Use file backup as it will allow you to tune the retention at the file level while backing up only the folders needed. Image backup is for backing up entire operating systems for the purpose of disaster recovery. While you can restore individual files from an image-based backup, you'll find the file-based option more flexible for your needs.

Is there a technical reason why restoring individual files or folders in an image backup can't default to their original location? My retention needs generally apply at the volume level, so image backups would be a great solution IF I could more easily restore groups of individual files and/or folders.

No technical reason I can think of that the File-Level Restore (FLR) dialog couldn't default to the original folder (if it still exists). I will add this as a customer request.

The FLR is designed for quick restores of a file or folder and not for more detailed restores using other factors like multiple folders, file versions, and backup date that you get when performing file-level backups. If you need the benefits of both, however, then my recommendation is to perform both types of backups on the system in question. That's what I do with my work system. I perform weekly image backups and daily file-level backups of my User folder - each with different retention.

Now that legacy FLR provides the option to restore the entire set of files to their original location is there any reason other than possible speed of restoration to also perform image backups as you described? Also, is the FLR now able to create folders that may have been deleted?

If you're only using file recovery, then I would recommend you use file / folder backups and not image backup. Especially with the new backup format which is much more efficient than the legacy format for file / folder. It has synthetic full support for most cloud storage options, client-side deduplication, automatic consistency checking, and synthetic full backups. If you're happy with the performance of legacy file / folder backups and prefer the version-based retention in that format, as opposed to the new GFS style, then you can stick with that format as well. I know some customers use image backups even when all they need is file restores, but my recommendation is to use the appropriate format based on backup and restore need, unless your file-level restore needs are infrequent. Or use a combination of file and image as I do. If you do want to use image, then I recommend using the new backup format for best performance.

To answer your question, a FLR from an image backup will create the target folder if it's not already created.

Just so you know - file-level restore is done a little differently with the new backup format. You drill into the disk from Backup Storage and find the files / folders to restore - as opposed to doing that from the restore wizard.

From a year ago:

That's what I do with my work system. I perform weekly image backups and daily file-level backups of my User folder - each with different retention.

Are you still performing weekly image and daily file-level backups? I was thinking that the ability to now restore file-level backups to their respective folders kind of eliminated the need for image backup in your scenario (which is similar to my scenario).

I've also read through different recommendations here regarding legacy vs new backup format and I am in the process of rethinking my data (not system) backup strategy. I have about 2 TB of data (documents, music, photos and videos). At this point and going forward I have very little additions or changes - probably 2-3% max in a year. I want to back up to a local NAS and Backblaze. I want to rely on the NAS to recover accidentally deleted files, previous versions etc. I am thinking legacy file-based backups are appropriate for that. I view Backblaze B2 as my disaster recovery where I would have them ship me a drive if I lost my PC and NAS. For those backups I assume the new backup format file-based makes the most sense. Also, I am hoping to keep my total storage under 5 TB to comply with CBB licensing. Am I on the right track?

I appreciate your recommendations.