Are you a digital pack rat?
eNo
consider "keepers" stashed away? You might want to read this:
http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=855
~~~
eNo
http://esfotoclix.com
Bob Larter
> If so, do you feel guilty about having so many photos you don't
> consider "keepers" stashed away? You might want to read this:
>
> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=855
My solution is to burn *everything* to DVD-R, & just keep the 'keepers'
on my PC. That way, in the unlikely event that I need to recover one of
my crap shots, I can just dig it out of my backups.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
David J Taylor
> eNo wrote:
>> If so, do you feel guilty about having so many photos you don't
>> consider "keepers" stashed away? You might want to read this:
>>
>> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=855
>
> My solution is to burn *everything* to DVD-R, & just keep the 'keepers'
> on my PC. That way, in the unlikely event that I need to recover one of
> my crap shots, I can just dig it out of my backups.
Similar here - I call them "masters" and "prints". My backups are
increasing on external HD only, though.
Cheers,
David
bugbear
But what's more precious - the original shot, or something
you've worked on in PhotoShop for hours?
BugBear
David J Taylor
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:f76dndA2Z8d-dmfX...@brightview.co.uk...
My "prints" (worked-on data) are backed up on external HD as well - so
that's two HDs on two separate PCs and two external HDs, on stored
off-site.
David
John McWilliams
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> "Bob Larter" <> wrote in message news:4afae3ba$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>> eNo wrote:
>>>> If so, do you feel guilty about having so many photos you don't
>>>> consider "keepers" stashed away? You might want to read this:
>>>>
>>>> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=855
>>>
>>> My solution is to burn *everything* to DVD-R, & just keep the
>>> 'keepers' on my PC. That way, in the unlikely event that I need to
>>> recover one of my crap shots, I can just dig it out of my backups.
>>
>> Similar here - I call them "masters" and "prints". My backups are
>> increasing on external HD only, though.
Somewhat the opposite: I delete mercilessly on import, don't back up
until renamed and edited. (Though I don't reuse the CF cards till that's
been done.) Everything goes on FW externals.
> But what's more precious - the original shot, or something
> you've worked on in PhotoShop for hours?
In the case of the example shown, I prefer the original, regardless of
time spent on post in either version. The stand pipe could be cropped
out in the original, and for me, would be far more pleasing than the B+W
shown.
--
John McWilliams
mianileng
> If so, do you feel guilty about having so many photos you don't
> consider "keepers" stashed away?
Guilty as charged :)
rwalker
wrote:
>eNo wrote:
>> If so, do you feel guilty about having so many photos you don't
>> consider "keepers" stashed away? You might want to read this:
>>
>> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=855
>
>My solution is to burn *everything* to DVD-R, & just keep the 'keepers'
>on my PC. That way, in the unlikely event that I need to recover one of
>my crap shots, I can just dig it out of my backups.
Yep. That's exactly the same thing I do. Plus, if somehow all three
of my hard drives go belly up at the same time, I've still got
everything on DVD as a backup.
Bob Larter
I backup both.
whisky-dave
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4afae3ba$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> eNo wrote:
>> If so, do you feel guilty about having so many photos you don't
>> consider "keepers" stashed away? You might want to read this:
>>
>> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=855
>
> My solution is to burn *everything* to DVD-R, & just keep the 'keepers' on
> my PC. That way, in the unlikely event that I need to recover one of my
> crap shots, I can just dig it out of my backups.
So roughly how may DVDs per week/month do you get through,
and wouldn;t it be cheaper and quicker to just use external drives.
Do you have off site storage.
Bob Larter
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4afae3ba$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> eNo wrote:
>>> If so, do you feel guilty about having so many photos you don't
>>> consider "keepers" stashed away? You might want to read this:
>>>
>>> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=855
>> My solution is to burn *everything* to DVD-R, & just keep the 'keepers' on
>> my PC. That way, in the unlikely event that I need to recover one of my
>> crap shots, I can just dig it out of my backups.
>
> So roughly how may DVDs per week/month do you get through,
Not that many, I'd average maybe one a week. 4.3GB is a lot of photos,
even in RAW.
