On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 00:24:21 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>But now I get an email saying nearly full and if I don't delete things gmail won't work. So I'm about to delete things form Google then think, "are those photos safe on my phone?" A search says no. Synch can actually delete from the other device. I nearly destroyed 1000 holiday snaps.

The fotos should be still in the trash can of Google Fotos for 4 weeks
where you can get them back.
In the Google Fotos App you can change the compression level for
uploading from "original" to a bit compressed, which will help a lot.
You can change the compression level even after uploading in the
online version of Google Fotos.
You can download all your pictures from Google Fotos to your PC for an
offline backup, if you want. Then you can delete them in Google Fotos.
If you want to keep them in your phone then copy or move them to a
directory that Google Fotos does not manage on your phone.

Google One is quite cheap, if you need more capacity.

Regards

M.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 18:43:37 +0100, Michael Logies <logies@t-online.de> wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 00:24:21 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> But now I get an email saying nearly full and if I don't delete things gmail won't work. So I'm about to delete things form Google then think, "are those photos safe on my phone?" A search says no. Synch can actually delete from the other device. I nearly destroyed 1000 holiday snaps.
>
> The fotos should be still in the trash can of Google Fotos for 4 weeks
> where you can get them back.
> In the Google Fotos App you can change the compression level for
> uploading from "original" to a bit compressed, which will help a lot.
> You can change the compression level even after uploading in the
> online version of Google Fotos.

Why would I settle for inferior copies? What if I used one of those because I was accessing them from the web, and ended up with half the quality missing? I take 50MP HDR images and expect them to stay that way.

> You can download all your pictures from Google Fotos to your PC for an
> offline backup, if you want. Then you can delete them in Google Fotos.
> If you want to keep them in your phone then copy or move them to a
> directory that Google Fotos does not manage on your phone.

Yes, I can manually store things, which puts me back to square one.

> Google One is quite cheap, if you need more capacity.

They charge £1.50 per month for the smallest upgrade!

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:13:39 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@spam.com>
wrote:

> Why would I settle for inferior copies? What if I used one of those because I was accessing them from the web,
> and ended up with half the quality missing? I take 50MP HDR images and expect them to stay that way.

You should compare the compressed version with the original one and
decide, whether much bigger files are worth the little difference in
quality (if any).
A print 10*15 cm needs 3 MP. Your eyes can resolve about 6 MP:
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Google shrinks to 16 MP, which is enough for me.

>> Google One is quite cheap, if you need more capacity.
>
>They charge £1.50 per month for the smallest upgrade!

I pay per year, 200 GB for 30 Euro, which I consider cheap. Most of
the space is used for my locally encrypted backups. And up to 6
persons can share this space.

I have >100,000 pictures on my hard drives, and some videos, which
would be too much for storing online. But I like Google Fotos for
temporary storing of fotos (before download for local backup, then
deleted online), uploaded automatically from smartphone, distributed
the within family and friends.

Regards

M.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:35:52 +0100, Michael Logies <logies@t-online.de> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:13:39 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Why would I settle for inferior copies? What if I used one of those because I was accessing them from the web,
>> and ended up with half the quality missing? I take 50MP HDR images and expect them to stay that way.
>
> You should compare the compressed version with the original one and
> decide, whether much bigger files are worth the little difference in
> quality (if any).
> A print 10*15 cm needs 3 MP. Your eyes can resolve about 6 MP:
> https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Don't believe everything you read.

Also, who looks at 10x15cm? We did that to save money back in the days of film and expensive developing. I look at photos on a 40 inch TV.

And you're forgetting people might want to zoom in on something. Never ever remove MP.

> Google shrinks to 16 MP, which is enough for me.
>
>>> Google One is quite cheap, if you need more capacity.
>>
>> They charge £1.50 per month for the smallest upgrade!
>
> I pay per year, 200 GB for 30 Euro, which I consider cheap. Most of
> the space is used for my locally encrypted backups. And up to 6
> persons can share this space.

What if it's 6 people? I really don't get why some folk distinguish between persons and people. Something to do with if they know each other? Whether you can count that high? Seems it's finally going out of fashion: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/people-vs-persons

I can't wait for fewer to go out of fashion. Why do you feel the need to tell me the items you're mentioning are countable? I know apples are countable. And why is there no opposite word "severaler"? Few is a quantity, about 3, so surely 2 is fewer than 1, since 2 is closer to 3, which is a few. What's really weird is nobody says "fewer often". But you can count the number of times it rains in a month, so surely in June it rains fewer often?

> I have >100,000 pictures on my hard drives, and some videos, which
> would be too much for storing online. But I like Google Fotos for

Can you or Google not spell? It's photos.

