7 ms·

Add a family to this and it only compounds. My wife takes pictures with her phone, I take pictures with mine, we've got a Sony NEX that I took 4,500 pictures wi

by orofino 13y ago

Add a family to this and it only compounds. My wife takes pictures with her phone, I take pictures with mine, we've got a Sony NEX that I took 4,500 pictures with last year (we traveled a lot), not to mention the years of photos from before... And unlike a "normal" person, I want to review and edit this stuff in lightroom. Perhaps dropbox is the solution, but I've probably got something like 120GB of photos... and only 132GB of space there. Now what... I have to pay still more to dropbox to get their 200GB plan. I'll be buying a NAS in a couple weeks. This should be awesome, but wait, I want the wide integration that dropbox provides. Is the solution to save everything to dropbox and move it out on a regular basis onto the NAS? In short, I don't feel I should need to spend $200/year (plus $25 more for flickr), so that I can organize and maintain a photo hobby. (And worse, based on this thread, no one seems to have solved it)

mikepurvis 13y ago
I feel like home NAS + btsync could be the killer setup for this.
Terretta 13y ago
I'm traveling this week, but email me a reminder next Monday and I'll share a workflow using solely Apple free tools to get your photos into Lightroom. I'm a little surprised how much misinformation is in this thread. (Btw, I feel Dropbox is an outrageously expensive solution to this.)
- orofino 13y ago
  Thanks, will do. I agree about Dropbox, I have no intention of adding additional space for this, however, I like the integration it offers on phones etc.
verytrivial 13y ago
Take fewer, better photos.
- rythie 13y ago
  If you're taking pictures of people, you end up having to take dozens and dozens of the same shot because people's expressions change so much. When you get a chance to filter them - it's too late to take the shot again - even if that's just minutes later. Of course you could delete the rejects - but it hardly seems worth the time. Also, auto bracketing for HDR (3 pictures per shot normally), RAW+JPEG and continuous shot modes all tend to generate a lot to store.
- hnriot 13y ago
  For some people it's not about quality, that's for photographers. A lot of people just like memories and photos of the kids playing at this place and that place might not make great photos but they are still important to the people. My daughter takes photos of her pets all the time, her iPhone is full all the time. They aren't great photos and they are highly repetitive but they are important to her.
  - orofino 13y ago
    In my case, this isn't it. As others have responded, you take many pictures in order to get a good one. I'm messing with shutter speeds and aperture, I'm shooting on continuous advance, and as I mentioned elsewhere, I took a lot of photos last year due to travel. Finally, I'm keeping maybe 20% of what I take. The other 80% are being deleted. Shooting in RAW takes up enormous amounts of space.
    - slantyyz 13y ago
      I've been forced to do something similar, except I'm a little more aggressive than you. Because I like to keep my entire Aperture library on my laptop, I really have to watch disk space. For a time, I was floating over 200GB for my library until I forced myself to spend 20m a day for a few weeks culling. I'm still at 180GB but rate of disk space consumption of the library has slowed down significantly. I try to keep 10% of my shots or less. These days, I only keep "high sentimental value" photos (regardless of how well they came out) and shots I'd consider putting into a printed album or on the wall. It means throwing out a lot of otherwise good pictures. And now that Apple finally introduced "unofficial" support for Fuji's EXR sensors (it only took 2 years :( ), I've been shooting RAW on my X10, which are basically 18MB for 6MP images (it's complicated, there's pixel binning and other stuff going on, so the files are inordinately large). Going RAW was actually a bit of a godsend - I was a digital hoarder that kept 80% of my files. It wasn't until I came to grips with the fact that I really only do look at 10% of them that I forced myself to overcome my hoarding mentality and start culling. --sidebar-- I now use a USB gamepad to do my flagging for deletion on large photosets. I use a $5 app in the Mac App Store called Joystick mapper, and have mapped key operations to the game pad's buttons. If you're the console gamer type, you'll find yourself going through a set incredibly quickly by using a gamepad instead of mouse/touchpad plus keyboard.
