Travel Photography - Is digital unreliable?

I started using digital in the late 1990's. However, I also took selected travel photos using film until 2003. For certain shots, like a tourist attraction, I took many digital pictures and maybe a few film ones.

I don't trust digital. A few pictures have become corrupted, showing only the top half. One computer had a catastrophe but there was a backup. There are online storage sites, like photobucket.

What should I do?

Print a few photos?
Have multiple backups on separate hard drives to reduce the chance file corruption?
Do the above and download them online?

Digital is in no way worse than ordinary film if you do it right. Problem is most people think that just because it's digital, it is indestructible.

For maximum safety, you should use a camera that can write the same image to two different memory cards at once. That should reduce the chance of memory card errors to virtually zero. I only use high quality memory cards from known manufacturers and I've never had a problem so far.

To further ensure that my cards are in tip top shape, I copy images of them on a regular basis while traveling, but don't delete anything from them. This way, I have a secondary copy of all images even while traveling.

Once back home, I move all the images to my file server, which is an enterprise class RAID-5 solution. For additional safety, I also burn images to BluRay discs on regular intervals and store those at my parents place. The last step protects me against disasters such as fires or theft.

While this may seem like a lot of hoops to go thru, it's really not that much. I'm a nerd, so I over-do it quite a bit. The important thing is to keep multiple copies of your images at all times, preferably in different locations. Once you have a routine set up for how you copy images, it is fairly quick to keep up the routine.

No matter what you use, digital, negatives, stone carved tablets, if you have only one copy, you are asking for trouble.

No matter what you use, digital, negatives, stone carved tablets, if you have only one copy, you are asking for trouble.

+1

Digital is no more unreliable than film. Use high quality memory cards. Keep multiple copies of your files, in multiple locations. (External hard drives are great until your house burns down... then what?) Taking a few precautions will help you keep your images around for a long time.

No matter what you use, digital, negatives, stone carved tablets, if you have only one copy, you are asking for trouble.

And don't forget digital doesn't fade like film. I alwayd copy mine from the camera to my laptop and then a seperate HD. Also when on holiday I swap cards in my camera most days just incase one gets lost.

Years ago my cousin and I decided that we needed a way to archive family photos. So for photos that really mean something(big vacations, family, scans of 80yo photos) I burn them to DVD and send a copy to my cousin in Tennessee. I also keep a copy of his family pics as well. This way we have redundant copies in two distinct areas of the country.

I also have some online as well, but you can only put so many online.

I far prefer digital to film (I'm in a years' long project of scanning all my film negatives to digital). As with any important digital data, maintaining backups is critical. I have my own "cloud" storage at my office, and back up nightly. My primary storage is on a RAID 5 system on my LAN. And, of course, I'm careful about maintaining security.

Since I've been doing this, I haven't lost a single digital photograph. On the other hand, I've physically lost important negatives and slides and, as my scanning project progresses, I am dismayed by the number of negatives that exhibit scratches, dust and spotting. As a result, before I can really use the images on these negatives, I have to do significant manual retouching and spotting.

Years ago my cousin and I decided that we needed a way to archive family photos. So for photos that really mean something(big vacations, family, scans of 80yo photos) I burn them to DVD and send a copy to my cousin in Tennessee. I also keep a copy of his family pics as well. This way we have redundant copies in two distinct areas of the country.

I also have some online as well, but you can only put so many online.

DVD-Rs are one of the least reliable items in the digital chain. I would save more than 2 copies, or in other forms as well.

And I agree with others. Negatives are much less reliable than digital. A little leak in the camera or the film canister, and you don't even have the pictures to start with.

Have multiple backups on separate hard drives to reduce the chance file corruption?
Do the above and download them online?

Multiple backups are a very good idea.

I guess I'm an unsentimental SOB - I can't think of any photo I have that would affect my life if I lost it. One backup is waaaay plenty for me, and I can live with it being at the same site.

DVD-Rs are one of the least reliable items in the digital chain. I would save more than 2 copies, or in other forms as well.

+1

DVDs physically degrade over time. Not a good choice for long-term backup.

I guess I'm an unsentimental SOB - I can't think of any photo I have that would affect my life if I lost it. One backup is waaaay plenty for me, and I can live with it being at the same site.

I'm the complete opposite. I have family photos(actual paper) from the 1930's. About five years ago, I started scanning them after a burst pipe caused a lot of water damage that just missed my photo albums by literally less than one foot..

As said up-posts, back up is good. Multiple backup is better, in RAW, DNG, JPEG and perhaps TIFF.

