USB Flash drives

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by luk, Aug 15, 2006.

  1. luk

    luk Guest

    Do these devices preserve photographs
    longer than a CD-R disk? Would saving
    an important photo this way be more
    reliable than the CD-R?

    Thanks.

    Luk
    luk, Aug 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. luk

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:48:16 -0400, luk <>
    wrote:

    >Do these devices preserve photographs
    >longer than a CD-R disk? Would saving
    >an important photo this way be more
    >reliable than the CD-R?
    >
    >Thanks.
    >
    >Luk


    For the cost of a 512MB USB drive, you could buy,...
    How many CD-Rs?
    It's not cost-effective.
    If you really want to make your digital images last a long time, use
    multiple methods; multiple CD-Rs geographically dispersed and stored
    properly, a hard drive backup, and a good web server (get your own
    domain) with a lot of space. The more places you put your image files,
    the mor elikely you are to have them last.
    Oh, also think about giving copies to whoever you think will want them
    later. Kids, friends, museums, whoever.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Aug 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. luk

    luk Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:

    > If you really want to make your digital images last a long time, use
    > multiple methods; multiple CD-Rs geographically dispersed and stored
    > properly, a hard drive backup, and a good web server (get your own
    > domain) with a lot of space. The more places you put your image files,
    > the mor elikely you are to have them last.
    > Oh, also think about giving copies to whoever you think will want them
    > later. Kids, friends, museums, whoever.


    Thanks to all. Someone suggested to me that
    a USB flash drive would last longer than the
    CD-R. I then looked at the prices and storage
    capacity of the USB devices. I was surprised
    at the cost - and a bit discouraged.

    Now some people are saying that a CD-R can
    last quite a long time.

    I think we're all handicapped by the fact that
    the new technologies are...well...new. How
    can anyone predict durability?

    I have, in fact, made multiple CD-Rs. Not
    geographically dispersed, however. That's
    a thought.

    Luk
    luk, Aug 15, 2006
    #3
  4. luk

    Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:48:16 -0400, luk <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Do these devices preserve photographs
    > >longer than a CD-R disk? Would saving
    > >an important photo this way be more
    > >reliable than the CD-R?
    > >
    > >Thanks.
    > >
    > >Luk

    >
    > For the cost of a 512MB USB drive, you could buy,...
    > How many CD-Rs?
    > It's not cost-effective.
    > If you really want to make your digital images last a long time, use
    > multiple methods; multiple CD-Rs geographically dispersed and stored
    > properly, a hard drive backup, and a good web server (get your own
    > domain) with a lot of space. The more places you put your image files,
    > the mor elikely you are to have them last.


    I recall about 15 years ago when I started recording live music on DAT
    that there were numerous studies done to prove that DAT would fail as a
    storage medium. The metal oxide on the tape itself would rust off, the
    sound would be lost and your capture would be interspersed with the
    nagging "scream" resulting from digital errors. They posited this
    theory under the most ideal of storage circumstances. Recently, I
    unearthed a large box of DATs that had been stored in multiple places,
    including an outside storage facility with no air conditioning. I
    listened apprehensively, and there were no more or less digital errors
    than there were in, some cases, 1992 or '93.

    I'm banking on CDs to do the job!
    , Aug 16, 2006
    #4
  5. luk

    Jim Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Bill Funk wrote:
    >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:48:16 -0400, luk <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Do these devices preserve photographs
    >> >longer than a CD-R disk? Would saving
    >> >an important photo this way be more
    >> >reliable than the CD-R?
    >> >
    >> >Thanks.
    >> >
    >> >Luk

    >>
    >> For the cost of a 512MB USB drive, you could buy,...
    >> How many CD-Rs?
    >> It's not cost-effective.
    >> If you really want to make your digital images last a long time, use
    >> multiple methods; multiple CD-Rs geographically dispersed and stored
    >> properly, a hard drive backup, and a good web server (get your own
    >> domain) with a lot of space. The more places you put your image files,
    >> the mor elikely you are to have them last.

