How to recover a photo I was forced to delete

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Silent Knight, Jun 5, 2014.

  1. I took a picture at the bar referee smog station of what I consider
    an inappropriate action but the employee there made me delete it
    in his presence because, he said, it's against bar policy.

    I want to complain to the California BAR but I want that picture
    back. It's an Android 4.3 Samsung Galaxy S3 with an SD card.

    I used the default "Camera" app.
    I have Ubuntu linux.

    Is there a way to get the photo back?
    Silent Knight, Jun 5, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Silent Knight

    nospam Guest

    In article <lmpsjm$l1m$>, Silent Knight
    <> wrote:

    > I took a picture at the bar referee smog station of what I consider
    > an inappropriate action but the employee there made me delete it
    > in his presence because, he said, it's against bar policy.


    you are under no obligation whatsoever to delete anything. all they can
    do is kick you out and tell you never to return.

    if they 'made' you, then you can (and should) take legal action.

    > I want to complain to the California BAR but I want that picture
    > back. It's an Android 4.3 Samsung Galaxy S3 with an SD card.
    >
    > I used the default "Camera" app.
    > I have Ubuntu linux.
    >
    > Is there a way to get the photo back?


    <http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/>

    unfortunately, since it's an android device rather than a standard
    camera, that memory might have been reused for something else already.

    however, if it's still there, the above app *will* find it. there are
    other recovery apps but they're not as good.
    nospam, Jun 5, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Silent Knight

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014060508002455919-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > > I took a picture at the bar referee smog station of what I consider
    > > an inappropriate action but the employee there made me delete it
    > > in his presence because, he said, it's against bar policy.

    >
    > It might be against BAR policy, it might not. Did he actually show you
    > that policy in writing?


    probably not, because there's no such policy.

    > Then were you on private property? ...and I suspect you were, on
    > private property you have no right to whip out your phone to take
    > photographs. If you were standing on public property to take the shot
    > you would have less of a problem, other than you were trying to capture
    > something occurring on private property, which is something you do not
    > necessarily have a right to do.


    unless there's a prohibition for photography, you definitely can take
    photos, *especially* if you are on public property and it plainly can
    be seen.

    > > I want to complain to the California BAR but I want that picture
    > > back. It's an Android 4.3 Samsung Galaxy S3 with an SD card.

    >
    > Complain about what? Something to do with not passing your smog test,
    > or having to delete the photograph?


    the 'inappropriate action' he mentioned.

    > > I used the default "Camera" app.
    > > I have Ubuntu linux.
    > >
    > > Is there a way to get the photo back?

    >
    > Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery might
    > be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal a whole
    > bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one which runs on
    > Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done with your phone
    > which wrote to the SD card.
    > < http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn >


    the options are definitely more limited for linux but linux users
    should be used to that. that's why they dualboot windows and/or use
    wine.
    nospam, Jun 5, 2014
    #3
  4. Silent Knight

    Aragorn Guest

    On Thursday 05 June 2014 17:11, nospam conveyed the following to
    alt.comp.os.linux...

    > In article <2014060508002455919-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> [Silent Knight wrote:]
    >>
    >> > Is there a way to get the photo back?

    >>
    >> Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery
    >> might be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal
    >> a whole bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one
    >> which runs on Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done
    >> with your phone which wrote to the SD card.
    >> < http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn >

    >
    > the options are definitely more limited for linux but linux users
    > should be used to that. that's why they dualboot windows and/or use
    > wine.


    You were doing alright until you had to throw in that little bit of
    trolling flame bait here-above.

    --
    = Aragorn =

    http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
    Aragorn, Jun 5, 2014
    #4
  5. Silent Knight

    nospam Guest

    In article <lmq1rr$inv$>, Aragorn
    <> wrote:

    > >> > Is there a way to get the photo back?
    > >>
    > >> Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery
    > >> might be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal
    > >> a whole bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one
    > >> which runs on Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done
    > >> with your phone which wrote to the SD card.
    > >> < http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn >

    > >
    > > the options are definitely more limited for linux but linux users
    > > should be used to that. that's why they dualboot windows and/or use
    > > wine.

    >
    > You were doing alright until you had to throw in that little bit of
    > trolling flame bait here-above.


    nothing trolling or flame bait about it. it's *reality*.
    nospam, Jun 5, 2014
    #5
  6. Silent Knight

    Aragorn Guest

    On Thursday 05 June 2014 17:25, nospam conveyed the following to
    alt.comp.os.linux...