As said up-posts, back up is good. Multiple backup is better, in RAW, DNG, JPEG and perhaps TIFF.I don't recommend backing up to jpeg, which is a lossy compression format. RAW and TIFF are better choices. And I think you meant PNG, not DNG (unless there's some format I've never heard of). PNG is also lossless.

Storage is cheap these days -- there's no reason to use a lossy format for backup.

Edited to add:

I see that DNG is Adobe's digital negative format and is also lossless, plus it stores additional information. Whether or not it becomes widely adopted remains to be seen.

I don't recommend backing up to jpeg, which is a lossy compression format. RAW and TIFF are better choices. And I think you meant PNG, not DNG (unless there's some format I've never heard of). PNG is also lossless.

Storage is cheap these days -- there's no reason to use a lossy format for backup.

DNG [DigitalNeGative] is Adobe's own open RAW format and used by several camera manufactures such as Leica, Ricoh, Samsung, and Pentax as their native RAW format.

jpgs deteriorate each time they are saved. You lose a bit of data.

I have lost raw images. I have no idea why. They just wind up corrupted and what is interesting is that each copy of the corrupted image is corrupted, whether on a hard drive or dvd. Haven't had this recently, though.

I back up to two different 1.5 TB drives. I use Lightroom which is a decent organizing system. I like it better than Aperture.

jpgs deteriorate each time they are saved. You lose a bit of data.

I have lost raw images. I have no idea why. They just wind up corrupted and what is interesting is that each copy of the corrupted image is corrupted, whether on a hard drive or dvd. Haven't had this recently, though.That's very odd. Were the RAW images that were corrupted always from the same camera, or from the same transfer hardware? RAW images are just data, like any data, and no more prone to corruption than anything else.

As said up-posts, back up is good. Multiple backup is better, in RAW, DNG, JPEG and perhaps TIFF.

I don't recommend backing up to jpeg, which is a lossy compression format. RAW and TIFF are better choices. And I think you meant PNG, not DNG (unless there's some format I've never heard of). PNG is also lossless.

Storage is cheap these days -- there's no reason to use a lossy format for backup.

Edited to add:

I see that DNG is Adobe's digital negative format and is also lossless, plus it stores additional information. Whether or not it becomes widely adopted remains to be seen.

Because JPG is the only one of those that is "future proof", the other probably being PDF.

I would absolutely suggest not backing up in RAW, as each file type is manufacturer specific, and is therefore at a very high chance of obsolescence. Convert to DNG, we can be pretty sure that Adobe is staying around, and will likely support their proprietary format (plus, some manufacturers - Pentax and Leica IIRC) are using it also.

While yes, storage space is cheap, waste IS waste, and I don't see why you should use an inefficient format like TIFF just for that. The loss with a large/fine jpg is not going to be noticeable in 99.999% of output situations.

Because JPG is the only one of those that is "future proof", the other probably being PDF.

I would absolutely suggest not backing up in RAW, as each file type is manufacturer specific, and is therefore at a very high chance of obsolescence. Convert to DNG, we can be pretty sure that Adobe is staying around, and will likely support their proprietary format (plus, some manufacturers - Pentax and Leica IIRC) are using it also.

While yes, storage space is cheap, waste IS waste, and I don't see why you should use an inefficient format like TIFF just for that. The loss with a large/fine jpg is not going to be noticeable in 99.999% of output situations.It depends on what you mean by 99.9999% of output situations. If you're talking about casual snap-shooters who will never do anything with their pictures other than email them or occasionally print one out, then you're right. If you're talking about someone who will work with the pictures, even if it's something as simply as color or gamma correction, then I disagree strenuously, because, as someone else noted, each re-save results in data loss and image degradation.

TIFF has been around forever, and probably will continue to be around forever. Moreover, as long as there is a substantial base of data out there, there is incentive for someone to support the format and I have no doubt that, at least in my lifetime, support TIFF, BMP, and the various RAW formats produced by my cameras will readily available.

I have no worries about my Canon CR2 files being supported by Canon or other major software companies for years to come. Maybe if your RAW is from an obscure little camera company, but not for Canon or Nikon, that's for sure.

Because JPG is the only one of those that is "future proof", the other probably being PDF.

I would absolutely suggest not backing up in RAW, as each file type is manufacturer specific, and is therefore at a very high chance of obsolescence. Convert to DNG, we can be pretty sure that Adobe is staying around, and will likely support their proprietary format (plus, some manufacturers - Pentax and Leica IIRC) are using it also.


I call BS on those two statements. JPG is in no way the only future proof way of storing images. In fact, PNG is much better. Even better is probably DNG as it is an open spec and anyone can implement it and have support for RAW images.