fakeer 13y ago
Did you check some backup solutions like Crashplan and Backblaze?
- orofino 13y ago
  I certainly have considered them, but I'm already paying for dropbox and flickr and a vps and domains. I try to keep recurring costs relatively low. I use dropbox to back up important files and flickr is a backup for my photos. I'll be getting a NAS to provide at least some local fault tolerance for storing things like photos, music, and movies.
- NamTaf 13y ago
  This. If I were dealing with that level of photography here's how I would consider setting it up: I'd buy a home NAS and shove it full of disks (a Proliant Microserver can take 4x3TB drives easily, 6 if you want to get creative with ports and USB bootable sticks) and run it as a RAID-5 array. This cost me about $600-$700 a couple of years ago, drives inclusive. My array sits on a bookshelf, tucked away, almost silent (drives are the majority of the noise sometimes) and low-power. RAID gives it pretty decent durability so if you do get a hard drive freakout you're able to correct pretty easy. When one of my hard drives went dicky, I just ddrescue'd it across to a fresh drive then let the RAID array rebuild the bad data (RAID-Z is so sexy but that's another topic). You could probably just DD the thing and rely on the RAID checksums to do it or even just checksum the entire lot, depending on the volume of data. Then I'd link Crashplan or Glacier to those folders and have it periodically diff/sync the data (e.g: overnight once a week/month). I don't have any such setup myself but I have read posts on forums from guys who have set this up as automated syncing of folders and they seem pretty happy with it. This is essentially an insurance against fat-fingeredness or your house burning down. Now you have an offsite backup that is always relatively recent and an onsite backup that is free to access to your heart's content for modification through almost any medium. Yearly crashplan unlimited access costs $70 for a single device which is really all you're after, because your working storage is your NAS and the NAS is all that'll ever be touching the crashplan storage. I don't know Glacier pricing but I'd imagine that for some workflows it could be beneficial and for others it could be detrimental. Dropbox can be set to sync with a subfolder so that if you take images on your iDevice or equivalent it automatically syncs them via dropbox to your NAS. Dropbox can also act as your working directory for any images you may be tinkering with on a remote device that can't just access the NAS outright. Rsync can be used to transfer files out of the dropbox folder to the main folder or to a 'to be sorted/postprocessed' folder on a periodic basis - essentially, every day you take a bunch of photos, that night it checks dropbox for those photos and shifts them out to free up more space. The NAS is a full linux install so it's flexible on what you can do. The only downside I can see here is that you don't have every single image in the cloud, available to every single device at any given moment. I'm not sure if for your gigabytes of photographic memories that that's necessarily an issue, nor am I sure that if you're primarily editing stuff on a fullsized computer with e.g. Lightroom that is usually on the same network as the NAS, that it's a problem either. Sharing of data can be facilitated through a public dropbox folder that you just copy stuff in to when you want to share those images. Anyway, from the perspective of someone who doesn't actually do this. I'm sure there's tools I don't know about that could slot in to this workflow and solve other problems that may affect some people. The beauty of it is given that the storage is yours, local to you and based on a full linux distro, you're free to do just about anything to it. Change backup providers? No problem, just resync all data. Workflow changes and you need a new feature? Find it and install it. I look forward to hearing feedback on why this may/may not work for you :)
