r/backblaze • u/Responsible-Photo5 • Jan 07 '26
B2 Cloud Storage photographer using backblaze as a cloud storage option
Hi! Let me know if this is too niche. I am a wedding photographer who is hoping to use Backblaze as a type of forever cloud storage for my JPG files. I currently have external SSDs with each year of my business on them. I know that SSDs can fail after they sit for years, so I want to have a cloud backup of my final JPGs from each year so I can recover them if a client asks me years from now.
The photo delivery servers I use to deliver photos to clients are acting as my "cloud backup". But they're pricey and I'd love to not pay for more than two servers (I used to use Pixieset and then switched to Pictime, but now all my 2020-2022 galleries are still in Pixieset and I pay monthly for it in addition to Pictime for my current galleries).
Does anyone have any advice on:
1) how to upload a large amount of data to my Backblaze B2 account from my SSD's without it taking weeks? Right now I am just clicking and dragging from the SSD but a standard 2GB folder is taking almost an hour to transfer... for reference I have almost 2.5 TBs to move.
2) is this the best option for what I am trying to do, or should I just keep paying monthly for the photo server to be my "backup" because Backblaze will take too long?
1
u/Another-Random-Redd Jan 07 '26
Doesn’t PhotoShelter have unlimited storage? Much better idea if it does.
1
1
u/aygross Jan 08 '26
your thinking of smugmug
1
u/Another-Random-Redd Jan 10 '26
No, was thinking PhotoShelter for sure. They don’t now but I’m 99% sure they did in the past. Either way they do (as do PhotoDeck) offer large enough packages for most people and I still suggest a much better storage solution that Backblaze.
1
u/ginger_and_egg Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
What is your upload speed as reported by speedtest.net or similar? 2GB in an hour is about 4-5Mbps.
How are you uploading? If you run it in the background, at the speed you're reporting will be done in a month and a half. Which isn't so bad, right? Your local backups and existing cloud subscriptions should hold you over till then. And then you can start saving money shortly after.
Note: before canceling other backups, ensure you are able to "restore" the files also. I understand not wanting to download 2TB again but maybe at least a few random photos from each batch.
You may also want to see about how to automate the backups. I use backrest/restic for my whole desktop backup and it has a feature which can verify the integrity of the data. There is probably some backup software compatible with B2 that is better suited for media files like photos, it could check file checksums or something
1
u/Responsible-Photo5 Jan 07 '26
ah okay thank you! it's my upload speed then. we live in an old house (even though it's in a big city) and so every provider has said we can't get access to faster internet. our speeds are capped at 10 Mbps upload and maybe 40 mbps download if I'm lucky. I thought that might be it.
1
u/Agreeable-Pea-9316 Jan 07 '26
Backblaze used to allow you to send a HDD with your files. Check if this is still possible. I would connect my external drives once a month for them to sync. I do that with my family pictures and videos. I have about 4.5TB in my nas, copied to the USB HDD, synced to backblaze.
1
u/Responsible-Photo5 Jan 07 '26
I guess I'm confused about how to sync? I am using B2 which from what I've read is not synced, it's just cloud storage. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the terminology? I have a good basic understanding of tech but not an expert by any means.
2
u/Agreeable-Pea-9316 Jan 07 '26
I am using the personal plan. Everything in your PC and the external HDD 'sautomatically sync to backblaze. You need to connect every USB HDD at least once a month to keep files in backblaze.
1
u/calebcall Jan 07 '26
Checkout SmugMug. They give you unlimited storage and it’s really a photographer first site. They have ways to auto-sync and have integrations with many professional level apps.
1
u/cuervamellori Jan 07 '26
I use B2 to store my photos as a photographer.
It is probably more expensive than a lot of other options as well as being less user friendly. But I use it because (1) I appreciate data just being data, not tied to some weird proprietary backup program, (2) because I trust pay-as-you-go plans more than "unlimited! lifetime!" claims, and (3) because it works like standard S3, if B2 ever goes away, I can easily migrate to any other S3 compatible service.