    >
    > I recall about 15 years ago when I started recording live music on DAT
    > that there were numerous studies done to prove that DAT would fail as a
    > storage medium. The metal oxide on the tape itself would rust off, the
    > sound would be lost and your capture would be interspersed with the
    > nagging "scream" resulting from digital errors. They posited this
    > theory under the most ideal of storage circumstances. Recently, I
    > unearthed a large box of DATs that had been stored in multiple places,
    > including an outside storage facility with no air conditioning. I
    > listened apprehensively, and there were no more or less digital errors
    > than there were in, some cases, 1992 or '93.
    >
    > I'm banking on CDs to do the job!
    >

    Mine haven't.
    Jim
    Jim, Aug 16, 2006
    #5
  6. luk

    Shawn Hirn Guest

    In article <>,
    luk <> wrote:

    > Bill Funk wrote:
    >
    > > If you really want to make your digital images last a long time, use
    > > multiple methods; multiple CD-Rs geographically dispersed and stored
    > > properly, a hard drive backup, and a good web server (get your own
    > > domain) with a lot of space. The more places you put your image files,
    > > the mor elikely you are to have them last.
    > > Oh, also think about giving copies to whoever you think will want them
    > > later. Kids, friends, museums, whoever.

    >
    > Thanks to all. Someone suggested to me that
    > a USB flash drive would last longer than the
    > CD-R. I then looked at the prices and storage
    > capacity of the USB devices. I was surprised
    > at the cost - and a bit discouraged.
    >
    > Now some people are saying that a CD-R can
    > last quite a long time.
    >
    > I think we're all handicapped by the fact that
    > the new technologies are...well...new. How
    > can anyone predict durability?
    >
    > I have, in fact, made multiple CD-Rs. Not
    > geographically dispersed, however. That's
    > a thought.
    >
    > Luk


    To the best of my knowledge, none of the companies that manufacture
    flash drives market them as long-term archival media. A flash drive
    might very well hold its data intact for many years, but its just not
    cost effective.

    On the other hand, plenty of manufacturers of CD-ROM media have tested
    their media for long term archival storage. The last time I checked, the
    typical CD was "projected" to last 100 years. Its anyone's guess how
    long data will remain intact on a flash drive because they were never
    marketed for long-term storage so I doubt there's been much testing or
    certification done with that media for archival storage.
    Shawn Hirn, Aug 16, 2006
    #6
  7. luk

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:45:18 -0400, Shawn Hirn wrote:

    >> I have, in fact, made multiple CD-Rs. Not
    >> geographically dispersed, however. That's
    >> a thought.

    > . . .
    >
    > To the best of my knowledge, none of the companies that manufacture
    > flash drives market them as long-term archival media. A flash drive
    > might very well hold its data intact for many years, but its just not
    > cost effective.


    It's not cost effective compared to archiving with CDs. But for
    some people whose needs are no greater than snapshooters that only
    get 4"x6" prints made (some not even caring that their 4"x6"s are of
    pretty poor print quality), using flash cards or drives can be a
    very inexpensive way to save pictures.

    While I archive my original multi-megabyte images, they can be
    reduced to about 50k in size and still rival the image quality of
    mediocre snapshots, and can look even better when displayed on a
    large monitor. A 1GB card can hold 20,000 50k images, which for
    many people would represent more than 20 year's worth of shots. A
    flash card used for archiving doesn't need to be one of the more
    expensive high speed cards, so you should be able to get a 1GB
    "archive" card for well under $40. That's less than 2 cents per
    image, which is an order of magnitude less than film snapshooters
    have been willing to pay for their prints. And print costs are
    pretty stable, while flash memory keeps getting cheaper and cheaper.
    Fussier snapshooters with a few more bucks in their wallet can save
    250k images, but in only a few years card costs will drop enough so
    that even these will eventually be able to be saved for less than 2
    cents per image. Meanwhile, those using inexpensive film cameras
    and disposables will be paying much more per shot and thinking
    "What, me worry?" :)