pudquick 13y ago
> but I've probably got something like 120GB of photos > I don't feel I should need to spend $200/year (plus $25 more for flickr), so that I can organize and maintain a photo hobby At a generous 5 MB per photo, that's 24,000 photos. You would have to take 65 photos, every day, for a year straight to reach those numbers. That's 1 photo every 15 minutes of your waking life for a year (assuming 8 hours sleep). That's considerably a bit more than a 'hobby'. At your levels, I consider $200/year rather reasonable for that level of obsession. The amount a traditional film camera user would have had to spend in developing and film costs alone for that level of usage would be astronomical. The only quasi-reasonable complaint there is the long term storage costs of your high level of need. However, you're also making a special case of needing those photos 'everywhere'. Comparing to traditional photography there would have been no way to lug around 24,000 photos. They would have been stored, with the negatives, in an album somewhere. Kind of like sitting on a harddrive - which the going rate for 120GB is $25 (250 GB external for $50) as a one-time purchase cost. I understand your desire to have everything digital available at all times and backed up against disasters, but there is going to be a cost associated with that. And that cost is MASSIVELY cheaper, even at today's rates, than someone with your 'hobby' would have been spending trying to do the same thing, 10-15 years ago.
- chollida1 13y ago
  > At a generous 5 MB per photo, that's 24,000 photos. You would have to take 65 photos, every day, for a year straight to reach those numbers. That's 1 photo every 15 minutes of your waking life for a year (assuming 8 hours sleep). Is that generous? A RAW file from my SLR is about 20 MBytes. Many SLR's have larger RAW files. But using my "conservative" estimate that's 16 photos a day. Considering the average photographer can snap 10 photos in about 3 seconds during a photo shoot this seems very reasonable to me.
  - andrewingram 13y ago
    Yeah, my RAWs are 29 MBytes. Assume a conservative 1000 photos per holiday (it would actually be higher if I wasn't in the habit of discarding some shots immediately), then you're looking at 28 GBytes. If I were a pro photographer, shooting events like weddings or sporting occasions, I could easily hit 1000 shots in a day. I believe my company has about 10 TBytes of photography directly related to what we do, and that's from older DSLRs with smaller RAW files.
innonate 13y ago
You'd actually be surprised at how "normal" your workflow is. I'm one of the Picturelife founders and found that actually a ton of people start with Aperture or Lightroom, review it, rate/filter/adjust etc, and then let it automatically push to Picturelife (or wherever they backup). We don't have Lightroom integration yet (just Aperture for now https://picturelife.com/learn/aperture https://picturelife.com/learn/aperture ) so I'm not trying to sell you on anything, but your workflow is actually remarkably normal.
- nchuhoai 13y ago
  Do you guys have export options? Like what happens if you guys go out of business?
  - cwh 13y ago
    at the moment you can migrate from our storage to your own s3 bucket. we have plans in the works to have a proper data export including all of the metadata associated with your photos and videos. picturelife going out of business is not something that I want to think about, but as a user, data exporting would be a main priority in the case that our service would cease to exist. - chris, cto of picturelife
PavlovsCat 13y ago
Learn to delete. Not right away, but go through old stuff at least, and be a snob. Your mileage may vary, but the delete button is my number one photography tool. I now actually have less photos than I had after, say, 3 years; simply because my standards of what I consider a keepers rise. I still totally suck at photography, but I have become very good at deleting, even if I say so myself, so people sometimes think I'm quite decent ^^ Maybe try it out with moving them at first, to get a feel for it.
- Torrents 13y ago
