tim wrote in post #17281665
But what you're doing is fine, so long as you're happy with the disk space use.
I store images in SSD - two identical copies. it's not a hassle, and the expense is one I'm willing to carry. It's like 'tools' ... when you need a tool (image) you need it. But, I'm more a writer than a photographer in the truest sense, and I support my documentary field work with images.
As an aside: I was researching a project for a news magazine years ago (1991) -- and they sent a photographer out with me. I discovered she got the same pay as me, and she spent four hours, I spent four days in the field (a water resources project in Sierras) ... So, I thought, OK, I'll buy a camera and double my income.
Well, that didn't happen quite as I expected. But the idea emerged that I could sell my writing packages easier to an editor if I offered both words AND photos. Turned out to be true, but the idea that a photographer works less hours for more money wasn't quite as true as it first appeared. And equipment factored in changed that dynamic -- but once I got into the photos, it doubled the enjoyment I experienced in my work... and in fact, it did increase the pay portion as well ...
And one more aside: Was selling a story that originated in California to a news magazine in Boston -- it so happened I had appropriate photos from that town in my storage that were almost ten years old (Film scans) -- But I included words and images, and sold a two ten-years-old photos with the story. So, it pays to keep your images ... even if you think "NO, I'll never have a use for these again." You just never know.