Storing RAW files on smugmug

[devNull]

Hello,

I'm thinking of purchasing the power user smugmug option, but I have one
concern. Apart from the photo sharing aspect of smugmug, the thing that
I find most enticing about it is the archivisation side of it. The idea of 4 safe
copies of my photos, always out there waiting for me whenever and wherever
I want is great. The only format I'd ever think of archiving in is RAW.
It doesn't seem possible to upload RAW files to smugmug, though. At least
according to the "Supported file types" section of the Help. Is it, then, possible
to upload a file in 2 formats - RAW, for archival, and JPG for sharing?

Note that the answer to this question is probably going to be the same as
the answer to "Will I purchase a smugmug power user account?" :-)



All the best,
devNull

[rainforest1155]

Welcome to dgrin!

No, you can't upload RAW files.
Smugmug's primary goal is photo sharing and not photo archival - therefore you probably won't see this feature anytime soon. Still having your full size JPG secure on smugmug is better than nothing and I yet have to see a reasonable priced storage service that beats burning your RAWs to multiple DVDs and giving them to good friends. Additionally you can keep them on an external harddrive.

Sebastian

PS: In case you you're still thinking of giving smugmug a try - here (http://www.smugmug.com/?referrer=KsUKGc8HmF46c)'s my coupon code that saves you 5$ and me 10$.

[Andy]

:agree
If can help oter questions, just holler.

[devNull]

:agree
If can help oter questions, just holler.

This is very disappointing. I will have to think about it, but this will most likely
be a deal breaker for me. It's frustrating to see so many different hosting
websites, each offering a tiny bit of a perfect hosting service and not one of
them offering all the tiny bits. smugmug.com is the closest I've found
to perfect, but alas, it's not.



devNull

[Andy]

This is very disappointing. I will have to think about it, but this will most likely
be a deal breaker for me. It's frustrating to see so many different hosting
websites, each offering a tiny bit of a perfect hosting service and not one of
them offering all the tiny bits. smugmug.com is the closest I've found
to perfect, but alas, it's not.



devNull
Sorry about that. We are not archival, but we do protect our customer's photos - belt, suspenders 2x over :) We're not equipped to handle RAW files.

[dragon300zx]

This is very disappointing. I will have to think about it, but this will most likely
be a deal breaker for me. It's frustrating to see so many different hosting
websites, each offering a tiny bit of a perfect hosting service and not one of
them offering all the tiny bits. smugmug.com is the closest I've found
to perfect, but alas, it's not.



devNull
Dev no offense dude but this is where you are confused. Smugmug.com is not a hosting company. They are a photo sharing community that offers photo hosting to their clients. And at a great rate at that. When it comes to photo sharing communities smug is the best. It is a hosting company in the sense that it gives you space online to store your files but it is an applied hosting company.

A hosting company gives you a control panel, some space, sometimes a domain name, and says do with it what you will. Its very very different. And honestly a hosting company is going to cost more and not provide the same things smug has (I spent $60+ dollars on webhosting last month). You will pay more and get less storage space (usually) and less bandwidth.

[GarethLewin]

Welcome to dgrin!

No, you can't upload RAW files.
Smugmug's primary goal is photo sharing and not photo archival - therefore you probably won't see this feature anytime soon. Still having your full size JPG secure on smugmug is better than nothing and I yet have to see a reasonable priced storage service that beats burning your RAWs to multiple DVDs and giving them to good friends. Additionally you can keep them on an external harddrive.

Sebastian

PS: In case you you're still thinking of giving smugmug a try - here (http://www.smugmug.com/?referrer=KsUKGc8HmF46c)'s my coupon code that saves you 5$ and me 10$.

This brings up an interesting question for me. Are the full size jpgs compressed by smugmug?

[jfriend]

This brings up an interesting question for me. Are the full size jpgs compressed by smugmug?

The files you upload are stored unchanged (unless they are not in the sRGB color space in which case they are converted to sRGB). So, they are stored with whatever JPEG compression you apply before you upload them, no more no less. If you upload them at Photoshop quality level 12 (not recommended) or at quality level 6, Smugmug will leave them that way. I recommend quality level 10 since nobody I've talked to can tell the difference between 10 and 12 in either web viewing or prints, but 10 is way, way faster to upload than 12.

The different sizes that Smugmug creates in order to make the gallery display work (thumbs and S, M, L) have their own compression settings designed to be a balance between page download/display speed and quality.

