Kodak Gallery Improves Its Photo Storage Policies, Becomes A Valid Option Again
We recently trashed Kodak Gallery, and rightly so, for providing the least value of any online photo storage/printing service. Now we take that back, because with a simple change to their terms, they've suddenly become a viable choice again—provided you meet a couple of conditions.
The reason we said Kodak Gallery was poor value was because they recently changed their online storage policy. Now you have to make a purchase of at least $4.99 from them once every 12 months to keep your account active if you have 2 GB or less stored on their servers; the requirement jumps up to $19.99 annually if you go over that limit.
No other popular online photo service forces you to buy from them to keep your photos stored online. However, yesterday we received an email from Kodak Gallery announcing that they will soon allow free downloads of your photos in their original sizes. That's something no other service offers—you'll pay $10 or more (sometimes far more) to retrieve your high-rez stored photos elsewhere.
So that's the trade off, and now Kodak Gallery might not be a bad choice if you're the following type of customer:
- You naturally spend at least $20 annually on photos and photo gifts anyway (rendering the "minimum purchase" requirement moot)
- You want to be able to rely on the service's online storage as an affordable backup system for your photos.
There are plenty of other online photo storage solutions, and the most affordable one for you depends on the size of your photo collection and your usage patterns. Don't focus solely on retail sites, either. For example, if you host a website through Dreamhost, your account comes with 50 GB of dedicated file backup space (it grows to "unlimited" if the photos are part of a website and not just stored as a backup). For $25 a year, you'll get unlimited archive space on Flickr with free downloads should you need to retrieve the pics.
If you frequently buy photo products anyway, though, Kodak is back in the running as a valid option to consider.
Note: Although this is definitely an improvement in their policy, the don't state the date it will go into effect—just "soon." If you're not currently a Kodak Gallery user, we certainly don't think you should run over to their service until we see what really happens.
(Photo: Stephen Cummings)
Post a comment
Comments:
You can store full resolution photos on Google's Picasa Web and make them available for download (at least saving the image file using your browser) already. They offer 2 GB (or is it only 1? It's been a while since I checked) and they offer more storage space at additional cost.
@kgazette: We get prints from time to time but send them through Costco's site since they are really inexpensive and it's pretty easy to use.
I've uploaded full resolution photos to my Flickr account - it was the easiest way for the photo editor on my paper to choose the one she wanted to use, and then download it.
Granted I have a Pro account, but I would have paid for that either way. It's comforting to know that if either of my drives fail, my best photos are uploaded to Flickr at their original size.
I buy quite a few prints - but always from professional print labs where the quality is so much better than Target or Shutterfly.
Target gets enough of my money - they don't need my prints too.
I have never used them so I can't vouch for it, but has anyone ever used SmugMug? They have 3 plans (all unlimited storage), so it might be another option for people who wish to share their full-size photos.
[www.smugmug.com]
For me, the problem with any photo-sharing site is the time it takes to upload all the photos. With my blazingly-fast (wink-wink), Verizon DSL connection it takes awhile to upload anything too large. Hence I copy things to multiple disks. Actually, it might be time for me to do another copy.
/Thanks self for remembering.
Winkflash doesn't charge for full-resolution downloads, and has no minimum purchase requirements.
@nybiker: Smugmug is a little more spendy, but it has some really cool tools if you want to sell you prints. Plus it allows you to customize the look so you can have a pretty professional looking webstore for not alot of money.
Google does this for free. They call it Picasa.
It still sucks if you own a Motozine; if I could change where the phone uploads the photos via WiFi, I would. Flickr is my choice, but it's so easy to just use WiFi with the phone.
@nybiker: Smugmug is awesome, even if you don't want to sell your prints. It's nice to have family and friends able to look at your pictures without advertisements and at a site that makes it all about the pictures.
@nybiker: I love SmugMug. I can download pics at the original size, share links without having people be members, sell photos if I want to. Their tools and plugins are better than Flicker IMHO, uploads are faster, and the site looks nicer.
And their support beats all. I emailed with a question a couple of days ago at 1 AM. I had an answer by 4 AM.
I love SmugMug.
@bcmusselman: Picasa comes with only 1GB of storage for free. If you need more than that, you have to pay annually for it. The smallest increment you can buy is 10 GB for $20. The next one up from there is 40 GB, but it costs $70/year.
So surprisingly, Picasa isn't a better choice unless you have a small (under 1 GB) collection.
"No other popular online photo service forces you to buy from them to keep your photos stored online."
Wait - I got an email from Shutterfly which says this:
"As a reminder, with Shutterfly you get:
• Free secure storage. In fact, we archive multiple copies of your images for safe keeping.
• No forced deletion of your memories. And no minimum purchase required.
• High-quality backups. We store your photos at the same resolution at which you uploaded them."
Isn't that a popular company that offers high-resolution storage?
@Jeremy W. Simmons: The Motozine ZN5 should come with Shozu built-in (the reviews I've read says it's the second option after Kodak Gallery). You have to set up a free account at Shozu.com for it to work, but then you can send photos through Shozu to any number of various online photo sites, as well as email addresses, ftp accounts, and so on.
Speaking as a geek, I've never liked how much room Shozu takes up when you have to install it on a Symbian phone, but hands down its been the easiest/best solution to getting your pics sent wherever you need. If it's pre-built in to the Motozine, even better. Try it out.
@crichton007: 1 GB free, $20/yr for 10 GB more, or $70/yr for 40 GB. They go even higher from there, but if you're storing 40+ GB of photos you can certainly find cheaper solutions.
Do you really need instant access to over 1,000 pictures?
Pick through them, upload the best ones. Archive the rest. If you think that your house might burn down (along with your pictures), give your best friend a copy.
Now, if you're a photographer... sure--although, why not get a professional website made that you can manage yourself?
@shepd: It's not about instant access, just affordable off-site storage.
The cheapest route is probably to burn to disc and give that to a friend, as you suggest. But we're looking at how to maintain an ongoing, off-site backup of your entire collection that you can access online if/when necessary.
I'm not sure what you're asking--the Shutterfly text doesn't contradict the sentence you quoted.
I personally use Shutterfly for the rare occasions when I print something (or more likely make photo gifts, since I'm sort of behind that generation that thinks of photos as physical objects), so I'm not anti-Shutterfly. But they're a poor choice for archiving your entire photo collection, because you'll have to pay to get those photos back--you can't download the full-resolution copies from their servers for free. (You have to buy archival discs.)
Snapfish makes you buy something once a year to keep your account active. They did a few years ago, anyway.
@shepd: I currently have over 4,000 pictures stored on my Flickr account and these are the cream of the crop (at least by my low skilz standards) including some 60 megapixel plus panoramas. And I am semi-discerning. From my recent trip to Italy, I took over 3,000 shots and about 500 of them will end up on Flickr.
I did have a panic attack when I missed a renewal notice and could only see the most recent 200 until I ponied up the annual fee. I've had three hard drive crashes since I joined. I also back up to CD/DVD but it's a PITA to hunt down the right picture. Flickr is well worth it in my mind.
@lore:
I deleted my photos and deleted my personal info from Kodak already. I'm willing to bet that download option is only for buyers who allow the extortion. Screw the Kodak store and Gallery.
Shutterfly is better and only viable option unless you enjoy kissing the arse of a company trying to screw you.
That would be great if they hadn't already deleted all of my images because I wasn't spending enough...
That's better. Not great, but better. I bought an archive CD in order to get my high res photos and keep my account open... and now I probably won't even use the archive CD if I can just download the photos. But I probably will let my account close itself a year from now.
This service is good for people like my sister, who scrapbook. But I don't know too many other people who still get photo prints. Most people I know just have photo printers! (Myself included.) But that's just my personal experience.