    My Fuji's pictures average just under 2MB, so I'd be able to fit
    1000 on a 2GB card. That's a little more than I usually take per
    year, and that card would cost less than what I used to pay annually
    ten years ago to get a smaller number of prints made. Of course
    back then I considered the costs excessive, and it kept me from
    shooting as often as I would have liked. I also prefer the quality
    of the Fuji's images to what I used to get from my old Nikon SLR.
    I'm not about to stop using CDs and DVDs for backing up my images,
    but flash cards and drives are much more convenient for carrying
    large numbers of pictures when you're in the mood to trap friends
    and relatives for hours, seeking revenge for the times they bored
    you to tears showing their unedited home videos. :)
    ASAAR, Aug 16, 2006
    #7
  8. luk

    Guest

    wrote:
    > Bill Funk wrote:
    > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:48:16 -0400, luk <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > >Do these devices preserve photographs
    > > >longer than a CD-R disk? Would saving
    > > >an important photo this way be more
    > > >reliable than the CD-R?
    > > >
    > > >Thanks.
    > > >
    > > >Luk

    > >
    > > For the cost of a 512MB USB drive, you could buy,...
    > > How many CD-Rs?
    > > It's not cost-effective.
    > > If you really want to make your digital images last a long time, use
    > > multiple methods; multiple CD-Rs geographically dispersed and stored
    > > properly, a hard drive backup, and a good web server (get your own
    > > domain) with a lot of space. The more places you put your image files,
    > > the mor elikely you are to have them last.

    >
    > I recall about 15 years ago when I started recording live music on DAT
    > that there were numerous studies done to prove that DAT would fail as a
    > storage medium. The metal oxide on the tape itself would rust off, the
    > sound would be lost and your capture would be interspersed with the
    > nagging "scream" resulting from digital errors. They posited this
    > theory under the most ideal of storage circumstances. Recently, I
    > unearthed a large box of DATs that had been stored in multiple places,
    > including an outside storage facility with no air conditioning. I
    > listened apprehensively, and there were no more or less digital errors
    > than there were in, some cases, 1992 or '93.
    >
    > I'm banking on CDs to do the job!
    , Aug 16, 2006
    #8
  9. luk

    luk Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    >
    > While I archive my original multi-megabyte images, they can be
    > reduced to about 50k in size and still rival the image quality of
    > mediocre snapshots, and can look even better when displayed on a
    > large monitor. A 1GB card can hold 20,000 50k images, which for
    > many people would represent more than 20 year's worth of shots. A
    > flash card used for archiving doesn't need to be one of the more
    > expensive high speed cards, so you should be able to get a 1GB
    > "archive" card for well under $40. That's less than 2 cents per
    > image, which is an order of magnitude less than film snapshooters
    > have been willing to pay for their prints. And print costs are
    > pretty stable, while flash memory keeps getting cheaper and cheaper.
    > Fussier snapshooters with a few more bucks in their wallet can save
    > 250k images, but in only a few years card costs will drop enough so
    > that even these will eventually be able to be saved for less than 2
    > cents per image. Meanwhile, those using inexpensive film cameras
    > and disposables will be paying much more per shot and thinking
    > "What, me worry?" :)


    The 1 GB card in addition to some CD-Rs might be
    a good plan for the time being. (With the understanding
    that technologies will continue to change rapidly,
    as they have in the past 10 years.)

    There seems to be an underlying acknowledgment in all
    these replies that ink jet prints are not likely to
    be very durable.

    Luk
    luk, Aug 16, 2006
    #9
    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. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    672
    Silverstrand
    Oct 17, 2005
  2. Arawak

    Can USB flash drives be made bootable?

    Arawak, Jul 30, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    439
    Arawak
    Aug 16, 2003
  3. Zap Eagle
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,252
    Zap Eagle
    Jul 13, 2006
  4. Arawak

    Vista and Flash Drives (Thumb/USB drives)

    Arawak, Apr 25, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    602
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    699
Loading...

Share This Page