  Oh man...that's hard to do though. Deleting photos isn't for the faint of heart.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    I know.. I never take it lightly. But I also never regretted it either, probably because I really do spend some time on making that decision, and know I would do it again. Excuse the bragging, but by now I can even delete songs! Super crappy "songs", mind you; but it was near impossible for me at first. It's liberating however, and with photos just plain necessary IMHO. You are not actually killing that person, or destroying that object; you are just deciding which one(s) of the photos of that moment or mood capture it best, and delete the ones which are just slightly worse variations of those. It takes time though, that is a real cost. Though I think that time is made up for down the road, when you don't have to wade past the photos you deleted, or wait for them to upload/download/backup, etc... even a little bit of self-discipline adds up to quite a bit over a lifetime of digital photography. I think of it as removing weed so the flowers are more enjoyable, and have a greater probability of actually being seen (photographs are kinda useless when they are not seen other than by the bulge they create in the pagination; flickr is like a graveyard where good photos go to get overlooked in that way).
    - demallien 13y ago
      I've noticed that I never go back to looking at old photos. If I've been off at a special event - holidays, a conference a wedding etc, I take any photos / video that I took, and edit it into a short film using iMovie. Because the film has been curated and worked, it is generally of higher quality than the raw shots, and as a result I have noticed that I tend watch the resulting films far (two orders of magnitude?) more often than the raw photos. I've been doing this for a about 5-6 years now, so about 3 years ago I started deleting the raw shots a few months after having finished the film. To date I have not once regretted deleting a photo.
jonknee 13y ago
Adobe really needs to figure out how to have Lightroom work with multiple computers / offline storage. Maybe now that they're all "cloud" (though mostly in name only) this will happen. My pain is that I have a laptop and a desktop (not uncommon for photography. I want to be able to look at the photos on my laptop when on the road, but I also want these photos on the desktop (which can be hooked into a large NAS). If I make some edits on the plane those edits should sync to my desktop and vice versa, but I don't want everything both places--I probably only want the most recent shoot on my laptop along with whatever I choose to keep around (highlights from the past). I have to imagine Adobe's developers also see their laptops filling up, there has to be a better way.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
philoushka 13y ago
Buying a NAS - try a Synology. Best in class. They've got an app to upload from your Android and iOS devices to the Synology. It's called DS Photo+. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeeZxa4N7NA#t=348s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeeZxa4N7NA#t=348s Happy customer.
cheald 13y ago
Google charges $10/mo for 200gb of Picasa storage. Dropbox is ~$16/mo (when paid yearly). Amazon Glacier is $0.01/GB/mo, plus data transfer costs (which are still minimal) - a $100 2TB hard drive plus Glacier backup gives you tons of local storage and protection against data loss in the event of hardware failure. You could even have a RAID-1 array of hard drives to protect against hardware failure (but not necessarily against disaster/theft, so Glacier or similar offsite backup would still be needed.) In any case, there are plenty of good existing pieces in play.
vacri 13y ago
In short, I don't feel I should need to spend $200/year (plus $25 more for flickr), so that I can organize and maintain a photo hobby. Who cares if it's a hobby or otherwise? You want a particular service and you don't want to pay for it. Options are naturally going to be limited.
bruceboughton 13y ago
As a word of warning from someone who's tried it, do NOT try to run iPhoto/Aperture off of a NAS. These apps assume local disk speeds in the way they operate and NASs do not fit that assumption. In fact, since I bought my NAS, I've yet to find a good use for it. Disk access is just too slow through the embedded CPU.