[Andy]

The files you upload are stored unchanged (unless they are not in the sRGB color space in which case they are converted to sRGB). So, they are stored with whatever JPEG compression you apply before you upload them, no more no less. If you upload them at Photoshop quality level 12 (not recommended) or at quality level 6, Smugmug will leave them that way. I recommend quality level 10 since nobody I've talked to can tell the difference between 10 and 12 in either web viewing or prints, but 10 is way, way faster to upload than 12.

The different sizes that Smugmug creates in order to make the gallery display work (thumbs and S, M, L) have their own compression settings designed to be a balance between page download/display speed and quality.
Excellent answer :thumb Thanks John!

[jfriend]

Excellent answer :thumb Thanks John!

It would be an interesting add-on business for Smugmug to consider an add-on plan for people to be able to backup their RAW files too. I know that has nothing to do with photo sharing, but it is a problem that many of your current customers have and some of them would pay extra to be able to back up their RAW files online. I'm only suggesting backup/restore, not photo sharing, viewing or printing of RAW files. At the right price and with the right software, I'd pay something additional for a RAW backup service.

[peestandingup]

At the right price and with the right software, I'd pay something additional for a RAW backup service.
Me too. That would be some cutting edge stuff. You could call it the Pro PLUS plan, or something along those lines.

I think a lot of people would jump all over that.

[BenA2]

I'd consider paying extra for it to. But, I'd prefer it be an add-on, not a level above Pro (just because I still don't need the pro features).

Some day I'm sure there will be a cost-effective way for the Average Joe to store data (including RAW photos) somewhere out there on the net. But, it sure would be cool if smugmug could find a way to make this work for archiving their customer's RAW files first.

[GarethLewin]

The files you upload are stored unchanged (unless they are not in the sRGB color space in which case they are converted to sRGB). So, they are stored with whatever JPEG compression you apply before you upload them, no more no less. If you upload them at Photoshop quality level 12 (not recommended) or at quality level 6, Smugmug will leave them that way. I recommend quality level 10 since nobody I've talked to can tell the difference between 10 and 12 in either web viewing or prints, but 10 is way, way faster to upload than 12.

The different sizes that Smugmug creates in order to make the gallery display work (thumbs and S, M, L) have their own compression settings designed to be a balance between page download/display speed and quality.

Thanks. I tend to use quality 8 in photoshop, maybe I should start using 10 :)

[rainforest1155]

I'm only suggesting backup/restore, not photo sharing, viewing or printing of RAW files. At the right price and with the right software, I'd pay something additional for a RAW backup service.
If smugmug could pull this off it would be certainly a great feature for many people and sometime I perhaps would need it too.

Somehow I don't think this is happening anytime soon for one reason: maintanance! There are so many RAW formats out there and they're getting more with every new camera coming out. There no real documentations on the formats, therefore a lot of trial and error is necessary got get everything working. With new developer kits for new RAW formats they even sometimes become incompatible to the older formats, so you somehow have to work around this by using two different versions of the same toolkit or develop your own means to read the RAW.

I'm no programmer, but I've read enough post from the single programmer of the image database I use describing his struggle of trying to keep up with all the new cameras popping up inbetween developing the database program itself.

Anyone doing some RAW related programming that can confirm or disprove my speculations?

Sebastian

[devNull]

Dev no offense dude but this is where you are confused.
Excuse me, but I am not confused. I just have different expectations than
you. Perhaps you are confused about that.


I see a certain inconsistency in what smugmug offers and what it doesn't. For
example, what is the point of "4 copies in 3 different states" if we are expected
to keep backups of our files anyway? And, since the amount of space offered
by smugmug is unlimited, why not allow backup RAW copies to be stored with
the pics we share? It's not like I'm asking for general storage space - I just
want to store RAW versions of the exact same photos I would share here.
Don't you think that would make smugmug perfect? Upload, share and never
worry about losing your photos. I'd sure pay for that.



devNull

[devNull]

If smugmug could pull this off it would be certainly a great feature for many people and sometime I perhaps would need it too.

