How do you store/back up your photos?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jmc, Feb 18, 2007.

  1. jmc

    jmc Guest

    Augh! Bad side of bigMP camera, and RAW: The Space! I used to be able
    to fit a couple months' pics on one DVD. Even in .jpg, I can barely fit
    the originals of my Tasmania trip on one! The originals I've taken just
    since I started with the Rebel XTi are taking up one DL DVD on their own...

    I've just been floored to discover I have over 60GB (!!!) of just photos
    stored on my hard drive. This is partially because I rarely delete my
    originals; I have the originals stored in one place, then I make a copy
    of the folder to work on for editing and viewing. Sensible, but it
    means I need nearly twice as much space to store photos.

    I started by storing my photos on CD. Then DVD, and I've just started
    storing them on DVD-DL. The pile of photo backup discs is growing, and
    gonna grow fast if I keep taking RAW pics with the new camera... I think
    I need to find a better way of backing 'em up.

    I'm not interested in HD or blu-ray yet 'cause of the built-in DRM, even
    though that *shouldn't* affect my photos. It's a philosophical thing.
    I can easily get an external HD (heck, I have one already) to store them
    on, but I'm a bit nervous about putting all my eggs in one basket like
    that. At least if one CD or DVD goes bad, I've only lost that small bit
    of backup data.

    So. How many GB of photos do you have, and how do you back them up?

    jmc
     
    jmc, Feb 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jmc wrote:
    > Augh! Bad side of bigMP camera, and RAW: The Space! I used to be
    > able to fit a couple months' pics on one DVD. Even in .jpg, I can
    > barely fit the originals of my Tasmania trip on one! The originals
    > I've taken just since I started with the Rebel XTi are taking up one
    > DL DVD on their own...
    > I've just been floored to discover I have over 60GB (!!!) of just
    > photos stored on my hard drive. This is partially because I rarely
    > delete my originals; I have the originals stored in one place, then I
    > make a copy of the folder to work on for editing and viewing. Sensible,
    > but it
    > means I need nearly twice as much space to store photos.
    >
    > I started by storing my photos on CD. Then DVD, and I've just started
    > storing them on DVD-DL. The pile of photo backup discs is growing,
    > and gonna grow fast if I keep taking RAW pics with the new camera...
    > I think I need to find a better way of backing 'em up.
    >
    > I'm not interested in HD or blu-ray yet 'cause of the built-in DRM,
    > even though that *shouldn't* affect my photos. It's a philosophical
    > thing. I can easily get an external HD (heck, I have one already) to store
    > them on, but I'm a bit nervous about putting all my eggs in one
    > basket like that. At least if one CD or DVD goes bad, I've only lost
    > that small bit of backup data.
    >
    > So. How many GB of photos do you have, and how do you back them up?
    >
    > jmc


    I don't have close to that. I tend to thin mine out quickly.

    I would say that most people could delete over 80% of their collection
    and never miss any of the ones they delete. They will be better able to
    find what they want in the remainder. Keeping six slightly different images
    of the same subject usually does not make much sense. You really don't want
    to show anyone the five lessor images do you. You only want them to see the
    best, so way keep three good, one very good and one poor image when you have
    one great image?

    The exception might be portraits when you will be selling them and you
    want the customer to pick. Even them, more maybe especially then, you want
    to get rid of everything except very good or better. Why keep you second
    best?

    BTW did you know that most people will pick mirror images of themselves
    over the original is shown both photos? We all know ourselves by our
    mirror image, everyone else knows us straight.


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Feb 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jmc

    jmc Guest

    Suddenly, without warning, Joseph Meehan exclaimed (18-Feb-07 9:31 PM):

    >
    > Keeping six slightly different images
    > of the same subject usually does not make much sense. You really don't want
    > to show anyone the five lessor images do you. You only want them to see the
    > best, so way keep three good, one very good and one poor image when you have
    > one great image?
    >


    I don't keep six copies (whatever gave you that idea?) I keep two.
    Original and working copy.

    That's not why I keep the originals. I keep them for a couple of reasons:

    1) In case I screw up editing an image. I can always go back to the start
    2) In case I change my mind about a deleted picture. I've occasionally
    deleted an image in the working directory, then seen it again in the
    originals and realized it was a keeper.

    There's other reasons too, but these are the main two.

