Archiving photos

tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
edited October 2014 in General Discussions
What do you do? I just looked a couple of days ago and my 1 TB external drive is almost full. Do you do a purge of old stuff or what? The problem is a TB is so much memory that i can't just use USB memory sticks or something like that.
D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
«1

Comments

  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 4,985Member
    This topic was discussed previously and there are lots of good comments. Use that Google Custom Search box and search for storing old file.

    2 and 4 TB external drives are cheap...just another one of those cost of shooting digital.
    D750 & D7100 | 24-70 F2.8 G AF-S ED, 70-200 F2.8 AF VR, TC-14E III, TC-1.7EII, 35 F2 AF D, 50mm F1.8G, 105mm G AF-S VR | Backup & Wife's Gear: D5500 & Sony HX50V | 18-140 AF-S ED VR DX, 55-300 AF-S G VR DX |
    |SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
  • BesoBeso Posts: 464Member
    I am getting ready to address the same issue. With The D800/810 RAW files the storage requirements can get substantial. I am becoming more disciplined in deleting what basically amounts to duplicate images as part of my workflow but it does add time to the process. Nevertheless, a good long-term storage solution is essential. I am currently looking at NAS solutions, which can provide flexibility and scalability.
    Occasionally a decent image ...
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    Careful with drives larger than 2 terabytes. Windows 8.1 or earlier may have issues that could cause data loss.

    A drawer full of 2 terabyte drives is my solution. Plus backups......
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited October 2014
    Wikipedia
    archives consist of records that have been selected for permanent or long-term preservation on grounds of their enduring cultural, historical, or evidentiary value.

    If you do want some of your photographs preserved for the future
    Consider printing a few of the best each year, making sure they continue this vital information
    who, what, why, where and when

    When considering digital storage as an archive material. Try reading a 8-inch floppy disk from the 70's

    Then compare that, with looking through your parents wedding album
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • ThomasHortonThomasHorton Posts: 323Member
    Down select which photographs you really need to save. You don't want to get in the habit of saving every photograph you take.
    Gear: Camera obscura with an optical device which transmits and refracts light.
  • kenadamskenadams Posts: 222Member
    I recently bought a synology NAS with twin 2TB Western digital red drives for operation in RAID1 (mirrored). Haven't assembled it yet unfortunately, but that's what I have in mind in terms of long term strategy. Mind you, I don't have any previous experience on that apart from a Buffalo link station that was a pain in the ass to use on a Mac and was NAS, but not RAIDed.

    There's still the issue on configuring LR so that catalogs won't fall apart. I think you can set it up so it stores the catalog with preview locally, but has the main (and large) data on a different drive.

    Basically, the best solution apart from digital-converted-to-analog vinyl records would be unlimited cloud drive, but while storage solutions may be getting cheaper and cheaper, the bandwith you'd need would be a neck breaker.. even with delta updates, try doing the initial upload of 100GB (in my case; and that's a bunch of 10MP files) on a 5MBit upload speed line and you'll block your line for 2 days continually best case ... what does everyone else think?

  • Bokeh_HunterBokeh_Hunter Posts: 234Member
    All my "work" photos I burn to DVDs and file them with the "work folder." I leave them on the drives for about a year then remove them. Now my personal stuff, test shots, practice shots, I try to clean them out (delete) each photo load, and go through everything about every 6 months. There is no reason to keep stuff you don't look at, want, will use, etc. My best photos, I burn to Blu-rays. I figured out once for me to store each file it cost me about $.003 per year to store every photo. Doesn't sound much but, If I have 50,000 photos that I will never use, that costs about $150 per year. To me that is worth the bit of extra time to clean out useless photos.

    Hard drives fail. My parents had a external nas drive, that couldn't even have one file restored. 15 years of digital photos gone. They were willing to spend whatever it took, (close to $2,000) to restore what was on there but the place said the writing arm had broken and scratched the disks clean. Archival DVDs/Blu-Rays are really the safest, but they are limited by their capacity. I have looked into Web(cloud) storage, and it is expensive when you realize that you will be paying that for the rest of your life. I also do not like that the files are held by someone else either. Raid systems are the safest, but those get pricy as well and then there is the "learn yet another computer system."

    I know people say storage is cheap, but it is not and if you are trying to really keep things safe, it is not cheap at all. Dropping $250 for a good raid external drive is not cheap. Dropping $2,000 for a professional raid Nas system is not cheap either. Considering the file sizes being 10x larger than they were 5 years ago, drives to store the same amount of files are are still basically the same cost (if not actually more). The accurate way to look at it is 100,000 files (with that time period's file sizes) would fit on a 100mb drive. Now 100,000 files created at the techs current size need need 1tb drives. Everything has scaled up. We still pay $150ish for the cheap external storage that we did years ago. Every Once in a while I run across an old packing slip of the computer hardware I purchased in the past, and the $ spent are basically the same amounts (slightly higher for today's-inflation) I spend today. In reality it costs just as much as it did 10 years ago to store files on the low end. On the upper end, that has dropped quite a bit, but it still costs the same as a good photo editing computer.
    •Formerly TTJ•
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,147Member
    Take a look at this thread-

    http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=410

    We're reaching far, far back now!

