> As a stock photographer, I would not use Photoshelter as an online > backup/restore solution for the reasons already stated.
> One can ooh-and-ahh the technology behind geographically redundant > online backups all one wants, but backups without a practical > recovery strategy is worth diddly-squat. My own recovery time > objective (a.k.a. RTO) is measured in hours, not days, and especially > not 19+ days as is the case of Photoshelter and other similar online > backup services (assuming 250GB of data).
I'm not a salesman for Photoshelter but have been very impressed by them as a customer. It is a very young company and the original basis of their vision was that of providing online storage at low cost. One very big advantage to somebody like me with a slow internet connection is this. Once my images are uploaded I can distribute them using Photoshelter's very fast internet connection. I have sent images by ftp from my archive there and they go incredibly fast ( compared to what I am used to!). Of course I still back up all my images here next to me on DVD and hard disk. But I see a glimpse of the future in what Photoshelter is offering today. They have several geographically distinct back ups, I could have several of my own ( yes, in the future when prices get lower for huge masses of space) and move images around the world to various agencies and storage sites while I go for a walk or sleep.
Perhaps another feature we will have in the future is online Raw processing/Photoshop so that after a shoot we'll upload our memory card and do the editing, uprezzing, keywording, sorting, filing, dispatch to agencies and storage facilities, and all the rest, online.
Maybe the ability to offer such a service to agencies/distributors will sort out those serious about stock from the weekend hobbysists?
This is just pure New Year speculation by the way.
--- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Murray" <idmurray@...> wrote:
>One > very big advantage to somebody like me with a slow internet > connection is this. Once my images are uploaded I can distribute them > using Photoshelter's very fast internet connection. I have sent > images by ftp from my archive there and they go incredibly fast ( > compared to what I am used to!).
Ian,
Any web host that offers shell access has the same feature.
You can use the 19 days to stay away from stock photography and go through all the stuff you accumulated over the years (like 15-year old bank statements or telephone bills, computer or photo magazines of 10 years ago (I always keep one by nostalgia), medical prescriptions, books that you will never read etc). It keeps me busy when my computer won´t work for some reason.
Jacques Jangoux
--- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, "Rubens Abboud" <rubens_abboud@...> wrote:
> objective (a.k.a. RTO) is measured in hours, not days, and especially > not 19+ days as is the case of Photoshelter and other similar online > backup services (assuming 250GB of data).
--- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, "Jacques Jangoux" <jangoux@...> wrote:
> Rubens,
> You can use the 19 days to stay away from stock photography and go > through all the stuff you accumulated over the years (like 15-year old > bank statements or telephone bills, computer or photo magazines of 10 > years ago (I always keep one by nostalgia), medical prescriptions, > books that you will never read etc). It keeps me busy when my computer > won´t work for some reason.
> Jacques Jangoux
Jacques,
One of the few advantages of living in a small house is that I cannot afford to keep magazines for 15 years!
I have to throw stuff out continuously otherwise I can't find the computer.
I agree that it is desireable to be able to do all processing from RAW files to final TIFFs submitted for client use within as few applications as possible; but why, in the current sloppy, unreliable, and unpredictable online atmosphere would you want to do all the below time-consuming (and, therefore, expensive) operations in an online storage site. If you depend on such a site for this processing, you will be faced with downloading the valuable processed images for physical archiving (disks, drives, or whatever).
Better to process master files in one's offline archiving software, back up the polished masters, then upload polished files (of whatever sort you decide to have in Photoshelter or other online storage areas) to the online services, ready to be searched, submitted to clients, distributed to marketing services, etc. This is not to say the processing capabilities (hopefully with lots of batching abilities) would not be good to have in the online storage areas for customizing submissions according to the requirements of specific clients or marketing outlets. Of course, one would hope for more efficient software than bloated, clunky Photoshop for manipulations of what one has stored online.
Perhaps another feature we will have in the future is online Raw processing/Photoshop so that after a shoot we'll upload our memory card and do the editing, uprezzing, keywording, sorting, filing, dispatch to agencies and storage facilities, and all the rest, online.
Recent Activity
18 New Members
Visit Your Group New Message Search Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, Stockphoto Seller
<bpslistmail@...> wrote:
> Ian,
> I agree that it is desireable to be able to do all processing
from RAW files to final TIFFs submitted for client use within as few applications as possible; but why, in the current sloppy, unreliable, and unpredictable online atmosphere would you want to do all the below time-consuming (and, therefore, expensive) operations in an online storage site. If you depend on such a site for this processing, you will be faced with downloading the valuable processed images for physical archiving (disks, drives, or whatever).
Dear Carl,
I was speculating really rather than making proposals. But since you ask me to I'll speculate a little more. The internet today may indeed be sloppy but so is my two year old computer and my cheap software isn't the best either. Processing files can be a real pain. I understand that it is now possible to access one's own computer remotely whilst away. Imagine uploading RAW files not into the ether but to some remote highly advanced computer system with near unlimited processing power and speed where I can rent access to mind blowing image processing software that is being managed, maintained and imporved all the time. Once finished at the press of a button I can choose to send the files to multiple stores, including my own hard disk, and also send selections to a range of editors.
In this utopian new future world I will of course by now be twenty years younger, have a full head of hair, miraculously notice paunch converted to muscle, and be travelling the world in permanent sunshine with wads of cash in my pocket. That's the plan anyway.
No question it would be nice to subscribe to the latest, fastest service and work there without having to handle everything yourself on your desktop. Microsoft and others have been trying to get businesses to do and store everything online for the past couple of years, but it is not selling well. The Internet is just too unreliable functionally and too insecure.
And what will determine the design of the system in Picture Utopia? It had better be darn flexible, or we will be stuck with something set up to maintain domination by the corporate conglomerates and not in the best interest of individual picture sources. (I know the current Photoshelter managers favor the smaller independent, but who is to say what will happen to them--or Digital Railroad, or whomever--if someone offers a big pile of money for their company?) Or we will get stuck with something designed by committee based on the preferences of focus groups. Just imagine what focus groups full of RF and microstock come-latelys engaged in the race to the bottom might prefer!
For the time being, one needs to be in charge of creating and backing up one's own masters before dispatching them into the Internet muddle, no matter how carefully one chooses for the better elements in that muddle.
I was speculating really rather than making proposals. But since you ask me to I'll speculate a little more. The internet today may indeed be sloppy but so is my two year old computer and my cheap software isn't the best either. Processing files can be a real pain. I understand that it is now possible to access one's own computer remotely whilst away. Imagine uploading RAW files not into the ether but to some remote highly advanced computer system with near unlimited processing power and speed where I can rent access to mind blowing image processing software that is being managed, maintained and imporved all the time. Once finished at the press of a button I can choose to send the files to multiple stores, including my own hard disk, and also send selections to a range of editors.
Recent Activity
25 New Members
Visit Your Group New Message Search Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
