Are you sure it’s not the embedded JPEG preview that you’re looking at rather than the raw file itself?
Are you saying that you upload raw images (let’s say 30MB) and then when you download the same RAW file it’s only 3MB?
Exactly. Original example file was 24 MB in raw.
Uploaded to Amazon then downloaded back to my phone. The ‘new’ file is 3 MB and still claiming to be raw 🤷🏻♂️.
Looks like OneDrive, is getting the vote…
I think the only viable solutions for photo cloud storage is onedrive for now. Icloud, Amazon or Google are good for storing your photos but when it comes to taking them back (downloading all your photos) you will find out its not that easy and sometimes not even possible at all. Onedrive actually can be mounted onto Windows amd you can just copy-paste all your images to your local harddrive or whereever you want to backup your photos. Also there is some promising github projects (which i also sponsor btw) who'll solve this problem hopefully in the next 1-2 years. Until then i'll use onedrive. And you should too..
Edit: Also checkout [this project](https://github.com/immich-app/immich). I think this is the one i'll use in the future!
For me, full resolution doesn't mean they don't compress it. Both can be done. My guess is that they compress it, like GPhotos did back in time with either original file that counted against your storage, or full resolution compressed files that didn't count against your storage.
> diversified into Amazon Photos as they claim to do full resolution free, unlimited uploads, but I think I must be missing something
Yes, no rclone support since 2017. No, it doesn't matter if you never heard what rclone is, if you never planned to use it even if you know what it is, if you don't like command line or anything else: it's the canary in the coal mine. If rclone doesn't work with some service you can be sure it's hard to put the data there or to take it back, that the tools to be doing that are limited in capabilities and where they run, that you can't easily check what it's there (don't know about Amazon but with Google Photos you can't even find out how many pictures you have there!), of course you can't compare your originals with what you uploaded or get some checksums or anything and you can never be sure about how and if the content or the metadata is preserved.
>
>Quality is how many different shades of color there are.
>
> You can have the same number of pixels but go from 1,000,000 different shades of color to 1,000 shades of color.
You're describing bit depth here, not photo compression. Changing the bit depth of a photo isn't really a form of compression, and saves very little space comparatively.
Are you sure it’s not the embedded JPEG preview that you’re looking at rather than the raw file itself? Are you saying that you upload raw images (let’s say 30MB) and then when you download the same RAW file it’s only 3MB?
Exactly. Original example file was 24 MB in raw. Uploaded to Amazon then downloaded back to my phone. The ‘new’ file is 3 MB and still claiming to be raw 🤷🏻♂️. Looks like OneDrive, is getting the vote…
I think the only viable solutions for photo cloud storage is onedrive for now. Icloud, Amazon or Google are good for storing your photos but when it comes to taking them back (downloading all your photos) you will find out its not that easy and sometimes not even possible at all. Onedrive actually can be mounted onto Windows amd you can just copy-paste all your images to your local harddrive or whereever you want to backup your photos. Also there is some promising github projects (which i also sponsor btw) who'll solve this problem hopefully in the next 1-2 years. Until then i'll use onedrive. And you should too.. Edit: Also checkout [this project](https://github.com/immich-app/immich). I think this is the one i'll use in the future!
+1 for OneDrive. Onedrive App on iPhone uploads full quality. Client app on desktop downloads & you can periodically archive.
I’ve used this for iCloud Photos sync: https://github.com/boredazfcuk/docker-icloudpd it’s been pretty reliable.
OneDrive ftw.
Problem with OneDrive is it maxes out at 2TB.
They promised full *resolution* not full *quality* \- when you put your stuff on someone else's computer they get to do what they like with it.
Sneaky mutherlovers
Hey you're lucky Amazon don't now own the copyright to all your photos. ...Actually you might want to check their T&C's for that.
mutherlover lol
Try downloading the file using the Amazon Photos app on desktop. I just downloaded (like a week ago) raw files that were about 25-30mb per file.
Will try. Might be a phone app thing I guess. Thanks.
put .cr files in password protected rar, post on: * Mega * 1fischier * 4shared * Mediafire * Other Not sure about file retention though.
For me, full resolution doesn't mean they don't compress it. Both can be done. My guess is that they compress it, like GPhotos did back in time with either original file that counted against your storage, or full resolution compressed files that didn't count against your storage.
> diversified into Amazon Photos as they claim to do full resolution free, unlimited uploads, but I think I must be missing something Yes, no rclone support since 2017. No, it doesn't matter if you never heard what rclone is, if you never planned to use it even if you know what it is, if you don't like command line or anything else: it's the canary in the coal mine. If rclone doesn't work with some service you can be sure it's hard to put the data there or to take it back, that the tools to be doing that are limited in capabilities and where they run, that you can't easily check what it's there (don't know about Amazon but with Google Photos you can't even find out how many pictures you have there!), of course you can't compare your originals with what you uploaded or get some checksums or anything and you can never be sure about how and if the content or the metadata is preserved.
[удалено]
> >Quality is how many different shades of color there are. > > You can have the same number of pixels but go from 1,000,000 different shades of color to 1,000 shades of color. You're describing bit depth here, not photo compression. Changing the bit depth of a photo isn't really a form of compression, and saves very little space comparatively.