That said, even though each manufacturer has their own RAW format, there are converters for most popular OSes as well as third-party converters. There is no reason to think we cannot use current RAW files in 20 years or so.

Because JPG is the only one of those that is "future proof", the other probably being PDF.

I would absolutely suggest not backing up in RAW, as each file type is manufacturer specific, and is therefore at a very high chance of obsolescence. Convert to DNG, we can be pretty sure that Adobe is staying around, and will likely support their proprietary format (plus, some manufacturers - Pentax and Leica IIRC) are using it also.

:confused:

You are "pretty sure" that Adobe and DNG is "staying around" but not, for example Nikon and NEF?

I am "pretty sure" that Nikon users saving their files in NEF RAW will be safe many, many years into the future.

Because JPG is the only one of those that is "future proof", the other probably being PDF.

I would absolutely suggest not backing up in RAW, as each file type is manufacturer specific, and is therefore at a very high chance of obsolescence. Convert to DNG, we can be pretty sure that Adobe is staying around, and will likely support their proprietary format (plus, some manufacturers - Pentax and Leica IIRC) are using it also.

While yes, storage space is cheap, waste IS waste, and I don't see why you should use an inefficient format like TIFF just for that. The loss with a large/fine jpg is not going to be noticeable in 99.999% of output situations.

I'd gladly wager on support of Canon and Nikon formats, at a minimum, for a long, long time to come. Probably more likely than DNG. Obsoete (succeeded by something newer) is very different than not-supported. By 10D files were obsoleted by the CR2 format of the 20D, but I have no issues opening them and have no worries about their future.

I don't consider using 700GB of my 4TB disk array instead of 300GB to be "waste". And as someone who has printed many, many 18x12, 24x16, and some 30x20, I can assure you that a properly managed RAW workflow will give noticeable better results than the "large/fine jpg". 1/100,000 output situations may be true given the number of camera phone snaps taken every day, but anyone who is even semi-serious about photography will notice the difference in many situations.

Remember we are talking about the BACKUP here. Are you really going to open the backup, edit it, save it, open that one, save it on the BACKUP? I doubt it - if it is ever opened again period, you will copy the backup over to your primary area and work on it there. IMHO, the point of a BACKUP is to save that "moment" - and for a given amount of space (read money) you are better off saving in a redundant RAID setup as JPG than a performance/size striped array as RAW. I have "lost" far more pictures from running out of hard drive space and having to redo the array with larger discs than ever by hard drive failure or catastrophic event.

BMP is dead and has been for a long time. TIFF only exists for people to argue about the technicality of being lossless - our company archives A LOT of images, originally as TIFF - they are now being converted to PDF because of issues with portability of TIFF (people complain they can't open them). As for RAW, you've already seen one version obsoleted. We have all seen how companies drop off support after two generations - we will see soon how "future proof" the formats are - personally, this is a legitimate issue for the backup copies - you need to be SURE that they are stored on a readable device (anyone seen a zip drive lately?) in a readable format ... And this is one of those places where the impact of porn is going to be felt. There are gazillions of terabytes of images stored in JPG format - that format is future proof, guaranteed

Keeping JPEG files rather than RAW is equivalent to keeping prints rather than negatives. One can decide on the merits of each.

Digital is unreliable, but not for the reason you state. :)

Remember we are talking about the BACKUP here. Are you really going to open the backup, edit it, save it, open that one, save it on the BACKUP?Yes. I don't edit everything as I shoot it, and if the original gets destroyed, I want to work from the backup.

I doubt it - if it is ever opened again period, you will copy the backup over to your primary area and work on it there.Right, and if the backup is a JPEG, I'll lose quality.

IMHO, the point of a BACKUP is to save that "moment" - and for a given amount of space (read money) you are better off saving in a redundant RAID setup as JPG than a performance/size striped array as RAW. I have "lost" far more pictures from running out of hard drive space and having to redo the array with larger discs than ever by hard drive failure or catastrophic event.Whereas I've never lost data because of running out of hard drive space. My primary data RAID array is 3 TB. By the time I run out of space on that (if I ever do -- it's less than half full at the moment, and that is ALL of my data, i.e. photographs, music I listen to, music I've written, documents, etc.), hard drives will have come down in price so much that I can simply replace the drives with larger ones. I see no advantage to JPEG as a primary or backup storage medium.

BMP is dead and has been for a long time.Yet it's still supported.

TIFF only exists for people to argue about the technicality of being lossless - our company archives A LOT of images, originally as TIFF - they are now being converted to PDF because of issues with portability of TIFF (people complain they can't open them).I can't speak for the people who can't open them, nor do I know what your company does with them. I use TIFF for pictures scanned from negatives -- with the software I use, my only choices are TIFF or JPEG.

