i'd pay extra
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.
SM Page: cdhames.smugmug.com
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
making a point
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.
SM Page: cdhames.smugmug.com
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
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 that should answer most of your questions.
Mary
Actually in this thread 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.
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
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. 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...). It's called Amazon S3. 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
SM Page: cdhames.smugmug.com
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
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?
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
...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...
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.
... If smugmug offers a method of archiving people's raw files on the Amazon S3 servers how are you adversely affected?
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.
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.
You assume smugmug's plate is too full? On what basis?
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
You assume smugmug's plate is too full? On what basis?
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..." :
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? I don't know why this would be any different.
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
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.
SM Page: cdhames.smugmug.com
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
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.
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.
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
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.)
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.
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
There was a discussion a few weeks ago in this thread that should answer most of your questions.
Mary
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.
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
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.
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
Actually in this thread 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.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
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.
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. 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...). It's called Amazon S3. 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
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
http://www.smugmug.com/?referrer=lspQZXj5xA7vg
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.
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, 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.
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
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?
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
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...
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
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.
Higher priority to whom?
You assume smugmug's plate is too full? On what basis?
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
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?
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
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.
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
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.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
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).
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.)
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.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
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.)
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.
I think it'd be useful to have a one-stop place for all my displayed and archived images.
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.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
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.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
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.
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.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=97634
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
www.starexplorer.com