by orofino 13y ago

mikepurvis 13y ago

I feel like home NAS + btsync could be the killer setup for this.

Terretta 13y ago

I'm traveling this week, but email me a reminder next Monday and I'll share a workflow using solely Apple free tools to get your photos into Lightroom. I'm a little surprised how much misinformation is in this thread. (Btw, I feel Dropbox is an outrageously expensive solution to this.)

orofino 13y ago
Thanks, will do. I agree about Dropbox, I have no intention of adding additional space for this, however, I like the integration it offers on phones etc.

verytrivial 13y ago

Take fewer, better photos.

rythie 13y ago
If you're taking pictures of people, you end up having to take dozens and dozens of the same shot because people's expressions change so much. When you get a chance to filter them - it's too late to take the shot again - even if that's just minutes later. Of course you could delete the rejects - but it hardly seems worth the time. Also, auto bracketing for HDR (3 pictures per shot normally), RAW+JPEG and continuous shot modes all tend to generate a lot to store.
hnriot 13y ago
For some people it's not about quality, that's for photographers. A lot of people just like memories and photos of the kids playing at this place and that place might not make great photos but they are still important to the people. My daughter takes photos of her pets all the time, her iPhone is full all the time. They aren't great photos and they are highly repetitive but they are important to her.
- orofino 13y ago
  In my case, this isn't it. As others have responded, you take many pictures in order to get a good one. I'm messing with shutter speeds and aperture, I'm shooting on continuous advance, and as I mentioned elsewhere, I took a lot of photos last year due to travel. Finally, I'm keeping maybe 20% of what I take. The other 80% are being deleted. Shooting in RAW takes up enormous amounts of space.
  - slantyyz 13y ago
    I've been forced to do something similar, except I'm a little more aggressive than you. Because I like to keep my entire Aperture library on my laptop, I really have to watch disk space. For a time, I was floating over 200GB for my library until I forced myself to spend 20m a day for a few weeks culling. I'm still at 180GB but rate of disk space consumption of the library has slowed down significantly. I try to keep 10% of my shots or less. These days, I only keep "high sentimental value" photos (regardless of how well they came out) and shots I'd consider putting into a printed album or on the wall. It means throwing out a lot of otherwise good pictures. And now that Apple finally introduced "unofficial" support for Fuji's EXR sensors (it only took 2 years :( ), I've been shooting RAW on my X10, which are basically 18MB for 6MP images (it's complicated, there's pixel binning and other stuff going on, so the files are inordinately large). Going RAW was actually a bit of a godsend - I was a digital hoarder that kept 80% of my files. It wasn't until I came to grips with the fact that I really only do look at 10% of them that I forced myself to overcome my hoarding mentality and start culling. --sidebar-- I now use a USB gamepad to do my flagging for deletion on large photosets. I use a $5 app in the Mac App Store called Joystick mapper, and have mapped key operations to the game pad's buttons. If you're the console gamer type, you'll find yourself going through a set incredibly quickly by using a gamepad instead of mouse/touchpad plus keyboard.

fakeer 13y ago

Did you check some backup solutions like Crashplan and Backblaze?

orofino 13y ago
I certainly have considered them, but I'm already paying for dropbox and flickr and a vps and domains. I try to keep recurring costs relatively low. I use dropbox to back up important files and flickr is a backup for my photos. I'll be getting a NAS to provide at least some local fault tolerance for storing things like photos, music, and movies.
NamTaf 13y ago
This. If I were dealing with that level of photography here's how I would consider setting it up: I'd buy a home NAS and shove it full of disks (a Proliant Microserver can take 4x3TB drives easily, 6 if you want to get creative with ports and USB bootable sticks) and run it as a RAID-5 array. This cost me about $600-$700 a couple of years ago, drives inclusive. My array sits on a bookshelf, tucked away, almost silent (drives are the majority of the noise sometimes) and low-power. RAID gives it pretty decent durability so if you do get a hard drive freakout you're able to correct pretty easy. When one of my hard drives went dicky, I just ddrescue'd it across to a fresh drive then let the RAID array rebuild the bad data (RAID-Z is so sexy but that's another topic). You could probably just DD the thing and rely on the RAID checksums to do it or even just checksum the entire lot, depending on the volume of data. Then I'd link Crashplan or Glacier to those folders and have it periodically diff/sync the data (e.g: overnight once a week/month). I don't have any such setup myself but I have read posts on forums from guys who have set this up as automated syncing of folders and they seem pretty happy with it. This is essentially an insurance against fat-fingeredness or your house burning down. Now you have an offsite backup that is always relatively recent and an onsite backup that is free to access to your heart's content for modification through almost any medium. Yearly crashplan unlimited access costs $70 for a single device which is really all you're after, because your working storage is your NAS and the NAS is all that'll ever be touching the crashplan storage. I don't know Glacier pricing but I'd imagine that for some workflows it could be beneficial and for others it could be detrimental. Dropbox can be set to sync with a subfolder so that if you take images on your iDevice or equivalent it automatically syncs them via dropbox to your NAS. Dropbox can also act as your working directory for any images you may be tinkering with on a remote device that can't just access the NAS outright. Rsync can be used to transfer files out of the dropbox folder to the main folder or to a 'to be sorted/postprocessed' folder on a periodic basis - essentially, every day you take a bunch of photos, that night it checks dropbox for those photos and shifts them out to free up more space. The NAS is a full linux install so it's flexible on what you can do. The only downside I can see here is that you don't have every single image in the cloud, available to every single device at any given moment. I'm not sure if for your gigabytes of photographic memories that that's necessarily an issue, nor am I sure that if you're primarily editing stuff on a fullsized computer with e.g. Lightroom that is usually on the same network as the NAS, that it's a problem either. Sharing of data can be facilitated through a public dropbox folder that you just copy stuff in to when you want to share those images. Anyway, from the perspective of someone who doesn't actually do this. I'm sure there's tools I don't know about that could slot in to this workflow and solve other problems that may affect some people. The beauty of it is given that the storage is yours, local to you and based on a full linux distro, you're free to do just about anything to it. Change backup providers? No problem, just resync all data. Workflow changes and you need a new feature? Find it and install it. I look forward to hearing feedback on why this may/may not work for you :)

