![]() The comments have encouraged me to dig into it.ĭoes Roku only connect to Google Photos for that? This is a great article to have me start thinking about my backup to my backup backup plan. We put the best pics we take in a folder and have the screensavers on all our devices in the house set to randomly scroll through them. I take it as a personal victory that my wife stopped wanting to go to Costco for prints of ALL of our vacation pictures. Just don’t think you need to keep all of them. But birthday party pics? Take a LOT of pics. I should caveat that to say unless it’s a newsworthy event. Which leads to the second thing you say: don’t bother keeping the eight out of focus pictures you have if you have one good one of the same moment. ![]() Invariably, I keep a greater percentage of the pictures from my phone because it is quicker to grab spontaneous images. I take my Nikon (and all my lenses) on most trips to new places. the memory in a digital phone is far cheaper than film the best camera is the one you have with you And certainly avoid relying on social networks to keep your photos (knowing they'll reduce the quality of old photos to save space, not including the myriad of privacy issues).Ĭlick to expand.You make a good point, but I suggest there is a middle ground. I share the sentiments of what others have said - if one can afford it, do both local and cloud backups. No point in talking about my film archiving here but for my digital photos and film scans, I just use Lightroom and then back it up in several places (including on tape though I don't expect the average consumer will be doing that) both onsite and offsite. It's just a weird business space of organizing photos where some vast percentage are ones folks will never look at again but want to keep. I do fully expect I'm in the minority though. The idea of having to use machine learning to organize things, while cool, kinda exposes the point I'm trying to make here. Film aside, there's something to be said for taking fewer, better photos. That makes organizing them way easier - not just because there's fewer of them, but because they're all worth something and more specific and thus easier to organize. One of the benefits of going back to film for me is I take far fewer photos, but far FAR more of them are important. I think the one thing worth mentioning is maybe we all take too many photos also. I recently evaluated BackBlaze backup, and I have the same issue with them - to restore files, they build a zip file that you download and then have to extract. ![]() Maybe you only have 300G free - which would be plenty if you could download files directly, without an intermediate zip file, but not enough to have both the zip file and the extracted contents locally. jpegs, mp3, mp4, aac, ts, etc files) then you are downloading a 200G file, and then have to unzip it, which means you temporarily need 400G of local storage. If you want to download 200G of files, say, and those files area already substantially compressed, (e.g. You CAN request your files via Google Takeout, but as the author of this article points out, it takes however long it takes, and what you get is a giant zip file to download and extract. ![]() Want to browse your photos? Well, you're going to have to do it online with a browser or google photos app on your phone. They make it easy and nearly instant to upload photos to the Google Cloud, but then they seem to expect that your files just live permanently in Google's Cloud - no need to sync your Google Drive files locally like OneDrive or Dropbox and similar do! I decided to check out Google Drive/Google Photos a few years back, and was REALLY turned off by how transparent the design was in making it difficult to get your own files. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |