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's my coupon code that saves you 5$ and me 10$.

Andy

If can help oter questions, just holler.

devNull

Andy wrote:

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

devNull wrote:

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

devNull wrote:

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

rainforest1155 wrote:

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'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

Originals you upload are not recompressed

GarethLewin wrote:

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

jfriend wrote:

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 Thanks John!

jfriend

I'd pay extra for RAW file backup

Andy wrote:

Excellent answer 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

jfriend wrote:

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

jfriend wrote:

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

jfriend wrote:

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

dragon300zx wrote:

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

rainforest1155 wrote:

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.

devNull

CSwinton wrote:

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.

CSwinton wrote:

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.

CSwinton wrote:

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.

In other words, smugmug doesn't do that.


devNull

dragon300zx

devNull wrote:

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

dragon300zx wrote:

See this is the problem.

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

dragon300zx wrote:

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.

dragon300zx wrote:

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?

dragon300zx wrote:

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?

dragon300zx wrote:

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

devNull wrote:

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

No RAW file parsing required

rainforest1155 wrote:

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

jfriend wrote:

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

bigwebguy wrote:

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

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

Anyone found a cost effective archival solution for RAW files?

Sheaf wrote:

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!

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

peestandingup

I may have found something.

Its called JungleDisk. 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

Raw files
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?