As for RAW, you've already seen one version obsoleted.And yet, all of my software supports my Canon 10D.

We have all seen how companies drop off support after two generations - we will see soon how "future proof" the formats are - personally, this is a legitimate issue for the backup copies - you need to be SURE that they are stored on a readable device (anyone seen a zip drive lately?) in a readable format ... And this is one of those places where the impact of porn is going to be felt. There are gazillions of terabytes of images stored in JPG format - that format is future proof, guaranteedI'm sorry, but this is just silly. I've yet to see an image format dropped as obsolete. My software even supports GIFs. If that ever should happen, it's easy enough to do a batch convert. These alternatives are far, far better than saving to a lossy format because there's a perceived, but unlikely, issue of running out of storage.

There are things that go obsolete, but not the RAW files. It's IDE drives. Many of my earlier photo files were archived on IDE hard drives, and I had to transfer them over to SATA ones as I upgrade my external enclosures. But enclosures are cheap, and hard drive prices drop continuously, so it's really not a big deal.

While yes, storage space is cheap, waste IS waste, and I don't see why you should use an inefficient format like TIFF just for that. The loss with a large/fine jpg is not going to be noticeable in 99.999% of output situations.

My BOLD. Explain please.

TIFF is almost no compression - the files are huge compared even to a hi quality JPG.

The audio guys really griped about lossy compression when MPG came out ... How many of the lossless formats survived? How many people buy CDs/vinyl compared to MP3's for listening on high-end systems?

TIFF is almost no compression - the files are huge compared even to a hi quality JPG.

:confused:

Well, yeah.

And a Range Rover is larger than a lawn tractor. While the lawn tractor is well suited for the limited range of things that it does the Range Rover is a much more practical vehicle for everything other than cutting your law.

JPEG is a great format for providing edited, fixed-size [usually smaller] images for the web, some less demanding and smaller scale photojournalism [newsprint], and 3x5 family snaps for passing around at the next BBQ, but it is an inferior format for anything else and actually archiving RAW files in JEPG is just downright strange, dare I say dumb.

Waste is waste IMHO, but to each their own.

I thought we were talking backup, not archival of working copies.

TIFF is almost no compression - the files are huge compared even to a hi quality JPG.So what? Disk space is cheap.

The audio guys really griped about lossy compression when MPG came out ... How many of the lossless formats survived?Hunh? All of 'em. I compose and work exclusively in uncompressed WAV files. Otherwise, I'd have the same problem, i.e. data loss leading to degradation. I burn to CDs and, because I have a nice iPod Classic with 160 GB of storage, I save all music (both CD and what I compose) using Apple's lossless codec.

How many people buy CDs/vinyl compared to MP3's for listening on high-end systems?Apparently, more than you realize. The point, however, isn't how many people by MP3s versus CDs, but how many people who, like you, are satisfied with "good enough," either for images or audio.

I have no worries about my Canon CR2 files being supported by Canon or other major software companies for years to come. Maybe if your RAW is from an obscure little camera company, but not for Canon or Nikon, that's for sure.

To a point, I concur. However, I'm currently working with 70 year old film that my dad shot. Some of the film has deteriorated, but it's still readable. I can't be sure that CR2 will be supported forever. (Yes, I note that CRW is still supported in many packages, but for how long?).

To add to that thought, I have some AVI (in particular) from the '90's that cannot be played on most out-of-the-box media players. It's tough to find the codecs these days to run on modern computer OS. THe original codecs came from companies like Intel, which sold off most of that business to someone else. I'll also point out that Konica/Minolta don't support their scanner lines any more (love my Scan Elite 5400, but I have to use Vuescan or it's equivalent for scanning these days).

TIFF is almost no compression - the files are huge compared even to a hi quality JPG.

The audio guys really griped about lossy compression when MPG came out ... How many of the lossless formats survived? How many people buy CDs/vinyl compared to MP3's for listening on high-end systems?

WAV has pretty much survived. Many of the codecs used for AVI have not.

For scans (as opposed to digital camera), I use TIFF. Yeah, it's bigger than camera RAW, but it is still supported almost universally. And it's much better for manipulation than JPEG. (Side note: I've heard what gets lost in the MPEG compression process. It's not much for low compression, but is significant at high compression. Very bad in some cases. What's worse is having an audio chain that digitizes to MPEG, takes it back to analog, then back to digital, then back to analog. This was a HUGE problem in the early days when broadcast radio was moving to digital for production & transmission - less of a problem now since most of the audio chain is digital).

So what? Disk space is cheap.

