![]() So, any items that are included in an album are not duplicated in a year-month folder. …along with all of my items deduplicated. And what I want to do is convert everything into a structure that looks like… It's definitely the most flexible and complete solution and leaves it to the end-user to figure out what to do with all this data. So, if you have a 2GB video included in two albums, it'll be in three backup folders, which means 6GB of space.Īnd this is totally fine. But any items in those albums (folders) will be duplicated in their respective date folders, too. Google will also create folders for every album included in your backup. Except, for reasons I don't understand, you'll occasionally get a folder named " #2", too. If you took 50 photos on August 15, 2020, you'd get a folder named "". You'll get a folder for every item's capture date. Each one will extract into the following directory structure: Once your backup is ready, you'll get everything split into 50GB. And they also don't deduplicate your data before sending it to you. The problem is the backups are structured as if you'll only ever do a single backup in your life - as opposed to incremental ones. (Kudos to Google for making this sort of stuff so easy.) It works great, and you'll get everything. You can request a dump of all of your Photos or just specific albums/dates using Google Takeout. It takes Google's directory structure and all their duplicated files, merges, sorts, and deduplicates your photos and videos into a sane folder structure - the one I've been using for over a decade. ![]() So, I wrote a small command-line tool to specifically deal with the Google Photos backup format that you'll receive if you request a dump of your data. I'm also trying to keep my local backups neatly organized. So, I'm keeping a very close watch on Amazon and hoping they improve enough to be the right solution in the future.Īnyway, the point of this blog post is to say that I'm preparing for an eventual move to another photo cloud service. But they do fall on their face as soon as you start dealing with videos larger than 2GB (easy to do with kids and a modern iPhone shooting 4K video) or over 20 minutes long. And Amazon's website and apps are actually better than Google's in many ways. I'm perfectly willing to pay for what I use, so that's great. (I'm keeping a close eye on PhotoPrism.) They solve the storage pricing problem because they're Amazon and just charge you an extra 1TB at a time as your needs increase. The obvious next and most comparable choice is Amazon Photos. So I've been thinking about my eventual exit strategy. And while I totally get the business reasons behind that pricing, sheesh. That's a hell of a jump for that next byte. When I hit that limit, the next tier is 10TB for $600/year. I'm currently paying Google $99/year for 2TB of storage space. Chief among them is my looming monthly price increase apocalypse. However, I'm always playing the long game and thinking about contingency plans with data this important. ![]() ![]() But if I lost access to my photo library stored with Google? That would be bad, but not the end of the world since I have all that data backed up. The chance of getting locked out due to an automated flag is too high - even if I am a paying customer. I gave up Gmail years ago because even with full backups of all my messages, my email address itself is the key to nearly every other online account. (Well, short of building my own solution, but that's…uh…not yet.) I've tried every consumer photo organization tool/website/app on the market, and nothing comes as close to hitting my feature requirements as Google Photos. As I've written about previously, for better or worse, Google Photos is the initial destination of all the family photos and videos we take as well as the source of truth for the albums I sort them into. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |