> I used to use Flickr for photo sharing, but cameras got better, images got bigger, and I have a lot of photos.
Why is this a problem with Flickr? I am generally shooting high res full frame, and post to Flickr. I have about a terabyte of images. There's no 100GB storage limit, just an annual flat fee.
Family can download full resolution images for printing. My grandmother can have my Flickr Photo Stream as a screensaver in her TV. I also enjoy fantastic two way integration with photo management tools, with tagging syncing back.
I can't see why I'd pay Dropbox considerably more for less features.
(What's more, if Flickr doesn't like a public photo's content, the worst that will happen is getting marked "not in public search areas", with an easy redress to get reinstated. It's unclear to me what Dropbox will do. Meanwhile, if Google doesn't like a public photo, I can lose my Google Account, as photogs have found to their chagrin.)
> I also enjoy fantastic two way integration with photo management tools, with tagging syncing back.
Which photo management tools do you use? I currently have around 45k photos (~200GB) and Picasa is sometimes just too slow. I am planning to get a DSLR soon, so total size is going to be expanding rapidly. What kind of tools would you suggest? I am on Windows mainly, so Mac-only is not an option. Thanks!
Try Adobe Lightroom [yes, our favorite whipping boy Adobe :)]. It's really really awesome as a photo management tool. IMHO. If you find it slow, try throwing in an SSD. Don't run it with less than 8 GB RAM.
I can second that. Lightroom is indeed an awesome tool. You should really check it out if you have large amounts of images to be organized and want to bulk-optimize them. It takes some dedication to get used to the workflow and the available set of tools (many!), but it's worth it. Also, Adobe dropped the price significantly some time ago, making this great product available for a bigger audience.
I use Aperture for most photos. I use Lightroom for slides. On the PC side, you should use Lightroom. It's just gone into beta for version 5, try it now for free.
I strongly prefer the Aperture workflow, but for slides Aperture won't recognize my 64 bit .DNG files with infrared channel as being part of a JPEG/RAW pair, while Lightroom will.
I manage photos on the latest Mac Mini with the Fusion Drive, but the photo libraries are actually stored on Western Digital MyBook Velociraptor Duo Thunderbolt drives[1] which are insanely fast in RAID0 mode. With Thunderbolt I can attach that to a laptop or the Mac Mini and Aperture is licensed for 5 computers. I had been using the built in Fusion drive for my latest project triage, but the Velociraptor drives in RAID0 are so fast it's not worth the hassle of splitting that out.
I use a nightly rsync to replicate the libraries onto a LaCie 4big via Firewire 800. I never have less than two copies of photos on two devices, because I use a Nexto DI[2] to import the photos from flash while on the go, then I import from that into my libraries, leaving copies on it until I need space. Or, for things like iPhone imports, I import to the LaCie RAID, then import into Aperture's RAID0 library for speed, and again, only delete from the RAIDs when I need space and after I know Aperture's backed up. I also have a Backblaze[5] job backing up everything offsite for their flat fee.
I have three libraries, one for 2000-2010, one for the current decade, and one for international travel. While travel is less frequent, a trip generates more photos, so my domestic and international libraries tend to be similar in size. Each is 50K to 150K photos, and in the 350GB - 750GB range.
I use Aperture's library in the fully imported mode, where photos are stored in the library. This way I'll never accidentally move or delete a photo I want to keep. Of course, the library is just a package folder, you can CTRL-Click it to open it up and get at any of your import sessions original or raw files. Even if the DB is completely destroyed, the photos are safe.
I use the incredible Nik Collection of plugins. They were worth it at $750, and so much more worth it at Google's new price of $149[3]. These plugins work with Lightroom or Photoshop as well.
With over a decade of DSLR photos under management, I recommend you use a folder and image naming scheme like this:
If I'm using generic file system tools rather than a true photo management app, I name the file in a way that lets me search, sort, and reconstruct the original file, regardless of file system capabilities:
Moving images around across file systems will likely eventually lose the date, with this you can use a simple shell script to put back the create time. Or use ExifTool to get the data back from inside the file[4].
I am using Everpix at the moment, but Flickr seems like a better deal and has much more features.
Except for a critical one....auto-uploading from pre-specified folders & Photo Stream. Do you manually upload all your photos, or is there a better way?
You can auto load with a number of third party tools. Early on, I had a Perl uploader that would space things out during the day to keep a steady stream of new files posting. That shot me into Explore top 500 frequently. These days I like FlickStacker on iOS and FlickrExport on OSX. I just post sets when I'm done with triage.
Why is this a problem with Flickr? I am generally shooting high res full frame, and post to Flickr. I have about a terabyte of images. There's no 100GB storage limit, just an annual flat fee.
Family can download full resolution images for printing. My grandmother can have my Flickr Photo Stream as a screensaver in her TV. I also enjoy fantastic two way integration with photo management tools, with tagging syncing back.
I can't see why I'd pay Dropbox considerably more for less features.
(What's more, if Flickr doesn't like a public photo's content, the worst that will happen is getting marked "not in public search areas", with an easy redress to get reinstated. It's unclear to me what Dropbox will do. Meanwhile, if Google doesn't like a public photo, I can lose my Google Account, as photogs have found to their chagrin.)