Hunh? All of 'em. I compose and work exclusively in uncompressed WAV files. Otherwise, I'd have the same problem, i.e. data loss leading to degradation. I burn to CDs and, because I have a nice iPod Classic with 160 GB of storage, I save all music (both CD and what I compose) using Apple's lossless codec.

Apparently, more than you realize. The point, however, isn't how many people by MP3s versus CDs, but how many people who, like you, are satisfied with "good enough," either for images or audio.

I've scanned 5,000+ old photos (negatives & slides) using a 5400 dpi film scanner, and stored the photos as TIF and JPG. It's roughly a terabyte of data. I can't count the number of hours it took to do the scanning. I back it up on a RAID5 NAS box, and I've got two backups to 2 TB hard drives (USB 3 is really nice...) that I keep in a fire safe. And two other off-site copies on 1.5 terabyte drives.

OVerkill? Maybe. But warranted given that it was a 2 year+ process to do the scans.

For maximum safety, you should use a camera that can write the same image to two different memory cards at once. That should reduce the chance of memory card errors to virtually zero.

Not really practical for the average photographer.

To a point, I concur. However, I'm currently working with 70 year old film that my dad shot. Some of the film has deteriorated, but it's still readable. I can't be sure that CR2 will be supported forever. (Yes, I note that CRW is still supported in many packages, but for how long?).What makes you think it's going away? It's supported in everything that I use and, should the day ever come when it's not, I'll just pull an older package out and convert to a newer format without losing any data.

To add to that thought, I have some AVI (in particular) from the '90's that cannot be played on most out-of-the-box media players.Media players? Since when have those been the standard for video? There are a gazillion converters that will handle this situation (though they run on computers, not media players). Several years ago, I produced a 3-hour video that was a history of an annual Fourth of July show that my friends put on starting in 1974. Though the early performances didn't have video, I had video source material from roughly 1980 on. This consisted of all sorts of formats, from 3/4" Betamax to D8 to miniDV to DVD with everything, analog and digital, in between. I worked in Adobe Premiere Pro and had no difficulty whatsoever (at least format-wise -- timing was an interesting challenge). I have every reason to believe that, if I'm around in 50 years, I could pull out those same sources and STILL work with them in Adobe Premiere Pro version 518.

It's tough to find the codecs these days to run on modern computer OS.Hunh? No it isn't. Just what are these AVI files, anyway?

THe original codecs came from companies like Intel, which sold off most of that business to someone else.What are they? I'll bet I' have them.

I'll also point out that Konica/Minolta don't support their scanner lines any more (love my Scan Elite 5400, but I have to use Vuescan or it's equivalent for scanning these days).Hardware support is vastly different from software support. I have an HP scanner that isn't supported any more, so I use Vuescan for it, as well. That has nothing to do with support for particular digital photo formats.

WAV has pretty much survived."Pretty much"? WAV is the equivalent of RAW -- anyone doing serious work in audio uses WAV.

Many of the codecs used for AVI have not.I disagree. I've never encountered anything that I can't work with. Perhaps, somewhere, some manufacturer put out some obscure, custom format in AVI, but anyone who worked with that has only themselves to blame.

For scans (as opposed to digital camera), I use TIFF. Yeah, it's bigger than camera RAW, but it is still supported almost universally. And it's much better for manipulation than JPEG. (Side note: I've heard what gets lost in the MPEG compression process. It's not much for low compression, but is significant at high compression. Very bad in some cases. What's worse is having an audio chain that digitizes to MPEG, takes it back to analog, then back to digital, then back to analog. This was a HUGE problem in the early days when broadcast radio was moving to digital for production & transmission - less of a problem now since most of the audio chain is digital).MPEG is, indeed, a pain for the reason you mention, and also because even doing a simple cuts-only edit requires transcoding, something that is not the case in non-lossy formats.

I've scanned 5,000+ old photos (negatives & slides) using a 5400 dpi film scanner, and stored the photos as TIF and JPG. It's roughly a terabyte of data. I can't count the number of hours it took to do the scanning. I back it up on a RAID5 NAS box, and I've got two backups to 2 TB hard drives (USB 3 is really nice...) that I keep in a fire safe. And two other off-site copies on 1.5 terabyte drives.

OVerkill? Maybe. But warranted given that it was a 2 year+ process to do the scans.Well, after all that, I see we agree. :)

I can't be sure that CR2 will be supported forever. (Yes, I note that CRW is still supported in many packages, but for how long?).

:confused:

I think that you can.

Nikon and Canon both have extremely vested interests in ensuring that the very first RAW photo taken with their very first RAW capable cameras will be readable in perpetuity.

Because JPG is the only one of those that is "future proof", the other probably being PDF.