> temporary storing of fotos (before download for local backup, then
> deleted online), uploaded automatically from smartphone, distributed
> the within family and friends.

I prefer to be in control. I store things on my own property. I don't trust Google. They might fuck up, I might forget my password, I might get banned [1]. If I want to show family and friends, I either email them copies, or I show them from my own phone when I'm there.

I'm banned from Youtube, which uses a Google account, so now I have two Google accounts, which causes no end of bother because browsers keep remembering the wrong one. I was banned for uploading pirate videos. Except they were uploaded by the person who hacked my account. And Google told me it was hacked and to change my password. I did so and deleted the videos, but 2 months later they banned me for the videos, then asked me to prove it was hacked. Telling them they were the ones with the proof didn't work. I was talking to a simpleton.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 05:32:10 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@spam.com>
wrote:

>> A print 10*15 cm needs 3 MP. Your eyes can resolve about 6 MP:
>> https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
>
>Don't believe everything you read.
>
>Also, who looks at 10x15cm? We did that to save money back in the days of film and expensive developing. I look at photos on a 40 inch TV.

A 10cm x15 cm foto is printed with 300 dpi. That`s
10/2.54*15/2.54x300x300= about 2.1 MP.
Your 40 inch TV may be 4 k, 16:9. That`s 4096x2304 or 9.4 MP. But from
a reasonable viewing distance, the eye's resolution is lower.

Your biological limitation of about 6 MP resolution when viewing a
photo as a whole cannot be removed.

>And you're forgetting people might want to zoom in on something. Never ever remove MP.
>
>> Google shrinks to 16 MP, which is enough for me.

>What if it's 6 people? I really don't get why some folk distinguish between persons and people.

I am German and have no particular interest in the intricacies of the
English language. If you understand what I am talking about, it was
expressed well enough.

>> I have >100,000 pictures on my hard drives, and some videos, which
>> would be too much for storing online. But I like Google Fotos for
>
>Can you or Google not spell? It's photos.

In germany it is Google Fotos.

Regards

M.

Commander Kinsey <CK1@spam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:35:52 +0100, Michael Logies <logies@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:13:39 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why would I settle for inferior copies? What if I used one of those
>>> because I was accessing them from the web,
>>> and ended up with half the quality missing? I take 50MP HDR images and
>>> expect them to stay that way.
>>
>> You should compare the compressed version with the original one and
>> decide, whether much bigger files are worth the little difference in
>> quality (if any).
>> A print 10*15 cm needs 3 MP. Your eyes can resolve about 6 MP:
>> https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
>
> Don't believe everything you read.
>
> Also, who looks at 10x15cm? We did that to save money back in the days
> of film and expensive developing. I look at photos on a 40 inch TV.

If it's 4k it'll only be 9MP so a compressed 50MP photo will look just
fine.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 13:30:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris, the mentally deficient,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:

> If it's 4k it'll only be 9MP so a compressed 50MP photo will look just
> fine.

What off topic sick trollshit is this now about, you trolling and
troll-feeding senile ASSHOLES?

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL) inane crap:
"The car can never prevent the human from beating the crap out of it with a
tyre iron"
Message-ID: <op.y6iq1nn6js98qf@red.lan>

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 17:36:20 +0100, Michael Logies <logies@t-online.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 05:32:10 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> A print 10*15 cm needs 3 MP. Your eyes can resolve about 6 MP:
>>> https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
>>
>> Don't believe everything you read.
>>
>> Also, who looks at 10x15cm? We did that to save money back in the days of film and expensive developing. I look at photos on a 40 inch TV.
>
> A 10cm x15 cm foto is printed with 300 dpi. That`s
> 10/2.54*15/2.54x300x300= about 2.1 MP.
> Your 40 inch TV may be 4 k, 16:9. That`s 4096x2304 or 9.4 MP. But from
> a reasonable viewing distance, the eye's resolution is lower.

Define reasonable viewing distance. I have a 40" TV as a monitor only 1.5 feet from me, it almost fills my vision.

> Your biological limitation of about 6 MP resolution when viewing a
> photo as a whole cannot be removed.

Your eyes might have that limit, I can notice things above 6MP at that size.

>> And you're forgetting people might want to zoom in on something. Never ever remove MP.

I see you skipped this important point.

>>> Google shrinks to 16 MP, which is enough for me.
>
>> What if it's 6 people? I really don't get why some folk distinguish between persons and people.
>
> I am German and have no particular interest in the intricacies of the
> English language. If you understand what I am talking about, it was
> expressed well enough.

But Germans insist on precision.

>>> I have >100,000 pictures on my hard drives, and some videos, which
>>> would be too much for storing online. But I like Google Fotos for
>>
>> Can you or Google not spell? It's photos.
>
> In germany it is Google Fotos.

But we're not speaking German.