    My method is still the same, but a little more risky- I use Apple Time Machine, but one of my drives have filled up so I am less redundant. I am limping by until Thanksgiving hits and trying to score a cheap hard drive.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    I did search and saw that thread but wasn't sure it was still relevant...I just shot 20+ gigs of pictures at the wedding. CDs aren't really a solution anymore.

    I really need to go through old stuff, but also want to keep some. Didn't know how people are storing archived stuff long term. I k ow the longer some stuff sits the nore chance to fail.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,147Member
    Yeah, that's a good point.

    I don't remember if you stated earlier, but are you a Windows or Mac user? It makes a big difference in what's useful to you.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited October 2014
    200yr archive Blu-ray 25GB BD-R disks are a great way to archive. And not too expensive, cheaper than a HDD

    SD = $1.00 GB
    HDD = $0.10 GB
    BD-R = $0.50 GB 200 years
    BD-R = $0.05 GB (standard, 20-40 years)




    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    200yr archive Blu-ray 25GB BD-R disks are a great way to archive. And not too expensive, cheaper than a HDD

    SD = $1.00 GB
    HDD = $0.10 GB
    BD-R = $0.50 GB 200 years
    BD-R = $0.05 GB (standard, 20-40 years)




    Good luck buying a reader in 50 years.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator

    Good luck buying a reader in 50 years.
    Optical media is generally backwards compatible. I can put a 30 year old music CD in my blu-ray player and it works just fine. 200 years from now they will still have lasers, which is all you need to read an optical disk.

  • kenadamskenadams Posts: 222Member
    Look at it this way, is the tech to read out a floppy lost in theory? No. Do people still floppy drives? Hell no. Yes, there will stilll be lasers, just as there are still mechanical arms that can read magnetized rotating disks - HDDs, for instance, and floppies are no different. But finding one that can do it on your particular storage medium may not be as easy. Going like "generally backwards compatible" is set to fail in the long run, I guarantee you.

    You just can't get around periodically checking your stored data and upgrading tech, possibly file formats, etc.
  • FritzFritz Posts: 140Member
    No matter what method you choose, there are always gotchas. Three years ago I had a near lightning strike that cooked my Mac and both my hard drives even though one was unplugged and sitting on the desk top. Only about 10% were recoverable and all of those images were altered. So I lost everything digital from 2009 to to 2011. The pulse backed through my electrical panel and randomly through a number of circuits in the house causing weird damage to electrical devices, seemingly without a pattern. The Mac was 3' from the electrical panel and there was a burn trace down the wall.
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    edited October 2014
    I have a Mac and I use Carbon Copy Cloner for automated backups.
    My Mac has all d800-DF-D810 pics with a 2 tb Hard drive ( bought an external storage and put in there) and a SSD for the OS and programs.

    I have a Master USB drive and i think it is 4tb that has all my photo related stuff, programs, templates, lightroom presets and digital images from 2004 to present etc.

    I have a backup USB drive for that and backup for the backup.


    I have an archive usb drive for all the photos only. That I fail to keep storing it in a seperate location.

    I have a usb drive that backs up the SSD only for a quick boot if the ssd fails.

    I have a usb drive that backups the 2tb drive only.

    These drives were not bought all at one once. they have been demoted and promoted over years. In about 10 years I have lost about 2 of them but I had a working copy.

    I still have my custom built windows desktop that I may power up for storage one day but for now these drives are floating me by.

    There is a simpler solution to my method but that would cost more at once like 4-12tb raid setup.

    I'm currently going thru the last 2 years of photos and deleting the non-keepers.

    I usually shoot 32gigs in a week with my street and architecture photos and lets not mention the events. I try to delete when I upload them but I haven't really worked on my photos in the last 6 months as my two kids keep me busy unless it is a paid event.



    Post edited by Vipmediastar_JZ on
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited October 2014
    It is important to distinguish between backing up and Archiving
    backups are for your use
    Archives are for the future, when you may longer be around and may be are literally in the cloud
    If you want an archive for you grand and great grand children. They will not want to go though the 1000s of shots you take every year . They want a small selection and they will want to know, who every in photo is, plus were and when it was taken
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • flight3flight3 Posts: 379Member
    @sevencrossing Definitely a good idea on pointing out the difference between backing up and archiving. I recently bought a 3TB drive because my 1.5TB drive was filled. Now I use my 3TB drive to solely archive my work and the 1.5TB drive for backups of my entire system, which I don't mind getting erased over time. The Time Machine software that comes with macs works pretty well for that, I just have to change which folders to backup when backing up to the 3TB drive.