    Gads, looks like I just topped out my external HD. ::sigh::

    jmc
     
    jmc, Feb 18, 2007
    #3
  4. jmc

    Guest

    On Feb 18, 6:09 am, jmc <> wrote:
    > Suddenly, without warning, Joseph Meehan exclaimed (18-Feb-07 9:31 PM):
    >
    >
    >
    > > Keeping six slightly different images
    > > of the same subject usually does not make much sense. You really don't want
    > > to show anyone the five lessor images do you. You only want them to see the
    > > best, so way keep three good, one very good and one poor image when you have
    > > one great image?

    >
    > I don't keep six copies (whatever gave you that idea?) I keep two.
    > Original and working copy.
    >
    > That's not why I keep the originals. I keep them for a couple of reasons:
    >
    > 1) In case I screw up editing an image. I can always go back to the start
    > 2) In case I change my mind about a deleted picture. I've occasionally
    > deleted an image in the working directory, then seen it again in the
    > originals and realized it was a keeper.
    >
    > There's other reasons too, but these are the main two.
    >
    > Gads, looks like I just topped out my external HD. ::sigh::
    >
    > jmc


    As everyone knows, the choices to store photos in digital format are
    generally known, such as
    - store in your computer internal hard drive
    - store in external hard disk drive (HDD)
    - store in solid state drive (SSD)
    - store in flash memory card (MMC, SD,xD,SM,Sony stick, CF cards, etc)
    - store in CD (650 Mb)
    - store in DVD (2 to 4 GB)
    - store in HD media (Blue Ray, etc)
    - store in a Photo viewer (Archos, Epson, Creative Zen)

    I do not have a lot of photos like you have. So, I generally back up
    at 3 locations : DVD on yearly basis, external HDD (occasionally), and
    in my 80 GB Archos Photo viewer.

    I still think that dollar for dollar, DVD is the cheapest media. I
    bought the high quality with extra coating DVD (not the regular ones).
    I heard this is more resistant to scratch and last longer.
    I have a habit of storing the photos that I took during the year at
    the end of each year. Sort of a way to "clean up" or "tidy up" your
    computer HD.

    Recently, I also store the photos in my photo viewer. The latest photo
    viewer can hold has high as 180 GB. My Archos hard drive is basically
    a small HDD made by Hitachi. I would prefer to store in a solid state
    disk, as there is no moving parts , but they are still expensive. The
    ones that are available is basically the flash cards, perhaps up to 2
    or 4GB each and cost a lot.

    My Archos is excellent to file, manage and store photos. You can
    create the folders by the year or by event. I can carry them around
    and use as "show and tell" purpose.

    I do understand how you keep duplicates of photos. I think it is
    because computer storage is relatively cheap. It is a bad practice for
    my part, as I always have a habit of keeping the same images after
    making modifications, etc. using photoshop. There should only be 2 or
    3 files : original, and processed. I made extra copies of the
    processed files in smaller size format (usually 1024x 768) and dumping
    them into my Archos. This way, the photo viewer work better and faster
    (rather than keeping 6 or 10 MP images)
     
    , Feb 18, 2007
    #4
  5. jmc

    Scott W Guest

    On Feb 17, 9:54 pm, jmc <> wrote:
    > Augh! Bad side of bigMP camera, and RAW: The Space! I used to be able
    > to fit a couple months' pics on one DVD. Even in .jpg, I can barely fit
    > the originals of my Tasmania trip on one! The originals I've taken just
    > since I started with the Rebel XTi are taking up one DL DVD on their own...
    >
    > I've just been floored to discover I have over 60GB (!!!) of just photos
    > stored on my hard drive. This is partially because I rarely delete my
    > originals; I have the originals stored in one place, then I make a copy
    > of the folder to work on for editing and viewing. Sensible, but it
    > means I need nearly twice as much space to store photos.
    >
    > I started by storing my photos on CD. Then DVD, and I've just started
    > storing them on DVD-DL. The pile of photo backup discs is growing, and
    > gonna grow fast if I keep taking RAW pics with the new camera... I think
    > I need to find a better way of backing 'em up.
    >
    > I'm not interested in HD or blu-ray yet 'cause of the built-in DRM, even
    > though that *shouldn't* affect my photos. It's a philosophical thing.
    > I can easily get an external HD (heck, I have one already) to store them
    > on, but I'm a bit nervous about putting all my eggs in one basket like
    > that. At least if one CD or DVD goes bad, I've only lost that small bit
    > of backup data.
    >
    > So. How many GB of photos do you have, and how do you back them up?
    >
    > jmc

    I have a lot of photos, with the raw and jpegs I have about 540 GBs of
    photos. I am currently storing them on external drives with backups
    on DVD. As space gets thin I will start to delete the raw images from
    the external drives, with two sets of backups on DVD.

