|
||||||||
Online photo storage |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 84
|
Online photo storage
I am currently looking at options for automatically backing up pictures taken on my phone to "the cloud".
What are people's opinions on the various options? iCloud, Onedrive, Amazon Prime Photos, Dropbox etc I have been impressed with Onedrive (it even has the fancy auto tagging feature that Google Photos has) however my office 365 subscription will be ending soon so my storage will be dropping. Amazon Prime photos seems very simple but seems to backup photos fast (and I assume Amazon can be trusted with web services). I am new to apple and I can't say I trust icloud. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,877
|
I use Google Photos (on Android) and have always been happy with that.
Storage seems to be the main selling point as I think Amazon/Apple's free services are limited to 5GB, whereas Google offer unlimited photo storage (up to 16megapixels) and 15GB for higher resolution photos and videos. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 16
|
FlickR offers 1TB of storage free, unlimited on a subscription.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 84
|
Quote:
FlickR offers 1TB of storage free, unlimited on a subscription.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
I always thought of Flikr as a photo sharing site rather than storage, does it work well for storage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 84
|
Quote:
I use Google Photos (on Android) and have always been happy with that.
Storage seems to be the main selling point as I think Amazon/Apple's free services are limited to 5GB, whereas Google offer unlimited photo storage (up to 16megapixels) and 15GB for higher resolution photos and videos. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: This forum
Posts: 3,389
|
Quote:
Amazon's service offers unlimited photo storage with prime (which I already have). Apple's options to expand storage are relatively cheap (79p per month for 50gb) however one has to question why, with so many free options and options that include storage as part of another subscription, anyone would pay a monthly fee for one of the most limited online storage options.
However if you don't have a Mac, then I agree, the other services are better. Apple's iCloud website is useless for Windows/Linux users trying to manage photos. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Galaxy Really Rather Far Away
Posts: 2,154
|
As much as I don't like the privacy aspect being at risk, Google Photos is unlimited for photos and videos
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 5,539
|
Recently decided to backup my photos online, had a quick look at the options and decided to opt for Google Photos, mainly due to it being free and having unlimited storage. Quote:
As much as I don't like the privacy aspect being at risk, Google Photos is unlimited for photos and videos
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 84
|
Quote:
Recently decided to backup my photos online, had a quick look at the options and decided to opt for Google Photos, mainly due to it being free and having unlimited storage.
Recommend activating 2-step verification for a bit more security. Two factor authentication is something Amazon Prime Photos is lacking which is a big downside in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Galaxy Really Rather Far Away
Posts: 2,154
|
Quote:
I think he meant the privacy implications of uploading your pictures to googles servers (they don't seem to have monetised it yet, but it is likely they will try to find some info from your pictures in the future to serve more ads). I believe one drives privacy policy is broadly similar to google drive/photos. Amazon (due to a totally different business model) seems less likely to want to scan your files. It seems to me they want to use online storage to lock you in to prime.
Two factor authentication is something Amazon Prime Photos is lacking which is a big downside in my opinion. It's a gamble when using online storage. Even Facebook admit openly that they monitor our chats if something suspicious comes up, that's scary stuff Apples privacy policy is probably one of the biggest reasons I support them so much |
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wapping, London
Posts: 16,222
|
One thing to.bear in mind with Google photos (and maybe ohers) is that it doesn't store The original , at least not for free. G photos compresses the image, even if its within the megapixel limit. To be honest, this isn't going to be a problem for the casual user, but if you're going to back up your photos, surely you want no loss of quality. Flickr backs up your originals
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,288
|
Quote:
One thing to.bear in mind with Google photos (and maybe ohers) is that it doesn't store The original , at least not for free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 84
|
Quote:
This is the opposite to what Apple's iCloud Photo Library does! There the full-resolution IS stored as the Cloud version - the device copies can then be (optionally) downsized - to thumbnail size if required - if the device memory is getting limited
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,852
|
Quote:
One thing to.bear in mind with Google photos (and maybe ohers) is that it doesn't store The original , at least not for free. G photos compresses the image, even if its within the megapixel limit. To be honest, this isn't going to be a problem for the casual user, but if you're going to back up your photos, surely you want no loss of quality. Flickr backs up your originals
What if you simply upload them manually - surely that does not compress the photos. That would be insane. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 5,539
|
Quote:
What if you simply upload them manually - surely that does not compress the photos. That would be insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,877
|
Google can store completely uncompressed photos, but it counts towards the 15GB limit (which is still 10GB more than some of the alternatives).
A bit more about how it works: http://www.ghacks.net/2015/05/29/a-c...storage-offer/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,014
|
Perhaps if you uploaded via Drive it wouldn't compress? But then you'll be paying for that storage.
I am on a legacy Google 'tariff' which was dirt cheap, and Google continues to honour for as long as I renew with no gaps, although it now seems that storage got expensive and is now getting cheap again. |
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 84
|
Quote:
Perhaps if you uploaded via Drive it wouldn't compress? But then you'll be paying for that storage.
I am on a legacy Google 'tariff' which was dirt cheap, and Google continues to honour for as long as I renew with no gaps, although it now seems that storage got expensive and is now getting cheap again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,014
|
I was perfectly happy to upload photos and videos to Google in 'original' format, but now I'm actually happy with the compressed versions as the quality is still fine (IMO). I've used software like JPEGmini and found that you can compress images very well, and for all the extra things Google does (like letting me search by colour, date, location, person etc) it's well worth it over many other services.
I do, however, still use Dropbox and pay £10 a month or so. Then I have OneDrive (which I don't really use) and Amazon Photos that I get free, and some other services. I could upload my photos to loads of places and maybe should (in case any one goes down one day) but it would be a major drain on my phone battery - or just take ages. Personally, I'd use Google Photos no matter what. It's free and works great on Android. Then consider maybe one more service as a backup, which could be free or paid for. |
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 1,568
|
I upload my photos at full resolution to google photos but because my pics are just under 16 mega pixels they don't count towards my drive quota and with google photos you can have your uploads show up in google drive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wapping, London
Posts: 16,222
|
To throw another service out there, I use Smugmug for my main backup. Unlimited storage from $3.34/mo
https://www.smugmug.com/features More geared towards pro photographers than some of the other services, and no free option, but great, safe online storage. Lacks some of the social features on the ohter sites though. |
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wapping, London
Posts: 16,222
|
Quote:
I upload my photos at full resolution to google photos but because my pics are just under 16 mega pixels they don't count towards my drive quota and with google photos you can have your uploads show up in google drive.
More generally, my main gripe with the new Google photos is that it seems to be geared a lot more to storage and organisation of phone photos rather than camera photos; there's definitely a market for that, but it lacks some of the tools of the alternative storage options. |
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,014
|
Fair point, but I think that the compression is actually very good (for most people) and doesn't result in noticeable artefacts etc.
Video on the other hand might be more of an issue, as I assume that's compressed much like YouTube and that can be more noticeable. |
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 1,568
|
Quote:
just be aware that even those under 16 mega pixels get some compression treatment on the free service - they won't be your originals that you get back.
. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:40.


