4 ms·
Google photos is also pretty cheap and convenient.
by colecut 5y ago
Google photos is also pretty cheap and convenient.
- leephillips 5y agoGoogle storage is 2 TB for $100/yr. Flickr is unlimited for $72/yr.
- hiptobecubic 5y agoIMO they serve very different purposes. Google Photos has very good search and collaborative album building. The result is that you can take random photos of your life and still get value out of it later. It's not archival quality, but it's extremely accessible, which makes up for it, imo.
- marwis 5y agoWith Google Photos you can't download uncompressed/original files and exif location tags are always stripped.
- aix1 5y agoThis was surprising, so I just downloaded one of my photos from Google Photos[*] as a test. The downloaded JPEG absolutely has EXIF location metadata. [*] by pressing Shift+D
- leephillips 5y agoYikes. So it’s just, what—some kind of sharing site? That makes it useless for backup.
- aix1 5y agoI don't believe the claim about EXIF location data is accurate -- please see my comment above.
- leephillips 5y agoThat’s good, but the part about losing access to the original files, if true, is a deal-breaker.
- marwis 5y agoIn theory you can download them all via Takeout but that tends to stop working for huge image libraries. Seems like the only way might be via web scraping.
- aix1 5y agoI'm not certain that's true either (if "Original Quality" is turned on[1]) but haven't tested it. That said, I personally only use Google Photos as a sharing site and do archiving offline. [1] https://support.google.com/photos/answer/6220791 https://support.google.com/photos/answer/6220791
- marwis 5y agoSorry, I should've mentioned this problem applies to images downloaded via API
- myko 5y ago> uncompressed/original files Even with the paid plan? I'm pretty sure I selected an "originals" option in Google Photos - do they not actually use the originals?