> and wouldn;t it be cheaper and quicker to just use external drives.
Quicker, yes, cheaper, no. Good quality name-brand DVD-Rs work out to
less than 50c each if you buy them in packs of a hundred. So, maybe $25
a year in total.
> Do you have off site storage.
I probably should, but I don't.
David J Taylor
> whisky-dave wrote:
[]
>> So roughly how may DVDs per week/month do you get through,
>
> Not that many, I'd average maybe one a week. 4.3GB is a lot of photos,
> even in RAW.
>
>> and wouldn;t it be cheaper and quicker to just use external drives.
>
> Quicker, yes, cheaper, no. Good quality name-brand DVD-Rs work out to
> less than 50c each if you buy them in packs of a hundred. So, maybe $25
> a year in total.
Bob, I would check those DVDs by reading back sometime. When I started my
HD archive I found that while most DVDs did read back, not all of them
would read on a single PC - I needed to use three PCs to recover all the
information. One disk (out of about 50 CDs and DVDs) could not be read at
all, but fortunately the files it contained had been duplicated elsewhere.
I'm not in the habit of buying cheap disks, and the disks were stored in a
cool, dark, and dry location. in plastic wallets, not jewel cases, though.
I think I would now trust dual HDs more than dual CD/DVDs.
Cheers,
David
whisky-dave
"David J Taylor"
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:6h7Lm.4484$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "Bob Larter" <> wrote in message news:4afcd93c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> whisky-dave wrote:
> []
>>> So roughly how may DVDs per week/month do you get through,
>>
>> Not that many, I'd average maybe one a week. 4.3GB is a lot of photos,
>> even in RAW.
>>
>>> and wouldn;t it be cheaper and quicker to just use external drives.
>>
>> Quicker, yes, cheaper, no. Good quality name-brand DVD-Rs work out to
>> less than 50c each if you buy them in packs of a hundred. So, maybe $25 a
>> year in total.
>
> Bob, I would check those DVDs by reading back sometime.
That's always a good idea, even if they verify.
There always a lot of discussion about teh longevity of any storage media
too,
some say DVDs night only last 10 years othere say 100 years,
but it does depend on how you keep them.
Even putting a label on them can damage them, even the purpose made labels,
I've heard the CD pens can cause problems too.
Sometimes (being the computer person) I get asked about backing up
and there's a few soltuions depending on how important your data is
and doesn't matter whether it's photos or music/video (created oneself
rather than purchased).
I know one person that uses the term backup to mean putting on a DVD and
then deleting the original from the HD to save space.
A musician backed up his project on an external HD but didn;t keep a copy
anywhere else
and the HD died some sort of head crash which is quite unusual.
One thing most people don't seem to realise is that hard discs have a life
too.
I guess for most hobbyists DVDs are OK, but if you career depends on it I
think
a RAID disc system is required, which really means your data is one two HDs
if one dies you replace it ASAP and then the data is again duplicated on to
two HDs.
Perhaps over kill for most, there's a company called Drobo that had some
good
comments on a podcast I listen too, but these systems start in 4 figure sums
so be prepared
to spend as much on the backup system as you do on the dSLR ;-)
>When I started my
> HD archive I found that while most DVDs did read back, not all of them
> would read on a single PC - I needed to use three PCs to recover all the
> information. One disk (out of about 50 CDs and DVDs) could not be read at
> all, but fortunately the files it contained had been duplicated elsewhere.
> I'm not in the habit of buying cheap disks, and the disks were stored in a
> cool, dark, and dry location. in plastic wallets, not jewel cases, though.
>
> I think I would now trust dual HDs more than dual CD/DVDs.
That's true but the downside of HDs is that it's a lot of data to loose
should one
get dropped or fail in any way.
