4 ms·
Also people who shoot raw photos. They're like 35MB each, an order of magnitude bigger than jpegs. They can eat up gigabytes (though to be fair, not terabytes)
by roywiggins 11y ago
Also people who shoot raw photos. They're like 35MB each, an order of magnitude bigger than jpegs. They can eat up gigabytes (though to be fair, not terabytes) pretty fast. I have about 525GB of photos and videos that I've taken over years. Something like 300GB is jpegs. If I'd exclusively shot raw files I would need 3-4TB to store everything.
- masterj 11y agoAnd 4TB these days only costs ~$120 http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-SATA-3-5-Inch-Desktop-ST4000DM000/dp/B00B99JU4S http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-SATA-3-5-Inch-Desktop-ST4000DM... though it's still a chore to manage and backup so many photos
- Razengan 11y ago> it's still a chore to manage and backup so many photos I can't wait for a photo manager with some kind of AI that goes through the pictures I've taken myself and offers them based on "feel good vibes", "eerie", "cozy" and so on, and learning what I like as it goes. Apple please?
- roywiggins 11y agoGoogle Photos has some AI tied into it- it tries to autotag photos into categories like "selfies" and "concerts" and "Christmas" (to name a few at random) and it isn't completely perfect, but not horrible. Not so useful for me, since I don't care to upload my entire photo collection to Google. Something like this that either works offline or can progressively tag photos and insert those tags in a format Lightroom could read would be awfully useful.