I have my primary storage, a backup, and an archive.
When I download my pictures onto my computer's hard drive that's primary storage. All of my files are under the directory "Glenn's Stuff." I've arranged my sub-directories, first to give them some sense of order so I can find what I want, then added sub-sub-directories to make them easier to store onto DVDs.
I have a stand-alone hard drive that I use for "backup." This is a duplicate of what's on my primary hard drive in case my hard drive fails. In fact, there are two copies on that drive, one named "Glenn's Stuff" and one named "Glenn's Old Stuff," which is an older version. Just before backing up I delete "Glenn's Old Stuff" and rename "Glenn's Stuff" to "Glenn's Old Stuff" then perform the backup. This way, if something crashes my hard drive during the backup process I don't lose as much. I should be backing up every week or so but, since I haven't been doing much photography lately it's been over a month. I know some people back their photos up as soon as they've downloaded them from their cameras but, since I'm not a professional, my world will not end if I loose a week or two of pictures.
About every three-four months I archive the latest version onto DVDs. These are kept in another building on the property in case the house catches fire or is otherwise destroyed.
11 posts :: Page 1 of 1
I use a couple of different methods. I automatically backup all my pictures to an external hard drive using Adobe Bridge Photo Down loader. As I only shoot RAW I can always recover my original files and reprocess them if I loose the modified files stored on my computer hard drive. I also use Windows Backup to automatically backup other document files to an external hard drive. I could use it for photos but the program does not overwrite old files thereby using a lot of disk space.
I usually don't bother backing up files to DVDs or CDs. They don't store a lot, take longer than hard drives to backup and who knows how long they will last? External hard drives are pretty cheap now days.
I usually don't bother backing up files to DVDs or CDs. They don't store a lot, take longer than hard drives to backup and who knows how long they will last? External hard drives are pretty cheap now days.
I am pretty paranoid about backing up. I back up to a network attached storage (NAS) that has two 500 gb drives that operate RAID 1 which means one mirrors the other. Once a month I remove one of the drives and place it away from the house. I re-install the previous drive in the NAS unit. So in effect I have 3 drives. The drives are hot swappable so changing isn't a problem. I also make a CD of the raw camera files and store that separately.
Beside equipment failure, one also worries about fire, theft and earthquakes and that's the reason for offsite storage.
I used an external hard drive for a while. Fortunately I ran it as RAID 1 as well, because one drive failed. A near miss so I went for the NAS. I recovered all the data, but it was not easy.
If you only have a few gb of data to store, online might be OK. When you have hundreds, it gets more expensive and can take loads of time, even with a fast connection to move data.
Beside equipment failure, one also worries about fire, theft and earthquakes and that's the reason for offsite storage.
I used an external hard drive for a while. Fortunately I ran it as RAID 1 as well, because one drive failed. A near miss so I went for the NAS. I recovered all the data, but it was not easy.
If you only have a few gb of data to store, online might be OK. When you have hundreds, it gets more expensive and can take loads of time, even with a fast connection to move data.
Ok, my turn.
It's good to see everyone has come around to using HD's for storage. It wasn't long ago some members swore by CDs and DVDs. I was just curious as to how many have switched (Ref: my original post).
(Dave) I don't like network drives. One reason is cuz they are so dam slow and to susceptible to viruses. They are also (what I call) network temperamental. Meaning that, if you have a lot of hardware connected to your router (Like I do), each component wants to fight for the right to be on the network. That can sometimes cause more problems then it's worth.
I run 4 external usb 1tb drives individually turned on when I need them. Much faster. I have zero complaints about this interface. They r not shared and cant be accessed from a Trojan or virus except when turned on, which is rarely.
I think sometimes people are drawn into the word "RAID" without thinking about the logistics of the problem. RAID drives r ok, but what worries me there is that if I have a corrupt file on one drive, the good file on the other drive ends up being bad too so what's the point. If I accidently (without knowing) delete a folder, its gone on the other drive too. I prefer to separate them. RAID drives r good for insuring a drive doesn't fail, but not good for corrupt or accidently deleted files and folders.