    > In article <lmq1rr$inv$>, Aragorn
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> >> > Is there a way to get the photo back?
    >> >>
    >> >> Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery
    >> >> might be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will
    >> >> reveal a whole bunch of options. Your problem is going to be
    >> >> finding one which runs on Linux. The other is any thing else you
    >> >> might have done with your phone which wrote to the SD card.
    >> >> < http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn >
    >> >
    >> > the options are definitely more limited for linux but linux users
    >> > should be used to that. that's why they dualboot windows and/or use
    >> > wine.

    >>
    >> You were doing alright until you had to throw in that little bit of
    >> trolling flame bait here-above.

    >
    > nothing trolling or flame bait about it. it's *reality*.


    Only in your universe, pal.

    --
    = Aragorn =

    http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
    Aragorn, Jun 5, 2014
    #6
  7. Silent Knight

    s|b Guest

    On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:50:46 +0000 (UTC), Silent Knight wrote:

    > Is there a way to get the photo back?


    Try TestDisk:
    <http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk>

    --
    s|b
    s|b, Jun 5, 2014
    #7
  8. Silent Knight

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/5/2014 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:


    <snip>

    >
    > Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery might
    > be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal a whole
    > bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one which runs on
    > Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done with your phone
    > which wrote to the SD card.
    > < http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn >
    >


    That's not the law in NY. With certain exceptions, I have an absolute
    right to photograph anything in plain sight, even if it is on private
    property. There are definite legal restrictions on what I am permitted
    to do with my image. But, that should not be confused with my right to
    take the picture.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jun 5, 2014
    #8
  9. Silent Knight

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 05/06/2014 20:36, PeterN wrote:
    > On 6/5/2014 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >>
    >> Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery might
    >> be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal a whole
    >> bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one which runs on
    >> Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done with your phone
    >> which wrote to the SD card.
    >> < http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn >
    >>

    >
    > That's not the law in NY. With certain exceptions, I have an absolute
    > right to photograph anything in plain sight, even if it is on private
    > property. There are definite legal restrictions on what I am permitted
    > to do with my image. But, that should not be confused with my right to
    > take the picture.


    I think you will find that if you are *stood* on private land (usually
    marked with studs in the ground if there is a boundary) then the
    landowner gets to make the rules even if he allows the public to walk
    over the land or there are rights of way across. The right of way when
    it is over private land does not automatically grant you the right to
    take a photograph. You have to be quite careful about this in the UK if
    you are taking images that might have a commercial value.

    All bets are off if you take a photograph on marked private land and
    then try to use it in an advertising campaign as Refuge Assurance once
    learnt to their cost. Basically an entire campaign had to be shredded
    when the rich landowner aggressively enforced his absolute rights.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Jun 5, 2014
    #9
  10. Silent Knight

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/5/2014 4:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2014-06-05 19:36:19 +0000, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 6/5/2014 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery might
    >>> be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal a whole
    >>> bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one which runs on
    >>> Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done with your phone
    >>> which wrote to the SD card.
    >>> < http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn >
    >>>

    >>
    >> That's not the law in NY. With certain exceptions, I have an absolute
    >> right to photograph anything in plain sight, even if it is on private
    >> property.

    >
    > Agreed, but what if you are standing on that private property while
    > photographing those targets in plain sight. You can shoot at whatever
    > from public property bordering on that private property if it is in
    > plain sight, but once you cross that threshold it becomes a different
    > question. I suspect the OP was on private property, and if he had
    > continued to take photographs while on that property he could well be
    > excluded as a trespasser.
    >
    >> There are definite legal restrictions on what I am permitted to do
    >> with my image. But, that should not be confused with my right to take
    >> the picture.

    >
    > He has no implied right to photograph while he is standing on private
    > property without the approval of the property owner or proprietor. Move
    > back onto the public sidewalk, and if his target is still in plain
    > sight, there is no argument. Then he can shoot to his heart's content.
    >
    >


    WRO photography, the owner of the property can place any conditions on
    permitting the OP to be present on the property. I doubt the owner had
    any legal right to force deletion of photographs.


