1

I am using google drive as of now for storing the pictures. I have pictures which is of 26 mp so google drive is compressing and removing the quality of pictures. Is there any other storage quality pictures without compressing? mostly looking for larger storage above 1 TB?

  • Are local storage methods acceptable, or only cloud based methods? – Michael C Jun 4 at 17:07
  • I prefer cloud based – Juke Jun 4 at 17:31
  • I haven't heard of Google Drive altering images. Google Photos does resize and compress images, depending on settings, but there is also an option to store original images. You could pay for additional storage on Google services. – xiota Jun 4 at 17:36
  • for paying additional services will my picture quality remians same rather than compessing? – Juke Jun 4 at 17:38
  • @Juke, if you set images to be stored as original (google drive) – Romeo Ninov Jun 4 at 17:42
1

Change your Google Photos settings to store "Original". This will prevent it from resizing and recompressing your images. If you are satisfied with the service after making this change, you can purchase additional storage for use with Google services.

save original

  • I bought storage of 50 GB for google drive and my one question is I am unclear whether its compressing or not and Can I contact them to put original resolution – Juke Jun 26 at 20:07
  • @Juke Upload an image. Wait a bit. Then download it again to compare. Once it's compressed, it can't be uncompressed, but you can change settings to save originals for future files. – xiota Jun 26 at 20:10
  • where should I change it I dont see in esettings – Juke Jun 26 at 20:16
  • @Juke You have to change it in the Photos settings. It may not matter anymore because Google announced they're unlinking Drive and Photos, so Drive should always store originals in future. – xiota Jun 26 at 20:28
2

I personally use Amazon Prime. This package come with Amazon Photos which give unlimited storage for images. And by images Amazon understand not only JPEG, PNG, TIFF but also PSD, CR2, ARW and a lot of other RAW formats. And in to the same package you have 5GB of storage for other files (I use it to store XMP files :) )

Plus I store second copy of my photos on local NAS storage with RAID5 config.

  • will It compress as google drive? removing picture quality – Juke Jun 4 at 17:31
  • @Juke, not at all. If there is compression it is transparent for enduser and lossless. – Romeo Ninov Jun 4 at 17:32
  • I have amazon prime already. Do I need to pay for special needs for amazon photos? – Juke Jun 4 at 17:33
  • @Juke, no, Amazon photos is part of Amazon Prime – Romeo Ninov Jun 4 at 17:34
  • 1
    I have been using this for 2 years now, I have all my raw files stored there. It's a manual process to backup, but I simply copy locally and then copy to Amazon. I don't delete from my card until they are successfully loaded to the cloud drive. – Robin Jun 5 at 19:44
1

Backblaze have a 'B2' service which is basically just rented space, use as you like.

I don't have B2 myself, though I do use their regular backup service & have done for years. All my photos are on there, though I keep them all locally too & use them as backup rather than remote storage.

All I can suggest is look at their advertising & make up your own mind. This is their media-centric ad page - BackBlaze B2 Media & Entertainment
They claim to be far cheaper than the competition too.

  • The link you provide point to object storage. I think Backblaze have cheaper offer, so name personal backup: backblaze.com/cloud-backup.html – Romeo Ninov Jun 4 at 19:00
  • No, that's 'backup' which is what I have. It isn't 'storage'. It checks to see if your data still exists locally & if it doesn't, after 28 days it's deleted. – Tetsujin Jun 4 at 19:02
  • I see, thank you for clarification – Romeo Ninov Jun 4 at 19:05
  • +1 for backblaze with cyberduck. I use gphotos to "categorize" and allow easy browsing (with the free quality) and backblaze to store the raws and high quality jpegs/xmps. I have almost 500gb there and I'm paying about 2$/month. And no chance of bit rotting... – Fábio Dias Jun 4 at 22:47
0

Flickr's paid option at $50 a year offers unlimited storage. Although the images will be compressed and sized for display on the site, you can always download the original file. But note that they don't support RAW files, as they are primarily a photo display service, not a storage service.

If you are technically inclined you could get just basic file storage from Amazon's S3 service. There isn't any built-in way to display images, but you can store any kind of file. The costs are a little complicated - uploads, downloads and then month to month storage cost different amounts. But just basic storage is $0.023 a GB a month (up to 50 TB). There are other plans, including "AWS Glacier" which is as low as $0.004 a GB, but accessing the files isn't as convenient, I think.

  • 3
    AWS have recently introduced Glacier Deep Archive which is one quarter of the cost of "normal" Glacier. Accessing the files is definitely not convenient, but if it's a backup of last resort then who cares if it takes 48 hours to get the files back? – Philip Kendall Jun 4 at 20:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.