pudquick 13y ago

> but I've probably got something like 120GB of photos > I don't feel I should need to spend $200/year (plus $25 more for flickr), so that I can organize and maintain a photo hobby At a generous 5 MB per photo, that's 24,000 photos. You would have to take 65 photos, every day, for a year straight to reach those numbers. That's 1 photo every 15 minutes of your waking life for a year (assuming 8 hours sleep). That's considerably a bit more than a 'hobby'. At your levels, I consider $200/year rather reasonable for that level of obsession. The amount a traditional film camera user would have had to spend in developing and film costs alone for that level of usage would be astronomical. The only quasi-reasonable complaint there is the long term storage costs of your high level of need. However, you're also making a special case of needing those photos 'everywhere'. Comparing to traditional photography there would have been no way to lug around 24,000 photos. They would have been stored, with the negatives, in an album somewhere. Kind of like sitting on a harddrive - which the going rate for 120GB is $25 (250 GB external for $50) as a one-time purchase cost. I understand your desire to have everything digital available at all times and backed up against disasters, but there is going to be a cost associated with that. And that cost is MASSIVELY cheaper, even at today's rates, than someone with your 'hobby' would have been spending trying to do the same thing, 10-15 years ago.

chollida1 13y ago
> At a generous 5 MB per photo, that's 24,000 photos. You would have to take 65 photos, every day, for a year straight to reach those numbers. That's 1 photo every 15 minutes of your waking life for a year (assuming 8 hours sleep). Is that generous? A RAW file from my SLR is about 20 MBytes. Many SLR's have larger RAW files. But using my "conservative" estimate that's 16 photos a day. Considering the average photographer can snap 10 photos in about 3 seconds during a photo shoot this seems very reasonable to me.
- andrewingram 13y ago
  Yeah, my RAWs are 29 MBytes. Assume a conservative 1000 photos per holiday (it would actually be higher if I wasn't in the habit of discarding some shots immediately), then you're looking at 28 GBytes. If I were a pro photographer, shooting events like weddings or sporting occasions, I could easily hit 1000 shots in a day. I believe my company has about 10 TBytes of photography directly related to what we do, and that's from older DSLRs with smaller RAW files.

innonate 13y ago

You'd actually be surprised at how "normal" your workflow is. I'm one of the Picturelife founders and found that actually a ton of people start with Aperture or Lightroom, review it, rate/filter/adjust etc, and then let it automatically push to Picturelife (or wherever they backup). We don't have Lightroom integration yet (just Aperture for now https://picturelife.com/learn/aperture https://picturelife.com/learn/aperture ) so I'm not trying to sell you on anything, but your workflow is actually remarkably normal.

nchuhoai 13y ago
Do you guys have export options? Like what happens if you guys go out of business?
- cwh 13y ago
  at the moment you can migrate from our storage to your own s3 bucket. we have plans in the works to have a proper data export including all of the metadata associated with your photos and videos. picturelife going out of business is not something that I want to think about, but as a user, data exporting would be a main priority in the case that our service would cease to exist. - chris, cto of picturelife

PavlovsCat 13y ago

Learn to delete. Not right away, but go through old stuff at least, and be a snob. Your mileage may vary, but the delete button is my number one photography tool. I now actually have less photos than I had after, say, 3 years; simply because my standards of what I consider a keepers rise. I still totally suck at photography, but I have become very good at deleting, even if I say so myself, so people sometimes think I'm quite decent ^^ Maybe try it out with moving them at first, to get a feel for it.