I would absolutely suggest not backing up in RAW, as each file type is manufacturer specific, and is therefore at a very high chance of obsolescence. Convert to DNG, we can be pretty sure that Adobe is staying around, and will likely support their proprietary format (plus, some manufacturers - Pentax and Leica IIRC) are using it also.

While yes, storage space is cheap, waste IS waste, and I don't see why you should use an inefficient format like TIFF just for that. The loss with a large/fine jpg is not going to be noticeable in 99.999% of output situations.

Shooting or storing in a format like JPEG severely limits what you can do with the image later on down the line. If you don't really care about this, then by all means save yourself the disk space. But RAW is really the way to shoot and store. Support for RAW from major manufacturers has as little a change of going away as JPEG does.

I am first and foremost a digital shooter and do not find digital to be unreliable – provided that one has a reasonable system of backing up the work.

But the pull of the analog side is strong. I have tried to resist but finally caved in. I purchased a film camera for mainly black and white work.

And not just any film camera. I decided to get something radically different from the DSLR I am using. UPS is now breaking their backs bringing me a Fuji GX680 medium format camera that produces 6x8 cm negatives (56 x 75 mm to be exact). That is more than 11 times the real estate of my Nikon DX sensor.

My Nikon D300 is capable of 8 fps. The practical shooting speed of the GX680 is about one shot in five minutes. The Nikon is auto-everything (should I want it to be), the GX680 is fully manual (well, not quite: it does have automatic film advance and an available AE prism viewfinder). The GX680 does have focusing rails, bellows, and a built-in tilt-shift mechanism.

The D300 with a vertical grip and a medium lens weighs between 1.5 and 2 kilos. The GX680 weighs roughly 5 kilos.

The GX680 is actually an SLR - apparently one of the largest format SLRs ever produced.

And the cost: less than 500 euros with a 125 mm Fuji lens.

Call me crazy, but I think this will be glorious fun :D

Cheers,
T.

PS. Yes, I will be converting the images to digital...

TIFF is almost no compression - the files are huge compared even to a hi quality JPG.


No compression is the efficiency that I seek! File size is never an issue with me b/c as I want the best image quality. Besides, TIFF retains layers. JPG does not. The more you edit/save a jpg image, the more it will degenerate.

Some would argue that large file size will run slow. Sure, if you are are still running 32-bit OS with Photoshop. You need to go with 64-bit PS CS5 and hard ware graphic acceleration. Storage is cheap, so why worry.

Why not use online backup facilities like Amazon or Google? They offer tons of space for reasonable cost and represent a foolproof backup in case of theft/natural disasters.

Why not use online backup facilities like Amazon or Google? They offer tons of space for reasonable cost and represent a foolproof backup in case of theft/natural disasters.

I've got 1.5+ terabytes of image files. Aside from the time it would take to upload that, I have no desire to spend the kind of money that Google or Amazon would want....

It is pretty pricey for that amount of data, yes...but it is worth pointing out that at least in the case of Google's Picasaweb service, the initial upload is the only major action that need be done, after which the sync feature nicely uploads only new/changed pictures. The point is that nothing which is in your house is safe and any external backup copy also needs to be on non-degradable media. Google's service for your amount of data (2TB actually) amounts to about 40$/month...how much did you pay for your fireproof safe and the off-site HDDs? And how are they all in sync? Plus, you mentioned above that you use TIFF, I'm sure a batch conversion to something more modern but still lossless like PNG will trim the size a lot.

I've got 1.5+ terabytes of image files. Aside from the time it would take to upload that, I have no desire to spend the kind of money that Google or Amazon would want....

Try CrashPlan. They are unlimited and also offer a seed service where they ship you a drive for a fast initial backup.

The point is that nothing which is in your house is safe and any external backup copy also needs to be on non-degradable media.

Concur.


Google's service for your amount of data (2TB actually) amounts to about 40$/month...how much did you pay for your fireproof safe and the off-site HDDs?

Incremental cost zero for both. Safe was necessary for other purposes, handy that it was big enough for rotatational backup drives. Off-site HDDs were purchased regardless of the backups. Still, at $100/drive (Costco price, x2), I'm above break-even in 5 months.

And how are they all in sync? Plus, you mentioned above that you use TIFF, I'm sure a batch conversion to something more modern but still lossless like PNG will trim the size a lot.

Sync often enough. The critical (irreplaceable) stuff is already done. Size really isn't an issue.... nice to have if you're scanning new, not a big deal once you have the hardware for the larger format. Hardware is (relatively) cheap..... I still remember when a 20MB hard drive was "large" and cost nearly $200.