Somehow I don't think this is happening anytime soon for one reason: maintanance! There are so many RAW formats out there and they're getting more with every new camera coming out.
This is irrelevant since you wouldn't be displaying RAW files anyway. They'd
just be backups of the files you're already sharing as JPGs or GIFs.


devNull

[Cameron]

Devnull - It seems you do have certain expectations that Smugmug doesn't meet, and that's fine. You just need to recognize that Smugmug is a photo SHARING website. It will backup all your photos you upload with a great deal of redundancy and allow you to upload an unlimited number to share. They aren't trying to be an all-purpose archive site. If I have a gallery of prints on display, I expect them to be protected but I'll still keep the negatives safe at home.
On a more practical note, the overhead for storing larger RAW files isn't zero - just because they offer unlimited storage doesn't mean the extra storage is free for smugmug. In addition, the CPU power to process raw files (if you had a desire to display them) would require a lot more hardware and we'd all be paying more!

So, you say you want to "Upload, share and never
worry about losing your photos. I'd sure pay for that." Smugmug does that, just keep your negatives safe at home or elsewhere. :D

[devNull]

On a more practical note, the overhead for storing larger RAW files isn't zero - just because they offer unlimited storage doesn't mean the extra storage is free for smugmug.

I never said it was. I'd pay extra for the ability to save my RAWs.


In addition, the CPU power to process raw files (if you had a desire to display them) would require a lot more hardware and we'd all be paying more!

I've already addressed this issue. Displaying the RAWs is not necessary.


So, you say you want to "Upload, share and never
worry about losing your photos. I'd sure pay for that." Smugmug does that, just keep your negatives safe at home or elsewhere. :D

In other words, smugmug doesn't do that.


devNull

[dragon300zx]

I see a certain inconsistency in what smugmug offers and what it doesn't. For
example, what is the point of "4 copies in 3 different states" if we are expected
to keep backups of our files anyway?

See this is the problem. Are you in the technical field at all? Just wondering cause if you ask any IT person including myself you will find that no solution is 100% archival and safe, and that you should never, ever, ever have just one backup solution. More like you should have 5 backup solutions if you are really worried about your data. And as far as the 4 copies in 3 different states that isn't about backup archival thats about availability and up time. Yeah it adds a layer of protection but if you rely on that as 100% backup then you will be leaving yourself open for problems.

[devNull]

See this is the problem.
No, the problem is your condescending tone. Since your first reply.


Are you in the technical field at all?
That is irrelevant. Your ideas on what does and what doesn't constitute
a solid backup plan are not important. I asked a question about smugmug's
offer and I got an answer. I didn't ask for lectures and I didn't ask to be
forcefed your ideas on the matter.


Just wondering cause if you ask any IT person including myself you will find that no solution is 100% archival and safe, and that you should never, ever, ever have just one backup solution. More like you should have 5 backup solutions if you are really worried about your data.
Why not 6?


And as far as the 4 copies in 3 different states that isn't about backup archival thats about availability and up time.
Oh, is that why that particular feature is under the "Safe & Secure" heading
of the smugmug tour?


Yeah it adds a layer of protection but if you rely on that as 100% backup then you will be leaving yourself open for
problems.
Well, that's none of your concern now, is it, "dude".



devNull

[dragon300zx]

No, the problem is your condescending tone. Since your first reply.

Now see, your posts are what started with a condescending tone. I was simply explaining the difference between what smug is offering and what you are looking for. Smugmug isn't perfect but nothing in life is perfect. Like you had already stated though they are about as good as it gets. Excellent customer service, excellent uptime, great plans for low prices..... It's one thing to come in and request a feature so they can think about it for the future. It's another to come in here with the tone that their service is useless cause it doesn't offer raw data archiving. Like their reps have stated. They may have a safe and secure policy but they don't offer archival storage. They are two different things.

[bwg]

it's time for everyone to simmer down.

Dragon: watch your tone please. whether you realize it or not you tend to come across as being very pointed and personally attacking.

DevNull: We appreciate your questions, but your responses (to those other than Dragon) have been short as well. This is an open forum and whether it's what you asked for or not, you will get opinions and point of views that arent the same as yours.

[jfriend]

If smugmug could pull this off it would be certainly a great feature for many people and sometime I perhaps would need it too.

Somehow I don't think this is happening anytime soon for one reason: maintanance! There are so many RAW formats out there and they're getting more with every new camera coming out. There no real documentations on the formats, therefore a lot of trial and error is necessary got get everything working. With new developer kits for new RAW formats they even sometimes become incompatible to the older formats, so you somehow have to work around this by using two different versions of the same toolkit or develop your own means to read the RAW.

I'm no programmer, but I've read enough post from the single programmer of the image database I use describing his struggle of trying to keep up with all the new cameras popping up inbetween developing the database program itself.

Anyone doing some RAW related programming that can confirm or disprove my speculations?

Sebastian

Sebastian, I think maybe you are confused about what I was asking for. I was just asking for dumb file storage for backup/restore purposes for RAW files. Smugmug would not need to do any parsing of the RAW files at all and thus no maintenance as the formats change.

[rainforest1155]

Sebastian, I think maybe you are confused about what I was asking for. I was just asking for dumb file storage for backup/restore purposes for RAW files. Smugmug would not need to do any parsing of the RAW files at all and thus no maintenance as the formats change.
Yep, my fault - I didn't see the *not* in the sentence referring to printing RAW etc.

Sebastian

[peestandingup]

it's time for everyone to simmer down. I think you meant Simma Don Nah!

If you boys cant get along, Andy's gonna come in here & give you boys a whippin'. Lee, go cut Andy a switch! :poke

:rofl

[Sheaf]

We discussed it briefly this morning and the official word is no. Sorry guys/gals.

Processing RAW files is something we don't want to tackle.

The other suggestion, simply storing the files for you, is a very different business than what we currently offer. There are other archival solutions out there and it's not something we are interested in doing at this time.

[jfriend]

We discussed it briefly this morning and the official word is no. Sorry guys/gals.

Processing RAW files is something we don't want to tackle.

The other suggestion, simply storing the files for you, is a very different business than what we currently offer. There are other archival solutions out there and it's not something we are interested in doing at this time.

Bummer. I had no interest in having you process RAW files - I'm just looking for a good, cost effective, off-site archival solution. Is anyone aware of any cost effective archival solutions? The ones I have found all charge way too much per GB (I have >100GB of stuff to archive) and seem to not be geared for photographers in that they offer all sorts of features that I have no interest in (which is perhaps why they aren't cost effective for a photographer).

[wxwax]

Well, I certainly think devNull started off on the right foot! :1drink

[Mike Lane]

Will any of the smugmug competitors out there archive your raw files? I'm pretty sure they won't. Any company that will isn't in the same business as smugmug and will have other drawbacks to their service I betcha. I still think SM is the right way for you to go :thumb

[peestandingup]

I may have found something.

Its called JungleDisk (http://www.jungledisk.com/). What it does is store files on Amazon's S3 servers for only 0.15 cents per Gigabyte! No monthly fee & no startup fee, you just pay for what you use. Uploads are limited to 5GB per upload session & it works on PC, Mac or Linux. Works just like iDisk on Mac OS X, if you've ever seen that.

Files are supposed to be encrypted, but there are ways to encrypt it even more on your end, for instance using Disk Utility on a Mac to create a new AES-128 encrypted read/write disk image that requires a password. Add files to it then just upload that.

[cdhames]

I'm thinking of purchasing a pro account and one of the things that attracted me to smugmug was their unlimited storage of images. I just saw the page that states upload limitations which basically says JPG or GIF, and max. file size 16MBs.

So my question is, can I upload CR2 RAW files for storage? I don't want to display them, just store them. They're typically at about 25MBs a file (20D). Or does the above apply absolutely?

[meewolfie]

Smugmug wasn't really designed as an online file storage site since better archiving options are available. Burn to DVD, external hard drives, etc.

There was a discussion a few weeks ago in this thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=38082&highlight=raw+storage) that should answer most of your questions.

Mary

[cdhames]

Without doubt, I agree. I'd easily foot a $200-300 bill annually for all the features of smugmug + RAW photo storage. I want convenience and security in a service. If you tell me that I can select 100 RAW files for upload right before I goto bed, and have them copied x4 just to be sure I'll have an uncorrupted file to download when i need it, that just sounds great to me. My payment goes to 1 place, instead of 3 or 4, hosting, photo sharing, photo storage, and online printing with shipping. Understandably, smugmug is no host but it has the appearance of temping as a host with redirect/forwarding. Even though you still foot the bill for a host.

I'd definitely suggest a couple strategic partnerships. You guys are so close to everything I want. I'll probably end up purchasing a pro account anyway out of necessity but RAW storage (mid-high level 25MBish) would be icing on the cake.

[cdhames]

thanks. I read the responses and posted a reply. However, I wanted to make another point about RAW. I've read over the responses about RAW storage and many people don't see a point to it when JPGs work just fine. Why do some of us want RAW? I can't very well speak for the others, but my RAW files are important for me not only as an original source, but as an easy source of modification.

I don't know how many people actually do post-production on their photos but anyone who's worked with RAW vs. JPG understands the immediate benefits of working in RAW. Sure I would display a JPG, but that JPG is going to come from my RAW working file. And I want that protected. Again, not demanding anything, just making a point.