    The number of GB I use per years has been going up at a very high
    rate, in 2000 all my photos took up less then 0.25 GB, in 2006 I used
    286 GB of space, or over half the total space used for all my photos.
    A lot of this is because 2006 is when I started to shoot in raw full
    time, which is well worth it but it does take up a lot of room.

    For now DVDs are the cheapest form of storage and are pretty much safe
    from accidental deletions of all the images. I buy the DVDs when
    they are on sale at Costco for $20 for a 100 pack, works out to less
    then $0.05/GB.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 18, 2007
    #5
  6. jmc

    Scott W Guest

    On Feb 18, 2:01 am, "Joseph Meehan" <>
    wrote:
    >
    > I don't have close to that. I tend to thin mine out quickly.
    >
    > I would say that most people could delete over 80% of their collection
    > and never miss any of the ones they delete. They will be better able to
    > find what they want in the remainder. Keeping six slightly different images
    > of the same subject usually does not make much sense. You really don't want
    > to show anyone the five lessor images do you. You only want them to see the
    > best, so way keep three good, one very good and one poor image when you have
    > one great image?

    I only delete an image if it is pretty much unusable, you never know
    when you might want the extra images. As an example I do slide shows
    using my computer, these seems to be very popular with people who view
    them, often a few image that all look pretty much the same will give a
    nice effect when shown with just a faction of a second per image,
    gives the feeling of motion. And sometimes an image that by itself
    is not great will be needed to give continuity to a slide show.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 18, 2007
    #6
  7. jmc

    thehick Guest

    > So. How many GB of photos do you have, and how do you back them up?

    One responder summarized and I've added the point numbers:

    As everyone knows, the choices to store photos in digital format are
    generally known, such as
    1. - store in your computer internal hard drive
    2. - store in external hard disk drive (HDD)
    3. - store in solid state drive (SSD)
    4. - store in flash memory card (MMC, SD,xD,SM,Sony stick, CF cards,
    etc)
    5. - store in CD (650 Mb)
    6. - store in DVD (2 to 4 GB)
    7. - store in HD media (Blue Ray, etc)
    8. - store in a Photo viewer (Archos, Epson, Creative Zen)

    Storing photos is nothing special. Making backups has been an issue
    with computers since the beginning. So let's take it out of the
    "photo"
    world and treat it generically.

    Point #1 is a given. A couple of big hard drives in your usual
    computer will allow you to keep everything you do "online".
    Anybody can run a terabyte easy. I suggest using separate hard
    drives.
    One for plain old storage. You only write to it to save the original
    from the camera and to save an editted image. Another to work with.

    Point #2 is my selection for best method. Basically, I set up another
    machine with, again, plenty of hard drive space and using some kind
    of sync software (synctoy is OK. it's free) I easily back everything
    up to the other PC over a LAN. The point is that it's quick and easy
    to do. Making it more likely you'll do it as frequently as required.
    Writing/filing CDs and DVDs is a bit more work and I'd guess
    you probably batch that job. I doubt if anyone would get out
    this week's DVD to update one photo.

    Point's 3,4 5, and 6 don't seem usable due to either capacity/price
    issues ot convenience.

    Point 7 is much the same. Just you run out of room later.

    Point 8 is really just HDD storage anyway.

    The important point is that making backups should be simple, quick
    and verifiable. If not, they will not be done.

    I would organize by date and inside of date, project if applicable.

    Finding what you want after 10 or 15 years might be difficult.
    You need to think about your filing process to try to ensure
    that the photos are retrievable.

    Since all reliable recovery scenerios include the element of
    off-site storage, you could pick up a large HDD and
    copy everything to it once in a while. Presently, that would
    probably be a USB2 drive. But in the future this could change.

    As always, before you over-write backups you need to be sure
    that your originals are good. So a quick random check
    is important too.

    Just a personal anecdote. I've been using this method
    for a few years and I have just under 200 gig of important
    files (photos, MP3s, home movies...). I organize my folders
    on my usual machine so photos are in one tree, mp3s
    in another, home movies in yet one more. Then if I just
    update the photo section, I can quickly use synctoy
    to bring my photo backups up-to-date. I backup
    every time I add files. Deletes can wait.

    good luck...thehick
     
    thehick, Feb 18, 2007
    #7
  8. jmc

    thehick Guest

    >
    > For now DVDs are the cheapest form of storage and are pretty much safe
    > from accidental deletions of all the images. I buy the DVDs when
    > they are on sale at Costco for $20 for a 100 pack, works out to less
    > then $0.05/GB.
    >