I separate my drives and back up as required using a free program called SyncBack (Google Search). It will just write the files that have changed or been added. I'm not worrying about a drive going bad, a bad drive is always backed up in my case.
So, I have an internal drive that has all my pictures on it for quick reference and editing, a 1tb usb external drive I use for backup of the internal and that drive is off most of the time (to insure virus protection and extend service life), and a third 1tb drive I use to backup the 1st terabyte (again, off most of the time). I backup the first terabyte about once every 6 months. This gives me a chance to discover any corrupt files.
(Fire) I know all the workshops and magazines preach "separate your backup drives from the working environment" but..., I don't worry too much about fire. In 58 years of living, I have yet to have something like that happen (knock on wood). It's a little over the top for me. If I have a fire that burned my house down, pictures would be the least of my worries. I think the loss of my equipment would be a much greater concern and chances r, the files would be recoverable unless it was an extreme case, which lessens the odds even more.
If you r a business though, that would be another story. You can be sued if you obligated yourself to archive your clients files and then ended up loosing them. In that case I would use the service I described in my first post to store them off site. Upload time is not a consideration unless I'm unloading my whole library. In that case I would just bite the bullet that one time. Just upload your files over night and have your computer shut down once complete or just leave it on overnight, its not that big a deal.
I have been using computers for a long long time and I think I have experienced every problem you can possibly have with a computer. This system works for me. Everyone has there own way of doing this, some more efficient than others. It's whatever works I guess.
The bottom line is, if you're not backing up, you're walking a fine line.
I'm also starting to think that keeping and backing up all the Raw files is a mistake. Once I adjust them and do the conversions to jpg, I can find no reason to keep them. At that point, it's no different than a perfect jpg shooter. I'm still thinking on this but I have yet to discover any discrepancies in this logic. I would love to hear from anyone that has any comments to the contrary.
Stay tuned........
It's good to see everyone has come around to using HD's for storage. It wasn't long ago some members swore by CDs and DVDs. I was just curious as to how many have switched (Ref: my original post).
(Dave) I don't like network drives. One reason is cuz they are so dam slow and to susceptible to viruses. They are also (what I call) network temperamental. Meaning that, if you have a lot of hardware connected to your router (Like I do), each component wants to fight for the right to be on the network. That can sometimes cause more problems then it's worth.
I run 4 external usb 1tb drives individually turned on when I need them. Much faster. I have zero complaints about this interface. They r not shared and cant be accessed from a Trojan or virus except when turned on, which is rarely.
I think sometimes people are drawn into the word "RAID" without thinking about the logistics of the problem. RAID drives r ok, but what worries me there is that if I have a corrupt file on one drive, the good file on the other drive ends up being bad too so what's the point. If I accidently (without knowing) delete a folder, its gone on the other drive too. I prefer to separate them. RAID drives r good for insuring a drive doesn't fail, but not good for corrupt or accidently deleted files and folders.
I separate my drives and back up as required using a free program called SyncBack (Google Search). It will just write the files that have changed or been added. I'm not worrying about a drive going bad, a bad drive is always backed up in my case.
So, I have an internal drive that has all my pictures on it for quick reference and editing, a 1tb usb external drive I use for backup of the internal and that drive is off most of the time (to insure virus protection and extend service life), and a third 1tb drive I use to backup the 1st terabyte (again, off most of the time). I backup the first terabyte about once every 6 months. This gives me a chance to discover any corrupt files.
(Fire) I know all the workshops and magazines preach "separate your backup drives from the working environment" but..., I don't worry too much about fire. In 58 years of living, I have yet to have something like that happen (knock on wood). It's a little over the top for me. If I have a fire that burned my house down, pictures would be the least of my worries. I think the loss of my equipment would be a much greater concern and chances r, the files would be recoverable unless it was an extreme case, which lessens the odds even more.