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jun 5, 2014
    #10
  11. Silent Knight

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/5/2014 4:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2014-06-05 20:18:57 +0000, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
    >
    >> On 2014-06-05 19:36:19 +0000, PeterN <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 6/5/2014 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> <snip>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery might
    >>>> be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal a whole
    >>>> bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one which runs on
    >>>> Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done with your phone
    >>>> which wrote to the SD card.
    >>>> < http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn >
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> That's not the law in NY. With certain exceptions, I have an absolute
    >>> right to photograph anything in plain sight, even if it is on private
    >>> property.

    >>
    >> Agreed, but what if you are standing on that private property while
    >> photographing those targets in plain sight. You can shoot at whatever
    >> from public property bordering on that private property if it is in
    >> plain sight, but once you cross that threshold it becomes a different
    >> question. I suspect the OP was on private property, and if he had
    >> continued to take photographs while on that property he could well be
    >> excluded as a trespasser.
    >>
    >>> There are definite legal restrictions on what I am permitted to do
    >>> with my image. But, that should not be confused with my right to take
    >>> the picture.

    >>
    >> He has no implied right to photograph while he is standing on private
    >> property without the approval of the property owner or proprietor.
    >> Move back onto the public sidewalk, and if his target is still in
    >> plain sight, there is no argument. Then he can shoot to his heart's
    >> content.

    >
    > BTW: having to delete they image is another issue and he should not have
    > had to do that. In the worst case scenario email it to yourself first.
    >


    Yup

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jun 5, 2014
    #11
  12. Silent Knight

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014060513221695524-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > BTW: having to delete they image is another issue and he should not
    > have had to do that. In the worst case scenario email it to yourself
    > first.


    cloud sync :)
    nospam, Jun 5, 2014
    #12
  13. Silent Knight

    nospam Guest

    In article <Pn4kv.346665$4>, Martin Brown
    <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    > > That's not the law in NY. With certain exceptions, I have an absolute
    > > right to photograph anything in plain sight, even if it is on private
    > > property. There are definite legal restrictions on what I am permitted
    > > to do with my image. But, that should not be confused with my right to
    > > take the picture.

    >
    > I think you will find that if you are *stood* on private land (usually
    > marked with studs in the ground if there is a boundary) then the
    > landowner gets to make the rules even if he allows the public to walk
    > over the land or there are rights of way across. The right of way when
    > it is over private land does not automatically grant you the right to
    > take a photograph. You have to be quite careful about this in the UK if
    > you are taking images that might have a commercial value.
    >
    > All bets are off if you take a photograph on marked private land and
    > then try to use it in an advertising campaign as Refuge Assurance once
    > learnt to their cost. Basically an entire campaign had to be shredded
    > when the rich landowner aggressively enforced his absolute rights.


    that's *use* of a photo, not the act of taking a photo. this isn't
    about someone taking a photo to be used in an ad campaign.

    there may be trespass issues with wandering onto someone elses property
    but that's not the issue here. the person was at a place that is open
    to the public so therefore he is not trespassing unless they tell him
    to leave and he doesn't.

    unless photography is prohibited where he was, which i highly doubt,
    then he is not violating anything by taking photos of anything in plain
    sight.

    he said he saw something inappropriate and photographed it. they
    obviously agreed it was inappropriate or else they would not have asked
    him to delete it.

    at this point, he should hire an attorney and take legal action.
    nospam, Jun 5, 2014
    #13
  14. Silent Knight

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014060513185788780-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > > That's not the law in NY. With certain exceptions, I have an absolute
    > > right to photograph anything in plain sight, even if it is on private
    > > property.

    >
    > Agreed, but what if you are standing on that private property while
    > photographing those targets in plain sight. You can shoot at whatever
    > from public property bordering on that private property if it is in
    > plain sight, but once you cross that threshold it becomes a different
    > question. I suspect the OP was on private property, and if he had
    > continued to take photographs while on that property he could well be
    > excluded as a trespasser.


    the property owner can ask the person to leave and if he doesn't,
    that's trespass, however, he was somewhere that was open to the public.
    it's not like he wandered into someone's backyard and started taking
    photos. he had every right to be at the smog station and in fact, he is
    legally required to go there every so often.

    under no circumstances can they make someone delete anything or even
    look at what was photographed. they can certainly ask, and you can (and
    should) say 'no'.

    > > There are definite legal restrictions on what I am permitted to do with
    > > my image. But, that should not be confused with my right to take the
    > > picture.

