Cheapest cloud storage option (or none?)?

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by alex_jaimes|1, Sep 4, 2017.

  1. So far I've been storing my RAW files on external HDDs (3 copies, one off-site). I now have about 10 TB of photos+videos and I'm thinking of cloud as a backup for RAW files.

    Option 1: backup "only" in case something happens to the HDDs. so access would be very infrequent, if ever (Amazon Glacier).
    Option 2: backup that I could also use to access images (e.g., Amazon Cloud drive)

    Option 2 seems pretty expensive (compared to keeping HDDs myself and not having any cloud backup)- with amazon could drive, it would be $600/year (same with Backblaze B2). Of course, I could instead store low-res images on the cloud and fit everything in a free service- and maybe option 1 + that would be cost effective.

    What would you recommend? is there a cheaper option than Amazon Glacier?
  2. Why would you use a cloud when it can rain? Your using externals, best solution, they are yours and you control everything. If you are worried about fire or such, store off-site.
  3. How about mediafire? I don't have that qty of storage required but, so far, it works pretty well for me. ( I have around 40Gb worth of already-delivered-projects with them)
  4. I use Backblaze backup, for $50 per year. It's excellent and freed me from constantly syncing physical drives in different locations. My 3TB took almost three-weeks for the initial backup. If you've got a fast internet connection, then you can expect 10 to 12-weeks. If you connection is not fast, then it could be a real problem. The Backblaze synchronizing program is simple to setup. Your only limit is your available upload speed. Backblaze does NOT choke speed down.
  5. Rick, with Irma bearing down on me, there was no safe off site location. Cloud would be the safest.
  6. I'd be reluctant to spend a lot on cloud storage. Uploading your 10 TB would take my current connection 5 years (according to math). The odds of something happening to domestic backups are not very high? - If something happens; isn't your life at risk too at that moment? - I'm combining that thought with the nature of RAW files & photography. I am a shutterbug and sorry that your fame hasn't reached me.
    • I am getting from the world around me: Average people care less about photos than I do. I see them shooting(!) JPEGs.
    • I know they appreciate finished JPEGs and am aware of their limited attention spans, sloppy backup habits etc.
    If you want your photos to outlive yourself, make them:
    • Good
    • Accessible
    • Small
    • Public
    It is likely that heirs will notice your annual cloud bill and cancel the service, to spend that money on taxes or ice cream.
    It is also likely that heirs aren't enthusiastic about getting bandwidth and hardware to wade through that huge mess of all our RAW files.
    We are emotionally closer to our pictures, so we should try to leave a neat package of processed keepers.
    In that light Google's offer to store an unlimited number of compressed 16 MP files & 1080p footage for free doesn't look too bad. - Currently I own only 2 cameras with higher resolution and assume only a tiny fraction of their output would benefit from getting stored at full resolution.

    I am challenged to imagine a disaster I could survive. - I did not insure my domestic clutter against losses. I'd be happy to be alive in a tent with a borrowed book and later in some tiny room with Internet access.

    What does it take to proof your fame &/ skills to get a next job as somebody else's employed shooter or to get credit for new gear to restart your business? - I'd say HD stills should earn you "Wow, you weren't bad" and 4K ones should earn you your previous clients
    ' respect after a disaster striking your home?

    I hope I don't sound too happy go lucky and am sorry if I did not see an obvious advantage of storing all one's RAWs in the cloud, for which unknown reason ever.

Share This Page