If you r a business though, that would be another story. You can be sued if you obligated yourself to archive your clients files and then ended up loosing them. In that case I would use the service I described in my first post to store them off site. Upload time is not a consideration unless I'm unloading my whole library. In that case I would just bite the bullet that one time. Just upload your files over night and have your computer shut down once complete or just leave it on overnight, its not that big a deal.
I have been using computers for a long long time and I think I have experienced every problem you can possibly have with a computer. This system works for me. Everyone has there own way of doing this, some more efficient than others. It's whatever works I guess.
The bottom line is, if you're not backing up, you're walking a fine line.
I'm also starting to think that keeping and backing up all the Raw files is a mistake. Once I adjust them and do the conversions to jpg, I can find no reason to keep them. At that point, it's no different than a perfect jpg shooter. I'm still thinking on this but I have yet to discover any discrepancies in this logic. I would love to hear from anyone that has any comments to the contrary.
Stay tuned........
Arley,
I had just finished a long and well thought-out reply and tried to post it. Unfortunately my login timed-out and I lost about an hour's work. Can you please increase the timeout period to at least two hours???????
Thanks.
I had just finished a long and well thought-out reply and tried to post it. Unfortunately my login timed-out and I lost about an hour's work. Can you please increase the timeout period to at least two hours???????
Thanks.
I use a word processor if its going to be drawn out and paste it in once I'm done. Sometimes I'll save it and come back to it later.
Anyway, I disabled the time out.
Anyway, I disabled the time out.
Regarding saving RAW files: I can go back to my original backup RAW files at a later date and reprocess them possibly with better results. Also sometimes I only do processing in ACR and use Photoshop only to print and/or resize the images. RAW files also take up less storage space than TIFF or PSD.
Regarding saving RAW files: I can go back to my original backup RAW files at a later date and reprocess them possibly with better results. Also sometimes I only do processing in ACR and use Photoshop only to print and/or resize the images. RAW files also take up less storage space than TIFF or PSD.
I know the logic of using Raw. I been using raw almost since day 1, but once processed and converted, what's the point. Any future improvements in processing would be so minor I just don't see me wasting my time doing it. The pixels are either there or they are not. With the capabilities of Photoshop, you can do almost anything to enhance a picture, as I know you know.
The large file formats are great for stretching those pixels but once you get them where you want them, lock them in (jpg) and move on. For those minor tweaks, Jpg's are fine. It's when you really have to stretch those pixels you start getting in trouble.
There are plenty professional photographers that shoot exclusively jpg and the only drawback there is that they don't have the luxury of making a mistake in exposure during the shoot and be able to fix it afterwards. I guess that's why they call them professional.
At present, my thinking is any picture older then two years and that has a rating less then 5 (1-5), will be converted from Raw to Jpg and the Raw tossed. Ill try that for a while and make my final decision on what to do with the others later.
Right now my picture library has 11900 pictures. Probably 85% are Raw. I cant imagine how many I'll have in the future. Its time to start thinking about including Raw Termination" in my workflow.
Anyway, I'm not convinced yet that you've given me a valid reason not to trash my Raw files. I'm going to assume, that since no one else has chimed in on this, that my logic is valid and when I get some time, Im going to start the process.
.
.
Just doing a little experimentation before I commit to this.
Ok, so this file is a 100% crop from a raw file converted to a Tiff.
File size of the original Tiff is 58,955 KB at 16 bit.
It was then converted to Jpg at 100 % quality. File size 8,845 KB at 8 bit. Much smaller.
Original Raw image was 16,258 KB. In this case there were 3 images because it was an HDR. Total (16, 14,13) about 44,000 KB.
Both Tiff and Jpg were converted to a Gif to display the quality difference. (Gif is the only format that will allow you to overlay your images like this and still display in a browser.
The results you see below are the exact same thing I'm seeing on my screen comparing the Jpg/8bit and Tiff/16bit original files before the conversion to Gif.
The below picture switches from Tiff (converted to Gif) to Jpg (converted to Gif). I see no difference between the two.