    Additionally I have a 500GB portable drive that I will use to backup important recent projects.
    Nikon D3100, 18-55mm VR, 50mm 1.8D, Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS, Yongnuo YN-560 II Speedlight Flash www.dreshad.com
  • jimojimo Posts: 2,532Member
    Before I retired I worked as a Computer Technician. For the last 4 years I have used a Drobo NAS, it has 5 hard drives in it. It's not the cheapest NAS out there but it has been reliable for me. If one fails which has happen, all I have to do is to replace it with a new drive. The only thing that you have to remember is to replace it with the same size or larger hard drive. At present it has 6.3TB and I am only using 2.62TB. I don't foresee having to upgrade any of the drives to larger ones for a while. I use it for my backup's, archiving my PSD's & NEF's, and anything else that I deem important.
  • Bokeh_HunterBokeh_Hunter Posts: 234Member
    Look at it this way, is the tech to read out a floppy lost in theory? No. Do people still floppy drives? Hell no. Yes, there will stilll be lasers, just as there are still mechanical arms that can read magnetized rotating disks - HDDs, for instance, and floppies are no different. But finding one that can do it on your particular storage medium may not be as easy. Going like "generally backwards compatible" is set to fail in the long run, I guarantee you.

    You just can't get around periodically checking your stored data and upgrading tech, possibly file formats, etc.

    That is not the point of the disks at all. The Yr ratings indicate how durable they are. The 20-30yrs that the regular disks are suppose to last that long under ideal situations. Realistically they will last half that. 200yr disks are many times more durable. Realistically, the images will be moved multiple times onto new media as technology changes. No one actually believes that the disks will be used 200yrs from now. You just want them to last until the next large medium is cheap and you have a better chance with more durable disks.
    •Formerly TTJ•
  • kenadamskenadams Posts: 222Member
    edited October 2014

    That is not the point of the disks at all. The Yr ratings indicate how durable they are. The 20-30yrs that the regular disks are suppose to last that long under ideal situations. Realistically they will last half that. 200yr disks are many times more durable. Realistically, the images will be moved multiple times onto new media as technology changes. No one actually believes that the disks will be used 200yrs from now. You just want them to last until the next large medium is cheap and you have a better chance with more durable disks.
    Thanks for pointing out again what I just said in my post, which you obviously did not read at all! I was responding to Ironheart's suggestion that an optical disk in general will still be readable in 200yrs. With the way tech is evolving, and even if the older tech as a piece of knowledge will certainly not just be lost, this may be tough to get at in practice, I think.

    But that aside, on optical discs, you'd still have to manage to pop them in and check every once in a while whether everything's fine and take some action if necessary. That's possibly not a lot of maintenance, but you'd still have to have it on the back of your mind, because other than a good NAS, the discs don't inform you of their deterioration by mail. AFAIK, these cheaper archival discs don't even require a special burner. I'd never assume they'd actually last 200yrs, more like, 30 in not necessarily optimal conditions. I think this is a waste of money. But hey, definitely way better than regular self burned DVDs, agreed. There's a new standard in the works by Sony among others, as I hear, that may be delivered in cartridges and all, which may be interesting. It will require a dedicated burner from what I read.

    IMO the charming part of a RAID is that it's self replicating, so if one disk fails, you insert a new one, and have the data on both again without much ado. So from a philosophical point of view, it can live forever with very low maintenance - theoretically. OTOH, depending on the RAID level, there's still room for havoc, a data error on the one disk can potentially replicate on the other, so there's a downside for the home user without a huge rack space for RAID 5 or what not.


    Post edited by kenadams on
  • proudgeekproudgeek Posts: 1,422Member
    I use a system very similar to what Jimo described. I also back up my Aperture library onto a second USB drive for redundancy.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    I'll just point out we haven't lost the ability to play records, or cassette tapes, or even 8-tracks:
    http://www.ebay.com/sch/8-Track-Players-/14999/i.html
    The reason archival optical media exists, is because most of the writable media uses aluminum as a reflective substrate, which can corrode if not stored properly. The archival quality media uses gold or another metal as the reflective substrate. Even stored somewhat properly you should be able pop consumer grade in a player you buy off eBay 40 years from now and read most all of the bits. The archival quality do much better.. I didnt make this up, the scientists at NIST did:

    http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.05/gipwog/Feb-2-06/Imation_Edwards.pdf
    http://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/rt/NIST_LC_OpticalDiscLongevity.pdf
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,319Moderator
    OK, apart from the necessity of keeping customer images on the record as a possible revenue stream in the future, I say wtf. Why do we think that the images from our current tech cameras will be interesting to us in even 15 years time? Family shots, yes, but routine images? Even ones we are pretty pleased with are - IMHO - fairly transient things. For instance, I look forward to re-shooting shots like this with a D750 and the next one after that etc.:

    STARLIT WRECK(1) by Andrew Hayes

    I'll continue with cloud and NAS connected external hard drives. As the survivor of a serious house fire, I know what it is like to lose everything and you know what? It's only 'stuff'. I'm alive so screw the rest!
    Always learning.
  • kenadamskenadams Posts: 222Member
    S'n'P, I don't think this has anything to do with what technology our current cameras incorporate, at least not o me. It's about preserving a digital memory. I've taken a camera to all of the crazy trips I took, and I wouldn't want to lose a single picture of those, even though I could google a lot of the stuff I photographed. It's as much proof that I was there as it is trophy and personal satisfaction. Not to speak of all the moments caught on chip that not even google can bring back.

    Ironheart, thanks for the links!
Sign In or Register to comment.