UPS is now breaking their backs bringing me a Fuji GX680 medium format camera that produces 6x8 cm negatives (56 x 75 mm to be exact). That is more than 11 times the real estate of my Nikon DX sensor.

I just hope you're not planning a long hike with a camera like that. It's a beast! ;)

Among professionals, it you couldn't afford (or didn't want) a Hasselblad, the Fuji and Mamiya RZ67 were popular alternatives. With the advent of digital, no one wants them anymore. I tried to use my RZ as a trade-in at a pro camera store in NYC and they said no, that they couldn't give them away. Originally the body and lenses were close to $10,000!

I just hope you're not planning a long hike with a camera like that. It's a beast! ;)

Among professionals, it you couldn't afford (or didn't want) a Hasselblad, the Fuji and Mamiya RZ67 were popular alternatives. With the advent of digital, no one wants them anymore. I tried to use my RZ as a trade-in at a pro camera store in NYC and they said no, that they couldn't give them away. Originally the body and lenses were close to $10,000!

And yet you can get digital backs for some of the Mamiya & Hasselblad cameras.

And yet you can get digital backs for some of the Mamiya & Hasselblad cameras.

Methinks there are digital backs for the 680 as well. I just hope my madness does not go quite that far...

Cheers,
T.

I just hope you're not planning a long hike with a camera like that. It's a beast! ;)

I am a sucker for punishment :D

Among professionals, it you couldn't afford (or didn't want) a Hasselblad, the Fuji and Mamiya RZ67 were popular alternatives. With the advent of digital, no one wants them anymore. I tried to use my RZ as a trade-in at a pro camera store in NYC and they said no, that they couldn't give them away. Originally the body and lenses were close to $10,000!

Yup, quite a few Mamiyas on German ebay where I got my Fuji. I was actually debating for quite some time whether to get the Fuji or a Mamiya or a Rolleiflex SLX.

Cheers,
T.

Methinks there are digital backs for the 680 as well. I just hope my madness does not go quite that far...

Cheers,
T.

It'll only cost you more than you paid for the rest of the camera. And lenses. ;)

Film is vulnerable to fading from age, exposure to sunlight or UV light, and heat. It is vulnerable to chemical breakdown from moisture or checmical exposure. And it's vulnerable to insect and animal damage.

Digital has some different vulnerabilities. It's vulnerable to electronic failure or malfunction, to accidental deletion by users, to electromagnetic field disruption when stored on magnetic or solid-state media, and to scratches and heat warping when stored on optical media.

Both media are vulnerable to fire, flood, earthquake, burglary, and theft.

But digital has a tremendous advantage over film: It can be duplicated an unlimited number of times, with no loss in quality. Thus, digital gives you the ability to keep no-loss backups in multiple physical locations, hedging your bets against any disaster. By keeping off-site backups, nothing short of a nuclear bomb can destroy all of the copies.

File format arguments aside, digital CAN, if properly stored by the user, be a less vulnerable medium of storage.

Methinks there are digital backs for the 680 as well. I just hope my madness does not go quite that far...


I used to rent digital backs for the RZ for around $600/day. After leaving a $20,000 deposit. :eek:

I am a sucker for punishment :D


A friend who has a 680 makes her boyfriend carry it when they go hiking. If he says no then he doesn't get an extra pork chop that night. ;)

While yes, storage space is cheap, waste IS waste, and I don't see why you should use an inefficient format like TIFF just for that. The loss with a large/fine jpg is not going to be noticeable in 99.999% of output situations.

Several downsides to JPEG:


8-bit color only; most consumer digital sensors can capture in 10 or 12 bits of color depth per channel when shot in raw mode, so you're throwing away data.
The typical JPEG is saved in sRGB color space, which though fine for snapshots on Facebook gives up a huge amount of color information for anything else. (Yes, I know you can save a JPEG in a different color space, but how many people do?)
JPEG images even when saved at fairly low compression rates (and thus large file sizes, relatively speaking) cannot take much manipulation--try saving a JPEG and then applying some saturation to it after the fact: you'll end up with very bad banding, particularly in things like skies or water. Sharpening likewise can be very problematic in JPEGs.
Every time you save a JPEG, it loses more information, and compression artifacts multiply. These artifacts make it harder to do any post-processing on the image, too (see above for example re: saturation).
JPEGs lack the original information from the sensor which allows you to change the white balance, tweak the exposure within limits, etc., that raw files have. You may be able to emulate these adjustments to some degree on JPEGs, but you're manipulating data which has already been manipulated (and had information thrown out) by the process of creating the original JPEG and then its compression.