There is a lot of information stored in these large file formats that is just not used once it goes to print. If the exposure is grossly out, these large formats will help you get them where you want them, but once you are there, I don't see any advantage to keeping them around.
Run your own tests. I would very much like to see if anyone finds any differences in the two formats.
As a final note: Before you rag on me about gif being inferior to the other formats (and it is), I know differences. This is just a representation of what I'm seeing on my screen and to me it looks pretty close to what I'm trying to demonstrate. I just cant put them side by side and display them in a browser since most browsers will not display Tiffs.
.
.
Ok, so this file is a 100% crop from a raw file converted to a Tiff.
File size of the original Tiff is 58,955 KB at 16 bit.
It was then converted to Jpg at 100 % quality. File size 8,845 KB at 8 bit. Much smaller.
Original Raw image was 16,258 KB. In this case there were 3 images because it was an HDR. Total (16, 14,13) about 44,000 KB.
Both Tiff and Jpg were converted to a Gif to display the quality difference. (Gif is the only format that will allow you to overlay your images like this and still display in a browser.
The results you see below are the exact same thing I'm seeing on my screen comparing the Jpg/8bit and Tiff/16bit original files before the conversion to Gif.
The below picture switches from Tiff (converted to Gif) to Jpg (converted to Gif). I see no difference between the two.
There is a lot of information stored in these large file formats that is just not used once it goes to print. If the exposure is grossly out, these large formats will help you get them where you want them, but once you are there, I don't see any advantage to keeping them around.
Run your own tests. I would very much like to see if anyone finds any differences in the two formats.
As a final note: Before you rag on me about gif being inferior to the other formats (and it is), I know differences. This is just a representation of what I'm seeing on my screen and to me it looks pretty close to what I'm trying to demonstrate. I just cant put them side by side and display them in a browser since most browsers will not display Tiffs.
.
.
Arley, I agree that if you convert to JPEG from TIFF at max resolution you probably won't SEE any differences in quality. However if you need/want to rework your images later you should edit the TIFF, PSD or RAW files not the JPEGs. Of course RAW contains ALL the original information the camera captured.
Some years ago I was saving images in Kodal flashpix format (FPX), unfortunately when PS CS came out it would not recognize it. I also had a similar problem with the Kodak Photo CD format, CS3 won't recognize it! So I converted all my Photo CD and FPX files to JPEG.
I also have a lot of saved photos and most of them I should get rid of but I will probably wait until I run out of storage space. When I was doing film photography I always tried to save the negatives. Saving the RAW files follows the same philosophy for me. But different strokes for different folks!
Some years ago I was saving images in Kodal flashpix format (FPX), unfortunately when PS CS came out it would not recognize it. I also had a similar problem with the Kodak Photo CD format, CS3 won't recognize it! So I converted all my Photo CD and FPX files to JPEG.
I also have a lot of saved photos and most of them I should get rid of but I will probably wait until I run out of storage space. When I was doing film photography I always tried to save the negatives. Saving the RAW files follows the same philosophy for me. But different strokes for different folks!
11 posts :: Page 1 of 1
Next Competition
Date: 19-May
Venue: AV Senior Center
Theme: Birds
Submission Deadline:
12-May 11:59PM
12-May 11:59PM
With the backing of Amazon, Jungle Disk allows you to download their software for free and use it to store images on their server. Supposedly, 100 percent reliable.
I have yet to try this but it wouldn't take much for me to give it a shot.
From what I can see, the software simulates another drive on your system so it seem simple enough.
I think the workflow would include converting your images from raw to Tiff/Psd, make your adjustments, once finished save it as a jpg at around 80% compression. Save them to your hard drive and upload the backups to the net.
Cost = 15 cents a GB. That's not to shabby.
Might be worth taking a look at if you've about had it saving it to CD's/DVD's
Here's the link.
http://www.jungledisk.com/index.aspx
Just for grins, I would be interested in hearing how everyone backs up there stuff now a days. I have my way and so far it has been very reliable.
You are backing up your pictures aren't you ?
.