    Just a word of caution. Nobody knows how long DVDs/CDs will last.
    I'm positive everyone has had the experience of trying to view
    a movie and it freezes. Or trying to copying a DVD but failing
    due to read-errors. I have no confidence in using DVDs
    for data archiving. They have media quality differences and
    read/write compatibility issues. If you happen to think that
    you are actually writing/reading a DVD error-free, take a look at
    http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/Lit...iter-Preview/Writing-performance-DVDR_RW.html

    or

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/35vwje

    And the Costco DVDs would be my very LAST choice.
    ....thehick
     
    thehick, Feb 18, 2007
    #8
  9. jmc

    Guest

    On Feb 18, 8:35 am, "thehick" <> wrote:
    > > So. How many GB of photos do you have, and how do you back them up?

    >
    > One responder summarized and I've added the point numbers:
    >
    > As everyone knows, the choices to store photos in digital format are
    > generally known, such as
    > 1. - store in your computer internal hard drive
    > 2. - store in external hard disk drive (HDD)
    > 3. - store in solid state drive (SSD)
    > 4. - store in flash memory card (MMC, SD,xD,SM,Sony stick, CF cards,
    > etc)
    > 5. - store in CD (650 Mb)
    > 6. - store in DVD (2 to 4 GB)
    > 7. - store in HD media (Blue Ray, etc)
    > 8. - store in a Photo viewer (Archos, Epson, Creative Zen)
    >
    > Storing photos is nothing special. Making backups has been an issue
    > with computers since the beginning. So let's take it out of the
    > "photo"
    > world and treat it generically.
    >
    > Point #1 is a given. A couple of big hard drives in your usual
    > computer will allow you to keep everything you do "online".
    > Anybody can run a terabyte easy. I suggest using separate hard
    > drives.
    > One for plain old storage. You only write to it to save the original
    > from the camera and to save an editted image. Another to work with.
    >
    > Point #2 is my selection for best method. Basically, I set up another
    > machine with, again, plenty of hard drive space and using some kind
    > of sync software (synctoy is OK. it's free) I easily back everything
    > up to the other PC over a LAN. The point is that it's quick and easy
    > to do. Making it more likely you'll do it as frequently as required.
    > Writing/filing CDs and DVDs is a bit more work and I'd guess
    > you probably batch that job. I doubt if anyone would get out
    > this week's DVD to update one photo.
    >
    > Point's 3,4 5, and 6 don't seem usable due to either capacity/price
    > issues ot convenience.
    >
    > Point 7 is much the same. Just you run out of room later.
    >
    > Point 8 is really just HDD storage anyway.
    >
    > The important point is that making backups should be simple, quick
    > and verifiable. If not, they will not be done.
    >
    > I would organize by date and inside of date, project if applicable.
    >
    > Finding what you want after 10 or 15 years might be difficult.
    > You need to think about your filing process to try to ensure
    > that the photos are retrievable.
    >
    > Since all reliable recovery scenerios include the element of
    > off-site storage, you could pick up a large HDD and
    > copy everything to it once in a while. Presently, that would
    > probably be a USB2 drive. But in the future this could change.
    >
    > As always, before you over-write backups you need to be sure
    > that your originals are good. So a quick random check
    > is important too.
    >
    > Just a personal anecdote. I've been using this method
    > for a few years and I have just under 200 gig of important
    > files (photos, MP3s, home movies...). I organize my folders
    > on my usual machine so photos are in one tree, mp3s
    > in another, home movies in yet one more. Then if I just
    > update the photo section, I can quickly use synctoy
    > to bring my photo backups up-to-date. I backup
    > every time I add files. Deletes can wait.
    >
    > good luck...thehick


    Following the same discussion about backing up image files, I have a
    question which someone can help. When you are talking abut backing up,
    do you mean that you back up the image files using some kind of back-
    up software? In the old days, we used to back-up our computer (and
    also compressed the data). The problem with that is after a couple of
    years, if you want to restore your data, you have to use that
    software.
    perhaps back-up using software is faster, but would it be better just
    to "copy" images instead of "back-up"?
    I copy the actual image files (JPG or RAW) using "copy" and "paste".
    This way, the files in the external drive will be in the same format.
    If you back up using software, it will be stored as different file,
    won't it? To restore, I have to get that same software installed in
    another computer to get the data out.
    My files is not that large, and therefore I never thought about back-
    up software anymore, since those days whenI use PC Back-up software.
     