[Mike Lane]

Smugmug wasn't really designed as an online file storage site since better archiving options are available. Burn to DVD, external hard drives, etc.

There was a discussion a few weeks ago in this thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=38082&highlight=raw+storage) that should answer most of your questions.

Mary

Actually in this thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=40451) Onethumb expressed interest in the possibility of storing raw files. That isn't to say it's going to happen necessarily, but if it does I can't think of a better archiving option out there. Much better than DVDs and/or external hard drives.

[meewolfie]

I think there are two different issues here that you are addressing. Initially you asked about whether you could upload RAW files for storage on smugmug servers.

The answer to that is, no, smugmug does not allow for the upload of RAW format files.

I think of smugmug as a gallery of sorts. For displaying photos that can be shared with friends, families and clients. A large part of the service is the opportunity to buy prints in a convenient manner. The service even acts as a home page and web presence for many photographers. Therefore the supported file types are image formats typically used for web browsing and printing, not RAW originals.

anyone who's worked with RAW vs. JPG understands the immediate benefits of working in RAW

You won't get much (if any!) of an argument from anyone on this forum about this. Practically everyone who participates on dgrin from what I've read shoots in RAW and recognizes it's value. There are some threads around dgrin about using the DAM processes as laid out in the Peter Krogh book (http://www.peterkrogh.com/Pages/digital/theDAMbook/index). RAW (or DNG) originals in his DAM solution are usually stored on DVDs or backup drives that are then stored off site.

Using online storage as an alternative to buying additional hard drives or burning to DVD is certainly a valid option and Amazon has developed a large-capacity data storage solution that might meet your needs if you want to store your RAW files online somewhere. (Here's some information about it... (http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/2012)). It's called Amazon S3 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html/102-8392988-9999301?node=16427261). There are probably some other similar services offered by other companies as well.

As you can see - pure file storage tends to be a different service than web-hosting style services. Smugmug is on the web-hosting end of the service spectrum.

Hope that helps clarify things.

Mary

[pat.kane]

Yes, RAW would be nice. If you're primarily concerned about on-line backup of your RAW files, then check out Amazon S3 as mentioned by Mary, Jungle Disk, Carbonite and other backup services.

mbrady just posted about Carbonite in another thread.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=40451&page=3

Carbonite looks very promising as it offers automated off-site backup of your PC for only $5/month. Also see my post in that thread for additional info (follow the link to the blog posting especially).

Since no one has offered :D feel free to use my referral link to save $5 off your subscription (saves me money as well!)
http://www.smugmug.com/?referrer=lspQZXj5xA7vg

[Brett Mickelson]

I don't believe that SmugMug should be exploited for use as a big hard drive. They should charge A LOT more for that. SmugMug is a photo sharing and printing site. Buy yourself server space if you want this type of storage.

Buy yourself one or two internal IDE hard drives and one or two external enclosures for them and build cheap backup storage yourself. You can get a 500 gig external hard drive for $150 by building it yourself. Hard drives are so cheap and so much faster than uploading and downloading to a website (not to mention having your original images not physically in your control), this whole argument seems silly to me.

[Brett Mickelson]

I posted this in another thread, but I think it applies here as well...and basically anywhere that people are entertaining the notion that SmugMug should store RAW files.

I don't believe that SmugMug should be exploited for use as a big hard drive. They should charge A LOT more for that. SmugMug is a photo sharing and printing site. Buy yourself server space if you want this type of storage.

Buy yourself one or two internal IDE hard drives and one or two external enclosures for them and build cheap backup storage yourself. You can get a 500 gig external hard drive for $150 by building it yourself. Hard drives are so cheap and so much faster than uploading and downloading to a website (not to mention having your original images not physically in your control), this whole argument seems silly to me.

[cdhames]

Buy yourself one or two internal IDE hard drives and one or two external enclosures for them and build cheap backup storage yourself. You can get a 500 gig external hard drive for $150 by building it yourself. Hard drives are so cheap and so much faster than uploading and downloading to a website (not to mention having your original images not physically in your control), this whole argument seems silly to me.

Brett, I don't believe remote backups are silly at all. I think it's smart. It's off-location, away from the local area and potentially damaging criminal elements and natural disasters. If you're unwilling to recognize the benefits of remotely backing up your photos, then think photographers who believed as you believed circa 05ish, New Orleans. All those fancy, 500 gig external hdd enclosures are making for some pretty nifty crabs shacks down the florida coastline right now.