I'm not sure what I'm going to use as backup for when I
photograph/film/video
the end of the world in 2012, it's quite a worry ;-)
My dad gave me a 120 roll of Ilford FP4 expiry date Nov. 1983
Not sure what to do with it, it won't fit in the SD card slot :-)
Charlie Groh
wrote:
>In article
><bf7b0130-9834-41de...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>What's the big deal? You can buy a 1TB disk drive these days for well
>under $100. For the average amateur photographer, 1TB of disk capacity
>will hold 1TB/14MB(raw) = 74,898 raw photos for a 12MP camera. Those who
>shoot in jpeg would get over half a million images on a 1TB drive with a
>12MP camera in full resolution. So why worry about it?
...hard drives break. I just had one go, luckily it was a remote and
I was backed-up to *another*...the ideal is to get your stuff in two
*locations* ...I'm trying to do that plus maybe add an online storage
site...
cg
Bob Larter
> "Bob Larter" <> wrote in message news:4afcd93c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> whisky-dave wrote:
> []
>>> So roughly how may DVDs per week/month do you get through,
>>
>> Not that many, I'd average maybe one a week. 4.3GB is a lot of photos,
>> even in RAW.
>>
>>> and wouldn;t it be cheaper and quicker to just use external drives.
>>
>> Quicker, yes, cheaper, no. Good quality name-brand DVD-Rs work out to
>> less than 50c each if you buy them in packs of a hundred. So, maybe
>> $25 a year in total.
>
> Bob, I would check those DVDs by reading back sometime.
I use TDK gold x16 DVD-Rs, & it hasn't been a problem so far.
whisky-dave
"Charlie Groh" <chas...@dslextremerage.com> wrote in message
news:dgasf511jrrd409k2...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:36:30 -0500, Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In article
>><bf7b0130-9834-41de...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>> eNo <grande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If so, do you feel guilty about having so many photos you don't
>>> consider "keepers" stashed away? You might want to read this:
>>>
>>> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=855
>>>
>>> ~~~
>>> eNo
>>> http://esfotoclix.com
>>
>>What's the big deal? You can buy a 1TB disk drive these days for well
>>under $100. For the average amateur photographer, 1TB of disk capacity
>>will hold 1TB/14MB(raw) = 74,898 raw photos for a 12MP camera. Those who
>>shoot in jpeg would get over half a million images on a 1TB drive with a
>>12MP camera in full resolution. So why worry about it?
>
> ...hard drives break.
Yep, quite often and that's when they are used properly. Sometimes something
can go wrong
like lightnening strikes or water, tea, beer damage.
> I just had one go, luckily it was a remote and
> I was backed-up to *another*...the ideal is to get your stuff in two
> *locations* ...I'm trying to do that plus maybe add an online storage
> site...
yes a good move, but it's still difficult getting enough storage on-line and
at a reasonable speed
if you keep every image you ever take, I'm constantly trying to eliminate
those pictures
I don;t need or won;t want to look at again. jpgs aren't so bad it's PSD or
TFF
that really eat in to disc space.
Gary Edstrom
wrote:
At the present time, my entire digital archive amounts to 253 GB located
on an external 1-TB hard drive. That is every digital picture I have
ever taken, along with every digital photo my sister has taken, and
scanned copies of every color slide my dad took dating back to 1951.
I only started taking RAW pictures around April of this year, so my GB
volume of pictures will certainly increase more rapidly now. Still,
even if I run out on my present 1-TB drive, 4-TB drives are currently
available, and even bigger drives are certain to become available.
I don't think that online disk space is going to be a problem for a
while. The bigger problem is keeping offline DVD backups of every
single picture. I maintain two complete DVD backup sets with one set
being stored off-site as an emergency backup.
Yes, the VAST majority of my pictures are not 'keepers' in the usual
sense of the word. Fewer than 1% of my pictures will probably ever be
printed, but I intend to keep EVERY picture that I have taken. Who
knows if sometime down the road, years from now, a picture might take on
a whole new meaning. One particular example is a photo that I took back
in 1999. It was just a plain 'tourist' type shot of my mother atop the
World Trade Center with the other tower and Manhattan in the background.
There was nothing special about the picture until after 9-11.