    , Feb 18, 2007
    #9
  10. jmc wrote:
    > Suddenly, without warning, Joseph Meehan exclaimed (18-Feb-07 9:31
    > PM):
    >>
    >> Keeping six slightly different images
    >> of the same subject usually does not make much sense. You really
    >> don't want to show anyone the five lessor images do you. You only
    >> want them to see the best, so way keep three good, one very good and
    >> one poor image when you have one great image?
    >>

    >
    > I don't keep six copies (whatever gave you that idea?) I keep two.
    > Original and working copy.


    Most of us will take more than one exposure of a given subject. Often
    the differences from one exposure to the next are minor. I was referring to
    slightly different original images, not different edit versions.

    >
    > That's not why I keep the originals. I keep them for a couple of
    > reasons:
    > 1) In case I screw up editing an image. I can always go back to the
    > start 2) In case I change my mind about a deleted picture. I've
    > occasionally deleted an image in the working directory, then seen it
    > again in the originals and realized it was a keeper.
    >
    > There's other reasons too, but these are the main two.
    >
    > Gads, looks like I just topped out my external HD. ::sigh::
    >
    > jmc


    Sorry I did not include a suggestion with my original message, but I
    would suggest moving all the original files to a CD. Then as you edit the
    originals and come up with the results you want to keep, delete the original
    files from the HD and put the CD is safe keeping. CD's are cheap. You also
    can dump all the slightly different original files that you did not bother
    to edit because they were just not that good onto other CD's. That way you
    can pare down the number of images you have on the HD to the cream of the
    crop, yet feel comfortable that you still have access to all the original
    files.

    Note: CD's (and hard drives) are subject to failure. I would suggest
    (and do) store copies of my good "keepers" in multiple places. I have the
    active files on my computer. I have a networked "server" at home for all
    kinds of backup and about once a year I make CD (or now I have the options
    of DVD) disks. I make three. One I keep at home in a safe place, the other
    two I send to my kids who live out of town. That gives them copies of the
    images and provides a really good backup since it is very unlikely that all
    three CD's stored in various parts of the US are all going to be destroyed
    at the same time.


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Feb 18, 2007
    #10
  11. In addition to everthing else (external HD, DVD, etc.):

    1. Some photo-printing sites offer unlimited storage. Most will
    charge you to get the data back, but if you've really lost an image
    that you want, it will be worth it. And frequently the storage
    doesn't cost anything up front.

    2. Lots of web sites, e-mail services, etc., offer a Gig or two of
    storage. For example, you could, I suppose (though I've not done
    this) get a new Yahoo! email address for each photo shoot, and mail
    yourself the pictures. I don't know how long Yahoo! keeps messages
    on-line, but each e-mail address gives you a Gig.

    These two options make it easy to keep off-site backups.

    -Joel

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EXIF data for any image or web page: http://exif.posted-online.com
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Feb 18, 2007
    #11
  12. Scott W wrote:
    > On Feb 18, 2:01 am, "Joseph Meehan" <>
    > wrote:
    >>
    >> I don't have close to that. I tend to thin mine out quickly.
    >>
    >> I would say that most people could delete over 80% of their
    >> collection and never miss any of the ones they delete. They will be
    >> better able to find what they want in the remainder. Keeping six
    >> slightly different images of the same subject usually does not make
    >> much sense. You really don't want to show anyone the five lessor
    >> images do you. You only want them to see the best, so way keep
    >> three good, one very good and one poor image when you have one great
    >> image?

    > I only delete an image if it is pretty much unusable, you never know
    > when you might want the extra images.


    If it is not what I consider my best work, I don't want anyone to see it
    so they will never ask. Why show someone you second best, it will only show
    you as second best. I am sure Ansel Adams never showed anyone much of what
    he exposed. We know him for what he showed us, and not what he chose not
    to show us.

    It is true that some images that I may not value greatly now may become
    more important to me later and I do keep some of those, usually hidden from
    others.