And that's not to say your idea is bad. I run 200 GB, 10,000 RPM SATA RAID drives to keep my inventory backed up. I suck at burning dvds. A far-away host would be the answer for me. I made an account at Amazon web services yesterday for S3. Pretty cool deal they have there. Kinda expensive though.

[Mike Lane]

I posted this in another thread, but I think it applies here as well...and basically anywhere that people are entertaining the notion that SmugMug should store RAW files.

I don't believe that SmugMug should be exploited for use as a big hard drive. They should charge A LOT more for that. SmugMug is a photo sharing and printing site. Buy yourself server space if you want this type of storage.

Buy yourself one or two internal IDE hard drives and one or two external enclosures for them and build cheap backup storage yourself. You can get a 500 gig external hard drive for $150 by building it yourself. Hard drives are so cheap and so much faster than uploading and downloading to a website (not to mention having your original images not physically in your control), this whole argument seems silly to me.

Let's say you make money from your images (don't know if you do or not). Why is it so silly to take extra measures to protect your "digital negatives"? Yes an external hard drive is a great idea, fast, cheap, and worthwhile. But what happens to your moneymaking pics if your house burns down? What if your drives fail? (I've had 3 different computers recently that have all had their hard drives go bad recently.) And why does speed matter if you're simply archiving images? I for one don't see why it's silly to have off site storage of raw files at all. I also don't see why the possibility of Smugmug offering a service to store those files could possibly be not worth discussing.

Also it seems that Smugmug is going after different levels of photographers with their differing levels of service so saying that Smugmug is primarily a photo printing and sharing site or that they should charge an exorbitant fee for RAW archiving really misses the point. At any rate, why would you care how much they charged? If smugmug offers a method of archiving people's raw files on the Amazon S3 servers how are you adversely affected? :ear

[dmc]

...Hard drives are so cheap and so much faster than uploading and downloading to a website...

yes, but you must have some sort of offsite backup... someone steals your computer, or your house burns down, and poof, everything is gone?

It would be nice if smugmug could store the raw's as well, but since they are so darn big, and there is a 99% chance that you will never go back to that raw file ever again, I'd say it should be low on their priorities...

[DavidTO]

I don't get the interest in smugmug providing backup for your RAW files. If you want them backed up, back them up, or use one of the online services that are designed for back up. There's no real benefit to having smugmug do this, and it would only complicate the user interface unnecessarily. The only advantage I can see for the user is that you would be getting something for nothing: i.e. getting a completely new feature set for the price that you're already paying for an existing feature set. I don't see how that's reasonable.

[dmc]

... If smugmug offers a method of archiving people's raw files on the Amazon S3 servers how are you adversely affected? :ear

only that it may take smugmug resources away from other's perceived higher priorities...... heck, uploading jpg's is not perfected yet! Then people will want the jpg and raw files linked in some way, then... then... then...

I totally agree that offsite backup makes sense... maybe smugmug makes a deal for its customers with Amazon... and we work directly with them for offsite storage, and let smugmug deal with what they already have on their plate.

[Mike Lane]

only that it may take smugmug resources away from other's perceived higher priorities...... heck, uploading jpg's is not perfected yet! Then people will want the jpg and raw files linked in some way, then... then... then...

Higher priority to whom? :wink

I totally agree that offsite backup makes sense... maybe smugmug makes a deal for its customers with Amazon... and we work directly with them for offsite storage, and let smugmug deal with what they already have on their plate.

You assume smugmug's plate is too full? On what basis? :ear

[dmc]

Higher priority to whom? :wink did you notice the word "perceived" :D


You assume smugmug's plate is too full? On what basis? :ear there are alot of items in the Feature request thread I would like to see, some of which are mine, and almost all of which would be more fun than... "gee I can store my raw file..." :):

[Mike Lane]

did you notice the word "perceived" :D


there are alot of items in the Feature request thread I would like to see, some of which are mine, and almost all of which would be more fun than... "gee I can store my raw file..." :):

This thread is just another feature request is it not? I think we'd both have to defer to those in the know at smugmug as to whether or not this is a feature that has a large enough priority with their users to push it before any of the other features that I'm quite certain that they're working on.

I think they're really good at pushing changes that their users want and not just throwing out gee whiz features that a few dgrinners think would be cool. Would you agree? :ear I don't know why this would be any different.