    >
    > He has no implied right to photograph while he is standing on private
    > property without the approval of the property owner or proprietor. Move
    > back onto the public sidewalk, and if his target is still in plain
    > sight, there is no argument. Then he can shoot to his heart's content.


    incorrect.

    absent any prohibition, such as a sign that says 'the taking of photos,
    with or without flash, are prohibited', as is common in theaters or
    museums, then he can take photos (unless it's in the bathroom or
    somewhere where people expect privacy).
    nospam, Jun 5, 2014
    #14
  15. Silent Knight

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/5/2014 4:26 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
    > On 05/06/2014 20:36, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 6/5/2014 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery might
    >>> be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal a whole
    >>> bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one which runs on
    >>> Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done with your phone
    >>> which wrote to the SD card.
    >>> < http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn >
    >>>

    >>
    >> That's not the law in NY. With certain exceptions, I have an absolute
    >> right to photograph anything in plain sight, even if it is on private
    >> property. There are definite legal restrictions on what I am permitted
    >> to do with my image. But, that should not be confused with my right to
    >> take the picture.

    >
    > I think you will find that if you are *stood* on private land (usually
    > marked with studs in the ground if there is a boundary) then the
    > landowner gets to make the rules even if he allows the public to walk
    > over the land or there are rights of way across. The right of way when
    > it is over private land does not automatically grant you the right to
    > take a photograph. You have to be quite careful about this in the UK if
    > you are taking images that might have a commercial value.
    >
    > All bets are off if you take a photograph on marked private land and
    > then try to use it in an advertising campaign as Refuge Assurance once
    > learnt to their cost. Basically an entire campaign had to be shredded
    > when the rich landowner aggressively enforced his absolute rights.
    >


    that is a different altogether. I am not famoiliar with the law in GB.
    But in most States in the US, If I take your picture when we are both in
    a public place and use it for advertising without your written consent,
    I can be subject to civil penalties.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jun 5, 2014
    #15
  16. Silent Knight

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > > All bets are off if you take a photograph on marked private land and
    > > then try to use it in an advertising campaign as Refuge Assurance once
    > > learnt to their cost. Basically an entire campaign had to be shredded
    > > when the rich landowner aggressively enforced his absolute rights.
    > >

    >
    > that is a different altogether. I am not famoiliar with the law in GB.
    > But in most States in the US, If I take your picture when we are both in
    > a public place and use it for advertising without your written consent,
    > I can be subject to civil penalties.


    if the person is recognizable yes.

    for a crowd shot, no.

    but this wasn't about an ad. it was an inappropriate action that
    clearly was inappropriate or they wouldn't have 'made' him delete it.
    nospam, Jun 5, 2014
    #16
  17. Silent Knight

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:18:57 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2014-06-05 19:36:19 +0000, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 6/5/2014 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery might
    >>> be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal a whole
    >>> bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one which runs on
    >>> Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done with your phone
    >>> which wrote to the SD card.
    >>> < http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn >
    >>>

    >>
    >> That's not the law in NY. With certain exceptions, I have an absolute
    >> right to photograph anything in plain sight, even if it is on private
    >> property.

    >
    >Agreed, but what if you are standing on that private property while
    >photographing those targets in plain sight. You can shoot at whatever
    >from public property bordering on that private property if it is in
    >plain sight, but once you cross that threshold it becomes a different
    >question. I suspect the OP was on private property, and if he had
    >continued to take photographs while on that property he could well be
    >excluded as a trespasser.
    >
    >> There are definite legal restrictions on what I am permitted to do with
    >> my image. But, that should not be confused with my right to take the
    >> picture.

    >
    >He has no implied right to photograph while he is standing on private
    >property without the approval of the property owner or proprietor. Move
    >back onto the public sidewalk, and if his target is still in plain
    >sight, there is no argument. Then he can shoot to his heart's content.


    What about the right of the individual photographed to decline to wish
    to be photographed?

    When doing street photography, any individual who indicates to me that
    they do not want to be photographed is not photographed. If I've
    already taken the photograph, and that person asks me to delete it, I
    do it. I don't object, I don't argue, I just delete.

    It's common courtesy and respect for the other person. The subject
    can declare that it's his own personal policy not to be photographed.

    *Where* the photograph is taken has nothing to do with it. Public
    property, private property...it's all the same to me.