    Why hide your best work behind all the rest. Find the needle in the
    haystack and put it on the wall and feed the hay to the livestock. :)


    > As an example I do slide shows
    > using my computer, these seems to be very popular with people who view
    > them, often a few image that all look pretty much the same will give a
    > nice effect when shown with just a faction of a second per image,
    > gives the feeling of motion. And sometimes an image that by itself
    > is not great will be needed to give continuity to a slide show.
    >
    > Scott


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Feb 18, 2007
    #12
  13. thehick wrote:
    >> For now DVDs are the cheapest form of storage and are pretty much
    >> safe from accidental deletions of all the images. I buy the DVDs
    >> when they are on sale at Costco for $20 for a 100 pack, works out to
    >> less then $0.05/GB.
    >>

    > Just a word of caution. Nobody knows how long DVDs/CDs will last.
    > I'm positive everyone has had the experience of trying to view
    > a movie and it freezes. Or trying to copying a DVD but failing
    > due to read-errors. I have no confidence in using DVDs
    > for data archiving. They have media quality differences and
    > read/write compatibility issues. If you happen to think that
    > you are actually writing/reading a DVD error-free, take a look at
    > http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/Lit...iter-Preview/Writing-performance-DVDR_RW.html
    >
    > or
    >
    > http://preview.tinyurl.com/35vwje
    >
    > And the Costco DVDs would be my very LAST choice.
    > ...thehick



    We do know they don't last forever that is for sure. We also know that
    in maybe 10 years we may not be able to find a replacement CD drive to read
    them That is why if you want to really keep them, you need more than one
    copy (as you noted the media is cheap) and keep copies in different areas.
    I suggest different parts of the country if you have someone that you can
    send them to.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Feb 18, 2007
    #13
  14. jmc

    Keith nuttle Guest

    jmc wrote:
    > Augh! Bad side of bigMP camera, and RAW: The Space! I used to be able
    > to fit a couple months' pics on one DVD. Even in .jpg, I can barely fit
    > the originals of my Tasmania trip on one! The originals I've taken just
    > since I started with the Rebel XTi are taking up one DL DVD on their own...
    >
    > I've just been floored to discover I have over 60GB (!!!) of just photos
    > stored on my hard drive. This is partially because I rarely delete my
    > originals; I have the originals stored in one place, then I make a copy
    > of the folder to work on for editing and viewing. Sensible, but it
    > means I need nearly twice as much space to store photos.
    >
    > I started by storing my photos on CD. Then DVD, and I've just started
    > storing them on DVD-DL. The pile of photo backup discs is growing, and
    > gonna grow fast if I keep taking RAW pics with the new camera... I think
    > I need to find a better way of backing 'em up.
    >
    > I'm not interested in HD or blu-ray yet 'cause of the built-in DRM, even
    > though that *shouldn't* affect my photos. It's a philosophical thing. I
    > can easily get an external HD (heck, I have one already) to store them
    > on, but I'm a bit nervous about putting all my eggs in one basket like
    > that. At least if one CD or DVD goes bad, I've only lost that small bit
    > of backup data.
    >
    > So. How many GB of photos do you have, and how do you back them up?
    >
    > jmc

    My storage needs are much less than many of you but one thing I have
    been watching is the Jukebox types of DVD players. I have seen some
    Jukebox for video/audio systems that hold several hundred disk. It
    seems like this would be a good thing for those who take photos. A DVD
    per project with a several hundred project capacity.

    As the need comes up I think they will be reformatted to computer
    storage, and the price will come down.

    I did a google and found some for several thousand today.
    --
    Keith Nuttle
    3110 Marquette Court
    Indianapolis, IN 46268
    317-802-0699
     
    Keith nuttle, Feb 18, 2007
    #14
  15. jmc

    thehick Guest

    On Feb 18, 9:58 am, wrote:
    ....
    > Following the same discussion about backing up image files, I have a
    > question which someone can help. When you are talking abut backing up,
    > do you mean that you back up the image files using some kind of back-
    > up software? In the old days, we used to back-up our computer (and
    > also compressed the data). The problem with that is after a couple of
    > years, if you want to restore your data, you have to use that
    > software.
    > perhaps back-up using software is faster, but would it be better just
    > to "copy" images instead of "back-up"?

    That's what all the discussion so far in this thread means. Just
    plain old file copy. Not image backup like Ghost or PQDI.
    Sorry that this wasn't clearer. It's an important requirement
    to be able to retrieve individual files. And using key-words
    like "image" did serve to muddy the water. Thanks for
    straightening this out. Others probably had the same
    question but didn't want to ask.
    ....thehick
     
    thehick, Feb 18, 2007
    #15
  16. jmc

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    375GB; a collection of scans and new RAW and JEPG files. I use a dual
    method: magnetic and optical. I have a server in my house with mirrored 500G
    drives used solely for images. The images are also written to DVD, just in
    case. I have one DVD set here and another stored off-site. Once I fill up
    the existing 500G drives, I'll upgrade the storage to at leasst 2TB.