[cdhames]

I don't get the interest in smugmug providing backup for your RAW files. If you want them backed up, back them up, or use one of the online services that are designed for back up. There's no real benefit to having smugmug do this, and it would only complicate the user interface unnecessarily. The only advantage I can see for the user is that you would be getting something for nothing: i.e. getting a completely new feature set for the price that you're already paying for an existing feature set. I don't see how that's reasonable.

Dave, I think you're assuming SM would bundle such a service into one or all of their three packages. From an outside perspective, if they could do this without an exorbitant price hike to their current packages, it would benefit their business and, excuse the catch phrase here but diversify their portfolio. It'd draw in new customers looking for a remote, cheap RAW backup system.

What I'm guessing here from all the forum talk on the subject is that they're looking into a way to package the service as an add-on to the power or pro packages if the above is unfeasible. Additional services would not "complicate the user interface", rather, I think it would strengthen their overall SM portfolio.

That SM CEO guy that posts here has already mentioned Amazons S3 offering as a "loaded gun" so to speak, in the manner that they've empowered the average joe to now compete directly with their business. I don't doubt for an instant that they're looking at ways to take advantage of that service to maintain competative advantages. Providing RAW backup services would be one such way.

[Brett Mickelson]

I don't see how this is "missing the point."

Speed matters because the type of people who would likely use this service are the type of people who shoot enough to need a fast workflow. Most casual shooters don't even know what RAW is. I am a pro user and I need an efficient system.

I'm not saying this isn't something to look into, I'm saying it isn't what SmugMug is currently designed for. If it does come to pass, it should be an additional add-on fee. And then you'll have to look at competitive rates on other hosting services. If SmugMug just started hosting RAW files, people would join just to exploit their storage...to me, that defies the reason SmugMug exists.

If my house burns down, I have hard drives elsewhere to fall back on. I have over 2 TB of storage space related to my PC, 1 TB of which is dedicated exclusively to data backup. This isn't a discussion about the benefits of various types of data storage, though, this is a discussion about whether or not SmugMug is a storage site or a sharing site. I tend to believe it's fundamentally about sharing. JPEG storage is just a generous perk.

DMC's idea to have SmugMug help their users get accounts with Amazon S3 is a good one. The burden of data should fall on Amazon, though, not SmugMug.

[DavidTO]

I merged two threads on the same subject, if you're all wondering what the heck is going on.

[Mike Lane]

Speed matters because the type of people who would likely use this service are the type of people who shoot enough to need a fast workflow. Most casual shooters don't even know what RAW is. I am a pro user and I need an efficient system.No doubt that speed matters, but speed isn't much of a factor for archiving which is what we're talking about right?

I'm not saying this isn't something to look into, I'm saying it isn't what SmugMug is currently designed for. If it does come to pass, it should be an additional add-on fee. And then you'll have to look at competitive rates on other hosting services. If SmugMug just started hosting RAW files, people would join just to exploit their storage...to me, that defies the reason SmugMug exists.Adding this as a feature, IMHO, can only be a good thing. So what if people do jump on board Smugmug just to have a place to archive their raw files? Considering this would obviously be done on the Amazon S3 service, the only thing that would do is to provide smugmug with another source of income which ultimately means good things for me (a more economically robust service means more features for me, more security for my pics, etc).

If my house burns down, I have hard drives elsewhere to fall back on. I have over 2 TB of storage space related to my PC, 1 TB of which is dedicated exclusively to data backup. This isn't a discussion about the benefits of various types of data storage, though, this is a discussion about whether or not SmugMug is a storage site or a sharing site. I tend to believe it's fundamentally about sharing. JPEG storage is just a generous perk.Okay, so you have offsite hard drives to fall back on. Great. That isn't a speedy solution obviously. Probably even slower than online storage since at the very least you'd have to actually go get the drive right? So why not have a way to automatically back up your files? (I'm probably jumping the gun here. Nobody said it would be automatic if it even happens. But I'm sure some kind of hax0r0z out there will come up with something.)

DMC's idea to have SmugMug help their users get accounts with Amazon S3 is a good one. The burden of data should fall on Amazon, though, not SmugMug.There is already a way to get data backup on S3 that has nothing to do with smugmug and only involves the cost of the S3 service itself. Jungle Disk. In my mind, the only reason that Smugmug shouldn't provide the Raw file backup service is because I'm not sure they can do it for what S3 charges. If I can use jungle disk and automator or some kind of other free app to automatically back up whatever data (Raw files and otherwise) for what S3 charges then I'm not sure I need or want smugmug to do it for me.