Probably the single category that I have most over-done with digital
pictures is the home my mom lived in for over 40 years until she died in
2007. I had always been disappointed that my father had so few pictures
of the back woods cabin that he grew up in in Michigan. We only have a
half-dozen pictures of the place, and they were all taken from about the
same vantage point. I was determined that the same was not going to
happen with my mom's house. So, in a number of sessions starting in
1999, I took detailed pictures of the place, both inside and out. I
shot every single room from at least 4 vantage points, sometimes more. I
also shot close-ups of many of the objects in the house. I did the same
outside. Over the next 8 years, I had accumulated over 2,100 pictures
of the place with many duplicates. Sure, it is over-kill, and VERY few
will ever be printed, but nobody in the future should be wishing that
they had more pictures of the place.
The other part of the archiving problem is tagging every single picture
with everything I know about it in the IPTC block. In particular, I am
making sure to apply appropriate keywords to any picture of a family
member, any picture of any place any of us have lived, all vehicles we
have ever driven, all relatives, and special friends. I consider these
the MOST IMPORTANT pictures, regardless of if they are 'keepers' or not.
I also like to tag photos that might be good candidates for future 'Then
and Now' type pictures. One set of pictures that I have already paired
together is a picture of the Hollywood Freeway here in Los Angeles taken
in 1956 by my father, and an identical shot taken by me in 2006, 50
years later. I aligned the two pictures in Photoshop, and then created
a repeating video where the two shots morph into each other and back
over a 10-second period.
Gary
Charlie Groh
...yes, the speed thing is a detriment...
>if you keep every image you ever take, I'm constantly trying to eliminate
>those pictures
...man, going thru old pix is like going thru your olde letters or
"that" drawer. Time eater! I'm just gonna add more and more
storage...devices *and* media...making sure my assigned nomenclature
allows me to get what I want when I want it.
>I don;t need or won;t want to look at again. jpgs aren't so bad it's PSD or
>TFF
>that really eat in to disc space.
...no kidding. I save all of my RAW files and leave it at that. I've
toyed with DNG but I think RAW is a fine default...and one less step.
I also save all of my processed work in different "places"...yes, it's
become a beastie...but, really, the gear is cheap and cheaper by the
day...
cg
John Turco
>
> In article
> <bf7b0130-9834-41de...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> eNo <grande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> under $100. For the average amateur photographer, 1TB of disk capacity
> will hold 1TB/14MB(raw) = 74,898 raw photos for a 12MP camera. Those who
> shoot in jpeg would get over half a million images on a 1TB drive with a
> 12MP camera in full resolution. So why worry about it?
No concerns, here. I own 12 digicams (ranging from .333 megapixel to 12MP)
and a 6MP DSLR, not to mention 3 tiny "keychain" cameras; I'm on my 4th
flatbed scanner, also.
My internal storage drive is 160GB (and five and a half years old), and
the external (backup) one is of the same capacity. Currently, I must have
roughly 31,000 digital snapshots and around 700 scans, and I've yet to
run out of space.
All this is without deleting any images, I should add.
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
John Turco
<edited for brevity>
> There always a lot of discussion about teh longevity of any storage media
> too, some say DVDs night only last 10 years othere say 100 years, but it
> does depend on how you keep them.
With respect to DVD media, DVD-RAM is the best overall format (other than
cost), for archival storage.
> Even putting a label on them can damage them, even the purpose made labels,
> I've heard the CD pens can cause problems too.
Labels are definitely a bad idea; I, myself, use the "CD pens" you mentioned.
<edited>
> A musician backed up his project on an external HD but didn;t keep a copy
> anywhere else and the HD died some sort of head crash which is quite unusual.
> One thing most people don't seem to realise is that hard discs have a life
> too.
That was incredibly shortsighted of him! Keeping data on a single disk
doesn't even qualify as a "backup" plan, in the first place.
> I guess for most hobbyists DVDs are OK, but if you career depends on it
> I think a RAID disc system is required, which really means your data is
> one two HDs if one dies you replace it ASAP and then the data is again
> duplicated on to two HDs.
<edited>
No, in reality, RAID is a poor substitute for proper backups. Its true
purpose is to eliminate (or to minimize, at least) downtime -- which is
why it's a good business choice, for instance.