    Also, I usually upgrade the optical storage every few years. Right now, it's
    standard 4.7G DVD. Once Blu-Ray becomes more affordable, I'll likely move to
    that storage medium.More expensive per disc, but lots fewer discs and less
    of a PITA burning them.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Feb 18, 2007
    #16
  17. "jmc" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Augh! Bad side of bigMP camera, and RAW: The Space! I used to be able
    > to fit a couple months' pics on one DVD. Even in .jpg, I can barely fit
    > the originals of my Tasmania trip on one! The originals I've taken just
    > since I started with the Rebel XTi are taking up one DL DVD on their
    > own...


    I will often fill I 2GB card in a couple of hours, and that's a D70s which
    has quite small RAW files. My partner has a D80 and she will easily shoot 4
    gigs in the time it takes me to shoot 2.

    I generally create a folder on my HDD called "backup1" "backup2" etc which I
    will fill with enough raw files to fill a DVD. I then fire up deepburner
    and save them to dvd, which then go in my lowepro dvd wallet. I usually get
    Taiyo Yuden blank DVDs as they are supposed to have a longer archive life
    than cheaper "no name" brands. I might think of backing up my backups
    sometime to guard against media failure, as I have had to remove a lot of my
    earlier raw files from my HDD to free up space.

    cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk
     
    Adrian Boliston, Feb 18, 2007
    #17
  18. jmc

    jmc Guest

    Suddenly, without warning, exclaimed (18-Feb-07 10:43
    PM):

    > As everyone knows, the choices to store photos in digital format are
    > generally known, such as
    > - store in your computer internal hard drive
    > - store in external hard disk drive (HDD)
    > - store in solid state drive (SSD)
    > - store in flash memory card (MMC, SD,xD,SM,Sony stick, CF cards, etc)
    > - store in CD (650 Mb)
    > - store in DVD (2 to 4 GB)
    > - store in HD media (Blue Ray, etc)
    > - store in a Photo viewer (Archos, Epson, Creative Zen)
    >
    > I do not have a lot of photos like you have. So, I generally back up
    > at 3 locations : DVD on yearly basis, external HDD (occasionally), and
    > in my 80 GB Archos Photo viewer.
    >


    Well, I doubt "everyone" knows this, but I do :) It's not a question of
    "what's available" but "what do you use". Nice summary though. Wish I
    could do one DVD a year!

    Actually, I'd probably use flash memory, if they came in 100GB+ sizes (I
    know, give 'em time. Photo viewer is just one of the above, I don't
    think it uses a special type of memory. Aren't they usually flash
    storage devices? Don't have one myself, but have started looking.

    jmc
     
    jmc, Feb 18, 2007
    #18
  19. jmc

    jmc Guest

    Suddenly, without warning, thehick exclaimed (19-Feb-07 12:05 AM):
    >> So. How many GB of photos do you have, and how do you back them up?

    >
    > One responder summarized and I've added the point numbers:
    >
    > As everyone knows, the choices to store photos in digital format are
    > generally known, such as
    > 1. - store in your computer internal hard drive
    > 2. - store in external hard disk drive (HDD)
    > 3. - store in solid state drive (SSD)
    > 4. - store in flash memory card (MMC, SD,xD,SM,Sony stick, CF cards,
    > etc)
    > 5. - store in CD (650 Mb)
    > 6. - store in DVD (2 to 4 GB)
    > 7. - store in HD media (Blue Ray, etc)
    > 8. - store in a Photo viewer (Archos, Epson, Creative Zen)
    >
    > Storing photos is nothing special. Making backups has been an issue
    > with computers since the beginning. So let's take it out of the
    > "photo"
    > world and treat it generically.
    >
    > Point #1 is a given. A couple of big hard drives in your usual
    > computer will allow you to keep everything you do "online".
    > Anybody can run a terabyte easy. I suggest using separate hard
    > drives.
    > One for plain old storage. You only write to it to save the original
    > from the camera and to save an editted image. Another to work with.
    >

    Yup. Right now my original and the working copy are on the same drive.
    Good point about maybe putting them on separate drives. I have two
    200GB Seagate SATA drives, so local storage isn't an issue.

    > Point #2 is my selection for best method. Basically, I set up another
    > machine with, again, plenty of hard drive space and using some kind
    > of sync software (synctoy is OK. it's free) I easily back everything
    > up to the other PC over a LAN. The point is that it's quick and easy
    > to do. Making it more likely you'll do it as frequently as required.
    > Writing/filing CDs and DVDs is a bit more work and I'd guess
    > you probably batch that job. I doubt if anyone would get out
    > this week's DVD to update one photo.
    >

    Yea, external HD is quick and easy, but hard drives do fail (had a
    couple over the years) and I'd hate to lose everything at one fell
    swoop. At least if a CD or DVD fails it's only the one.