Just need the details about all this is all.

[Brett Mickelson]

No doubt that speed matters, but speed isn't much of a factor for archiving which is what we're talking about right?
First of all, what I'm talking about isn't archival as much as it is "what is the point of SmugMug."

Secondly, sure speed is important...I don't want to choke my bandwidth and waste time while I upload gigs and gigs of photos, but that's just me.

As I said, I have NOTHING against online storage solutions. I just don't know that SMUGMUG should be considered a big hard drive. I don't think that's what it's for.

Not to mention that the only way it would make business sense for SmugMug would be to make money off it. And the only way to make money off it would be to charge more per gig than they pay. Which means the users pay more than they could if they subscribed to the service directly. (Unless of course SmugMug gets a discounted rate from Amazon for this purpose specifically.)

[Mike Lane]

First of all, what I'm talking about isn't archival as much as it is "what is the point of SmugMug."I personally think SM is flexible enough to incorporate that into their business model.

Secondly, sure speed is important...I don't want to choke my bandwidth and waste time while I upload gigs and gigs of photos, but that's just me.Meh, I'm not always at my computer. If smugmug came up with a tool so that this type of thing could be done in the background or when the computer is idle, I don't see how that's all that big of a deal.

As I said, I have NOTHING against online storage solutions. I just don't know that SMUGMUG should be considered a big hard drive. I don't think that's what it's for.I think it'd be useful to have a one-stop place for all my displayed and archived images.

Not to mention that the only way it would make business sense for SmugMug would be to make money off it. And the only way to make money off it would be to charge more per gig than they pay. Which means the users pay more than they could if they subscribed to the service directly.You can't (easily) subscribe to S3 directly. You can go through something like jungle disk and then work on setting up another utility to make it act like a drive on your computer, and then use another utility to do automatic backups. Or, if smugmug were to provide it, you could have one single, simple interface. I think there are lots of people that would pay more for the ease of use potentiall.

[jfriend]

First of all, what I'm talking about isn't archival as much as it is "what is the point of SmugMug."

Many businesses decide to focus on the needs of a particular type of customer and then concentrate on finding more of them and then serving them well. That typically starts out with one killer service that gets them going and establishes their name and customer base.

It's fairly natural to then branch out into other services that the same set of customers is interested in. The reasons for growing this way are fairly straightforward - it's easier to reach your existing customers than find brand new ones and there are often value synergies when multiple services are offered from the same provider (same tools, same support, same bill, same relationships, same trust, similar training, etc...). Look at how Adobe serves a wide variety of the needs of folks who work in creative capacities. Many of those folks own more than one Adobe program because Adobe followed this strategy.

Photo backup of RAW files is precisely one of those types of additional services that Smugmug's existing customers (those who shoot RAW and value backup) would be interested in. If you shoot JPEG, they essentially already offer this service because you can just use one of the third party uploaders to upload whole directory trees of JPEGs to private galleries as a giant backup repository. They just don't offer it for RAW shooters.

I'm not trying to convince you to want this - I'm just trying to explain why some of us would want it and why it's not such a foreign thing for Smugmug to consider.

[Brett Mickelson]

I'm not trying to convince you to want this - I'm just trying to explain why some of us would want it and why it's not such a foreign thing for Smugmug to consider.

I'm not even saying that I don't want it. Truthfully, I wouldn't subscribe to it and I wouldn't use it, but I DO understand that people might like it.

I didn't jump in this thread to cause a stir, I was simply stating my opinion.

The reason I felt it was worthy of mention to begin with is that I found it pretty silly that devNull would NOT subscribe to SmugMug because they didn't store his RAW files. His rationale throughout this thread didn't make a lot of sense to me, but to each his own.

I really don't care if SmugMug starts storing RAW photos, and I DO see the benefits of it to some users, I was simply offering my personal opinion on the matter.

[gus]

As usual...im late to every thread.

Something i think we should stop & remember (re nulls RAW storage request). This is all directional feedback for SM & without it its easy to forget what end to put the hay in the horse. For my money i would want people telling me what they need & then getting others opinions. Whether or when i would act on it is another matter but you need to feel the road as it were.

Its free market info & real time. Hard to buy that.

[Andy]

SmugVault
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=97634

:D

[Nikolai]

SmugVault
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=97634

:D
And a handy tool to support it - you will need persistent queue for this huge files:-)
www.starexplorer.com (http://www.starexplorer.com)
:wink