Or maybe your company's problem was this (from one of your blog posts): > It did this by compressing the photos to full resolution, high quality JPEGs, which s

Or maybe your company's problem was this (from one of your blog posts): > It did this by compressing the photos to full resolution, high quality JPEGs, which saved anywhere from 50%-90% of the size. The downside of this, of course, is that photographers who shoot in RAW would only have a JPEG copy backed up. We figured this was a reasonable compromise. In a catastrophic event, wouldn't a photographer rather have a JPEG copy than nothing at all? It turns out the answer was no. But we didn't ask that question, because we thought the answer was so obvious. I am no photographer... but from what I can see in this thread, what people are looking for is a solution to store RAW image files. I am sure photographers can find already good solutions to store good-quality JPG copies of their files.