    There are conditions under which I would not comply. If the person is
    committing a crime or abusing some other person or animal, I would not
    afford that person with the courtesy I'd afford someone else.

    The OP indicated that the person was doing something "inappropriate",
    but that doesn't necessarily mean that the action was so inappropriate
    that the subject can't decline to have his photograph taken.

    The feeling in this group is that the photographer is always in the
    right. That's not really always the case.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Jun 5, 2014
    #17
  18. Silent Knight

    The Real Bev Guest

    On 06/05/2014 01:26 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
    > On 05/06/2014 20:36, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 6/5/2014 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery might
    >>> be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal a whole
    >>> bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one which runs on
    >>> Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done with your phone
    >>> which wrote to the SD card.
    >>> < http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn >

    >>
    >> That's not the law in NY. With certain exceptions, I have an absolute
    >> right to photograph anything in plain sight, even if it is on private
    >> property. There are definite legal restrictions on what I am permitted
    >> to do with my image. But, that should not be confused with my right to
    >> take the picture.

    >
    > I think you will find that if you are *stood* on private land (usually
    > marked with studs in the ground if there is a boundary) then the
    > landowner gets to make the rules even if he allows the public to walk
    > over the land or there are rights of way across. The right of way when
    > it is over private land does not automatically grant you the right to
    > take a photograph. You have to be quite careful about this in the UK if
    > you are taking images that might have a commercial value.
    >
    > All bets are off if you take a photograph on marked private land and
    > then try to use it in an advertising campaign as Refuge Assurance once
    > learnt to their cost. Basically an entire campaign had to be shredded
    > when the rich landowner aggressively enforced his absolute rights.


    Wasn't the original poster required to be where he was by some legal
    entity? I think he was trying to photograph a reading on a machine.

    In California I am required by law to have my car smog-checked every
    other year. I have to take it to a private station to do it, not a
    state-operated checkpoint. I would think that I would be entitled to
    photograph the readings on the test equipment whether the owner of that
    equipment approved or not. I would tell him to call a cop because I
    wasn't going to delete anything and if he tried to do it for me I'd have
    him arrested for assault and battery. I might even throw in sexual
    assault if I felt mean :-(

    --
    Cheers, Bev
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity
    is not thus handicapped."
    -- Elbert Hubbard, American author
    The Real Bev, Jun 5, 2014
    #18
  19. Silent Knight

    The Real Bev Guest

    On 06/05/2014 03:37 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    > Provoking an assault and alleging sexual assault is something else all
    > together, and which raises questions regarding your sense of right and
    > wrong. There are other less provocative options.


    Of course, and actually carrying through on such a complaint would
    clearly be a crime. OTOH, I'm pretty sure that threatening to call a
    cop if somebody tries to touch you is legitimate.

    Everything about the smog approval system is wrong, though. I would
    have no actual MORAL qualms about anything I or anyone else did that
    involved this system. Well, maybe not murder... :)

    --
    Cheers, Bev
    =============================================
    You are more likely to catch swine flu from a
    police officer than from an actual pig.
    The Real Bev, Jun 6, 2014
    #19
  20. Silent Knight

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, RJH
    <> wrote:

    > >> Is there a way to get the photo back?

    > >
    > > <http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/>
    > >
    > > unfortunately, since it's an android device rather than a standard
    > > camera, that memory might have been reused for something else already.
    > >
    > > however, if it's still there, the above app *will* find it. there are
    > > other recovery apps but they're not as good.

    >
    > +1 - Data Rescue is well worth a try.


    don't confuse the app called data rescue with the company called data
    rescue.

    data rescue is the company that makes photorescue.

    prosoft engineering is the company that makes data rescue, the app.

    two very different companies and two very different apps.

    data rescue is for recovering hard drives and *much* more expensive. it
    can recover photos, but for this case, it's overkill and also not as
    good.

    photorescue is designed specifically to recover photos and does a
    fantastic job.
    nospam, Jun 6, 2014
    #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. forced tab

    , Sep 15, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    592
    Ralph Fox
    Sep 16, 2005
  2. JanC
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,026
  3. Emre Bastuz
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    489
    Emre Bastuz
    Jan 2, 2004
  4. Invalid Address

    Forced video AND forced audio from Universal

    Invalid Address, Jan 8, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    2,172
    John Savard
    Jan 18, 2004
  5. jamesstevn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,773
    jamesstevn
    Mar 10, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page