    > Point's 3,4 5, and 6 don't seem usable due to either capacity/price
    > issues ot convenience.
    >


    Ah, but technology changes. Hybrid HDs are starting to come out; flash
    HDs aren't too far behind. Not sure about how long it'll be before the
    price comes down enough for the capacity I need.

    > Point 7 is much the same. Just you run out of room later.
    >


    There's other issues with those media, so I'm avoiding them for now.

    > Point 8 is really just HDD storage anyway.
    >

    Or flash.

    > The important point is that making backups should be simple, quick
    > and verifiable. If not, they will not be done.
    >


    Very true.

    > I would organize by date and inside of date, project if applicable.
    >

    That's what I do: I name as: yyyy-mm-dd_event - works pretty well.

    > Finding what you want after 10 or 15 years might be difficult.
    > You need to think about your filing process to try to ensure
    > that the photos are retrievable.
    >

    Generally, if I know what year and approx time of year I'm looking for,
    it's not too much of a problem.

    > Since all reliable recovery scenerios include the element of
    > off-site storage, you could pick up a large HDD and
    > copy everything to it once in a while. Presently, that would
    > probably be a USB2 drive. But in the future this could change.
    >


    Always does :) USB2 will be around for a while though. Offsite storage
    is ideal, but not always practical for some of us, especially those who
    move around the world a lot.

    > As always, before you over-write backups you need to be sure
    > that your originals are good. So a quick random check
    > is important too.
    >

    I never overwrite backups. So that's easy :)

    > Just a personal anecdote. I've been using this method
    > for a few years and I have just under 200 gig of important
    > files (photos, MP3s, home movies...). I organize my folders
    > on my usual machine so photos are in one tree, mp3s
    > in another, home movies in yet one more. Then if I just
    > update the photo section, I can quickly use synctoy
    > to bring my photo backups up-to-date. I backup
    > every time I add files. Deletes can wait.
    >
    > good luck...thehick
    >


    I use different partitions for the different types of data - a partition
    for photos, another for video (since my camcorder died and may not be
    replaced, this may be repurposed), and one for multimedia, which
    includes sound bytes and music, as well as random videos I've stored.

    With the video and all, I've probably got close to 200GB too, but
    nothing in there's as important as the photos to me, so most of it's not
    backed up, 'cause it'd take too many DVDs to do so. My external HD's
    now only just big enough to store the photos.

    jmc
     
    jmc, Feb 18, 2007
    #19
  20. jmc

    thehick Guest

    On Feb 18, 6:50 pm, jmc <> wrote:
    ....
    > > Point #2 is my selection for best method. Basically, I set up another
    > > machine with, again, plenty of hard drive space and using some kind
    > > of sync software (synctoy is OK. it's free) I easily back everything
    > > up to the other PC over a LAN. The point is that it's quick and easy
    > > to do. Making it more likely you'll do it as frequently as required.
    > > Writing/filing CDs and DVDs is a bit more work and I'd guess
    > > you probably batch that job. I doubt if anyone would get out
    > > this week's DVD to update one photo.

    >
    > Yea, external HD is quick and easy, but hard drives do fail (had a
    > couple over the years) and I'd hate to lose everything at one fell
    > swoop. At least if a CD or DVD fails it's only the one.


    I don't want to carry this on too long but I sync my usual machine
    to the other. There are always two copies on two separate HDDs.
    If one completely fails, I just replace the HD and copy from the
    other.
    Nothing to it.

    But this discussion has made me think about off-site storage and
    I'm gonna make another backup (monthly) to a HD that I take
    to work and leave in a drawer.
    that'll be plenty...thehick
     
    thehick, Feb 19, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. j
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    922
    Governor Swill
    Feb 1, 2005
  2. (Pete Cresswell)

    Using SQL Server to store photos?

    (Pete Cresswell), Oct 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    3,110
    (Pete Cresswell)
    Oct 15, 2003
  3. Ole uncle ted

    usb external hd to store photos on ?

    Ole uncle ted, Nov 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    547
    Donald Gray
    Nov 27, 2003
  4. Brad Demrow

    How do you store your large dvd collection?

    Brad Demrow, Oct 28, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    6,758
    Kevin
    Nov 1, 2004
  5. Jørn Dahl-Stamnes

    How do you store your memory cards?

    Jørn Dahl-Stamnes, Nov 18, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    1,020
    TROLL POLICE
    Nov 19, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page