georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Good point about upload speed. Dropbox takes me hours, overnight sometimes, to upload a batch of negatives with even their small limit of free storage.

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

My problem was my Mac aged, it had one shutdown or slowdown after another and finally refused to recognize my 2 external hardrives. I had a PC too and found that better for most usuage as it was more universal, Mac better mainly for Graphics, which as an artist is the main thing with me, but I just couldn't afford to keep the Mac upgraded. I took the external drives to a shop and they said they were fine. But in Mac format. It would cost me a couple hundred to transfer them to compatible PC.

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Yes, serious photographers like myself would never go for a free service that steal their images and sell them to a third party and do it legally. Still, like dropbox, a big step in the right direction. I fear even showing my "good stuff" at all on the internet for I know if it can be seen it can be taken. But a photographer has to show some good stuff online to make money these days. Keep them as small and lo res as possible though. I even fear posting something on Facebook and Google+, but viewers are somewhat limited, Flicker though I have head numerous stories of photos just taken and used commercially with no acknowledgement or compensation.

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

I beg to disagree. The world itself is free, essentially. It is companies with governments and big guns who take it and put a price on it. It WAS NOT ceated that way. The internet? Open source is free. More power to it.

texasdan78070 Loc: Texas Hill Country

If you don't mind me asking, the backup says external, but there's a bracket that appears to be for mounting to the computer. So is it external or internal?

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

This is what I had heard too. Its not the JPGs that I worry about storage space. It's the RAWs and TIFFs.

Mojaveflyer Loc: Denver, CO

I took Adobe up on their offer of 2 GB to share pictures because I bought Photoshop Elements... Until they changed their policy and limited the access to just me and no one else could see the pictures. I'm still angry at Adobe for that stunt... I would take any offer like that with a major grain of salt!

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Time will tell if it really is unlimited as first reported. At least after reading all the comments we know what to look out for. I am getting the feeling that the general reaction is "If it sounds to good to be true, there is a price tag on it somewhere" the present day version of "If it sounds too good to be true it usually is" The article did say and gave detailed evidence that Google had the space and technology to do it. As usual I am just agnostic: skeptical but possible, always looking for the best hope but being realistic. PS: Google does seem to have unlimited storage space for emails... they have that as a free service and have been expanding the capacity continuosly, I have used it for years now successfully, no flys in the ointment there. Ok, somebody will find some.

bibsthecat Loc: Cold Spring MN

I read it the same way. I think I will stay away for now.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

This is what I use:

http://www.amazon.com/Cloud-Mirror-2-bay-Personal-Storage/dp/B00ITI054G/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1433819222&sr=8-2&keywords=wd+my+cloud+mirror

And I back THAT up weekly to a fireproof iOSafe drive:

http://www.amazon.com/Solo-3-5-External-Hard-Drive/dp/B00AIY9658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433819273&sr=8-1&keywords=iosafe+solo+g3

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

That was a 2014 document. I would like to see the current doc that goes with the new unlimited service. It may or may not be the same. I understand everyones skepticism, but it seems like everyone is afraid their photos are the value of a Mona Lisa or something, just waiting to be ripped off to make oodles of cash for Google and the photographer getting nothing. The creative alteration clause for instance seems to be directed to the business listings on google maps, which may not be possible without it. I am sure we should be grateful for that free advertising service for our business. Seeing the unanimous disapproval by photographers here I wonder about services like flicker which not only store like google (which seems private enough for me) which show your work to the world, according to us they must be getting ripped off like crazy...??? I don't think the Google unlimited storage means that anyone can go in and fish, your would need to provide the viewer permission to download. But I have to admit I so far have not had time to investigate directly the Google system. But again, all the responses have given me the intelligence to watch out for pitfalls. I would however like to hear a good positive rebuttal argument (at least just for debate purposes) by someone who has tried it, if it is in operation yet. Free unlimited storage should have some good. (No! No! Please charge me money! This is not right! It is UnAmerican!)

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Maybe they did that in response to a bunch of UHH'ers who complained about not having their work "protected" but "up for grabs", so they made it like a vault. Most of the negative arguments here are about others seeing and stealing your work because it is too open(In this case maybe it just Google saying it is reserving the right to use your photos. I expect this is a good argument and Google will be addressing that issue... maybe). I would think something that gives a privacy clause would make many users happy. I know that some sites allow viewing but no downloading. It would seem the technology would be possible for this, but maybe there is some reason that it is an expensive technology that is not cost effective for a free product. (There is that darn 4 letter dirty word again: Free)