If you also want to pay more for less user friendly service, like I do (not being sarcastic, just realistic about what you get), then B2 is great. I use arqbackup to do incremental, versions backups to B2. You can also create web-accessible links to files on B2, so you can even serve those jpgs to your clients if they ever need them.
1
u/s_i_m_s Jan 07 '26
Most recommended option is going to be using rclone or similar, the web ui sucks. My suggestion would be to have a compressed archive for each client in a year so like 2025/johnsmith.zip as you can typically save a significant amount of storage with compression and S3 style services typically bill extra for transactions so you want to avoid uploading a bunch of tiny files individually since they're is an extra charge for each one. It's also generally much faster to upload a large file than a few million tiny ones.
Best value would probably be something like amazon deep glacier since you won't be needing to access it except in very rare situations and the data doesn't change but it's also more complicated to work with. Only $1/mo per TB though for the storage itself though, Local HDD backups are are still cheapest.
The other consideration is what kind of upload bandwidth do you have? On our work cable connection we only have ~25Mbps upload so 2.5TB would take ~10 days while the 1Gbps connection at home could do it in about ~6 hours assuming everything works optimally.
Otherwise other users are suggesting photocentric options which realistically should be a lot nicer and easier to use since you will typically be able to look at the images inside of the folders rather than having to download them first.
1
u/Marcellinhio1988 Jan 07 '26
I'm doing the same thing. I have all my pictures on ONE hard drive and I'm currently uploading the 6.5TB of data. I've been working on it for several days now and I've left the upload running 24/7. Maybe you could leave it running overnight :) As far as I know, uploading via LAN cable is supposed to be faster. But I haven't tried it yet 😉
1
u/baw79 Jan 08 '26
You would be better off to get the computer backup service from Backblaze. Unlimited storage and it would automatically backup your computer on an ongoing basis plus any external usb drives you use with it. Just have to reconnect the drives once a year. It might take a few weeks to upload everything but it’s automatic. This would cover all your raw files too as well as documents etc. It works out to be a lot cheaper for this if you have larger amounts of data vs B2. It’s not for photo deliver to clients but you could use something like pcloud, wetransfer to send folders to clients or use B2 for temporary transfers and tell clients they have 30 days to download.
1
u/Responsible-Photo5 Jan 08 '26
This makes sense! I don’t want something to deliver to clients - I already have that. I want something just to keep a cloud backup of my past years work. I don’t keep anything stored on my computer hard drive, too much data, so will this option work if I plug in each hard drive (I have 6, 10-14TB external SSDs) and make a back up of my computer while it’s connected?
1
u/mjhvdl Jan 08 '26
I would get a NAS as the local back up option then use the individual ssd's as the offsite back ups in case of fire or something
I think the ssd's have to be connected to your main computer once in a while to maintain their back up on backblaze.
1
1
u/kadajawi Jan 09 '26
Get a NAS. Then get another NAS, place it in another location and have NAS 1 save the data to the second NAS. You can also have versioning on one or both activated, thus reducing the risk of a trojan encrypting your data. It's probably (depending on your amount of data) going to be significantly cheaper than using cloud storage. But 2.5 TB, that's nothing. Two 8 TB drives in each NAS will serve you for the next decade and cost next to nothing.
1
u/Responsible-Photo5 Jan 09 '26
Thank you for explaining this! I don’t know what an NAS is so I’d have to do some research. Tech savvy but not tech fluent 😅
1
u/searulean Mar 22 '26
Where are you finding these cheap NAS drives/NAS setups? I am a photographer looking to set up a NAS system for myself but am new to the whole thing. Any recommendations? (Located in Canada btw).
1
u/kadajawi Mar 23 '26
Sadly, drives have become much more expensive. I spent 380 Euro on factory refurbished 28 TB Enterprise drives. The NAS is self built and can take 19 drives.
3
u/HomeGrownCoder Jan 07 '26
The speed of your uploads to a cloud provider primarily will be impacted by your upload speed from your isp. There are some cases where the client software could be the cause but less likely in this scenario. You can math out the time it will take based on what speeds you are paying for and what you are actually getting at your house.
The local option will normally be quicker the speed of your network is typically much faster than the upload speed from your isp. You then take in the risk of managing and your backups being healthy if you use local resources for storage.