Torrents 13y ago
Oh man...that's hard to do though. Deleting photos isn't for the faint of heart.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  I know.. I never take it lightly. But I also never regretted it either, probably because I really do spend some time on making that decision, and know I would do it again. Excuse the bragging, but by now I can even delete songs! Super crappy "songs", mind you; but it was near impossible for me at first. It's liberating however, and with photos just plain necessary IMHO. You are not actually killing that person, or destroying that object; you are just deciding which one(s) of the photos of that moment or mood capture it best, and delete the ones which are just slightly worse variations of those. It takes time though, that is a real cost. Though I think that time is made up for down the road, when you don't have to wade past the photos you deleted, or wait for them to upload/download/backup, etc... even a little bit of self-discipline adds up to quite a bit over a lifetime of digital photography. I think of it as removing weed so the flowers are more enjoyable, and have a greater probability of actually being seen (photographs are kinda useless when they are not seen other than by the bulge they create in the pagination; flickr is like a graveyard where good photos go to get overlooked in that way).
  - demallien 13y ago
    I've noticed that I never go back to looking at old photos. If I've been off at a special event - holidays, a conference a wedding etc, I take any photos / video that I took, and edit it into a short film using iMovie. Because the film has been curated and worked, it is generally of higher quality than the raw shots, and as a result I have noticed that I tend watch the resulting films far (two orders of magnitude?) more often than the raw photos. I've been doing this for a about 5-6 years now, so about 3 years ago I started deleting the raw shots a few months after having finished the film. To date I have not once regretted deleting a photo.

jonknee 13y ago

Adobe really needs to figure out how to have Lightroom work with multiple computers / offline storage. Maybe now that they're all "cloud" (though mostly in name only) this will happen. My pain is that I have a laptop and a desktop (not uncommon for photography. I want to be able to look at the photos on my laptop when on the road, but I also want these photos on the desktop (which can be hooked into a large NAS). If I make some edits on the plane those edits should sync to my desktop and vice versa, but I don't want everything both places--I probably only want the most recent shoot on my laptop along with whatever I choose to keep around (highlights from the past). I have to imagine Adobe's developers also see their laptops filling up, there has to be a better way.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

philoushka 13y ago

Buying a NAS - try a Synology. Best in class. They've got an app to upload from your Android and iOS devices to the Synology. It's called DS Photo+. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeeZxa4N7NA#t=348s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeeZxa4N7NA#t=348s Happy customer.

cheald 13y ago

Google charges $10/mo for 200gb of Picasa storage. Dropbox is ~$16/mo (when paid yearly). Amazon Glacier is $0.01/GB/mo, plus data transfer costs (which are still minimal) - a $100 2TB hard drive plus Glacier backup gives you tons of local storage and protection against data loss in the event of hardware failure. You could even have a RAID-1 array of hard drives to protect against hardware failure (but not necessarily against disaster/theft, so Glacier or similar offsite backup would still be needed.) In any case, there are plenty of good existing pieces in play.

vacri 13y ago

In short, I don't feel I should need to spend $200/year (plus $25 more for flickr), so that I can organize and maintain a photo hobby. Who cares if it's a hobby or otherwise? You want a particular service and you don't want to pay for it. Options are naturally going to be limited.

bruceboughton 13y ago

As a word of warning from someone who's tried it, do NOT try to run iPhoto/Aperture off of a NAS. These apps assume local disk speeds in the way they operate and NASs do not fit that assumption. In fact, since I bought my NAS, I've yet to find a good use for it. Disk access is just too slow through the embedded CPU.