamp, it had real trouble doing 7 in one go, anyone else facing issues?

May well be the ste internet out here though.

[tim-b]

I just uploaded a batch of 29 images with no problems....

[jmorgan]

Must admit I have not tried any big batches since the new set up. I do know that if I look online with my dongle (when away from home), it eats up my monthly tariff in a thrice.

[EdT]

dxbtiger said:

I uploaded a few photos for the first in ages the other night, since the revamp, it had real trouble doing 7 in one go, anyone else facing issues?

May well be the ste internet out here though.

there's a limit of 200 at a time, but I've done this a few times A OK. Takes a while.. seems quite a bit slower than uploading onto Amazon cloud, but cant ignore all that lovely free space . Really hope they dont change their business model....