Even for the enthusiast who doesn't currently make use of raw files, I'd suggest keeping them if available, as you may very well want them later. I wish I had raw files for a few of my best shots from when I first started...

I don't want to get into a RAW vs JPG debate here - whatever work flow "works" for you. We are talking about BACKUPS in this thread, not original working files. I am assuming that the point of all this redundant backup is to save the photos for nostalgic/emotional reasons, not necessarily for the "fun" of editing the pictures or for business reasons. If you want to be sure that future generations can enjoy these photos, IMHO, JPG is the way to go (whether that is straight OOC or developed from RAW is irrelevant to this thread)

I don't want to get into a RAW vs JPG debate here - whatever work flow "works" for you. We are talking about BACKUPS in this thread, not original working files. I am assuming that the point of all this redundant backup is to save the photos for nostalgic/emotional reasons, not necessarily for the "fun" of editing the pictures or for business reasons. If you want to be sure that future generations can enjoy these photos, IMHO, JPG is the way to go (whether that is straight OOC or developed from RAW is irrelevant to this thread)

Exactly. I'm just trying to preserve my family's visual history. The majority of the pics are in JPG and should be fine for viewing or 4x6 or 8x10 prints.

I came across the following article and should solve the issue of regular DVD's deteriorating over time.

M-Disc is a DVD made out of stone that lasts 1,000 years (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/92286-m-disc-is-a-dvd-made-out-of-stone-that-lasts-1000-years)

hi... Going digital is cheap these days.. NO camera rolls, no extra flashes.... just a single click and all is set. You can even edit a photograph on your own without taking the help your from any lab technician. It is a mini lab in itself. A single memory card can retain as much as 1000 photographs in it. It's even easy to get photographs develop; the ones you want. So in my suggestion you should opt for a digital camera

A lot of good points made here already.

One thing I want to address though is in the OP, they stated they had some corrupt files coming out of the camera? There's a very good chance that it isn't the camera but the memory card. Always use cards from trusted manufacturers bought from trusted outlets. Avoid oddball outlets on ebay and even Amazon. Second, just as a precaution, I never delete photos from my cards when I'm done off loading them. I format the card in camera. Have more than one card and try to rotate cards every so often.

As for back-up strategies, again, a lot of really great info here already. I go a bit overkill. At home, I have two back-up drives on site and one I keep in my desk at work. The two at home is mostly for convenience as I don't tend to leave stuff on my computer drives for too long. (But... *) The one drive kept at work should be pretty easy to figure out by now. And the place I work is extremely safe from theft and fire.

And as I already stated elsewhere here, I usually only shoot uncompressed 14-bit RAW (NEF's in my case) unless I'm trying to cram for space while shooting time lapse movies. As has been stated here, it really is the digital version of the film negative. (And since I use NEF's and CNX2, it gets really crazy as you can then save several versions of the same photo in the same file!) I'll use jpegs to get files up into the ether and then they disappear from my systems.

Someone noted that online back-up is expensive. A pro account on Flickr actually isn't too bad and you can upload as much as you can stand of full sized jpegs. If you ever get some odd whim to grab a copy, it's there for you.

*It should be noted that it is possible for one drive to go and in that little bit of time that we all tend to put things off, have a second one go. So I guess that's another reason I do three.

As for back-up strategies, again, a lot of really great info here already. I go a bit overkill. At home, I have two back-up drives on site and one I keep in my desk at work.


I was going for more than local redundancy. My cousin and I live on opposite sides of the country, so it would take a disaster of enourmous proportions to destroy both sets of images.

How far from work do you live? Given MCI sees the occasional twister, I would prefer more separation.

Oh, I'm pretty solid on that front. I live about 20 miles from work as the crow flies. (A rough estimate.) I work in an area that has collections holdings in an art museum. So the space is extremely secure, climate controlled to within a very narrow tolerance, monitored 24/7 for fire and best of all, it's underground. The cabinet I keep my back-up in is off the ground but under a desk. Really about the only thing that would do me in is a nuke. At that point, I really won't care about where my photos are.

...and best of all, it's underground.

What about flooding?

Also extremely unlikely. We have items here that can never be replaced if they are ruined. So we don't let that happen. Fire, water, air temperature, humidity, entry, all of it is controlled and monitored 24/7/365. Heck, some contractors don't even like to perform work here because our rules are so stringent.

Remember we are talking about the BACKUP here. Are you really going to open the backup, edit it, save it, open that one, save it on the BACKUP? I doubt it - if it is ever opened again period, you will copy the backup over to your primary area and work on it there. IMHO, the point of a BACKUP is to save that "moment" - and for a given amount of space (read money) you are better off saving in a redundant RAID setup as JPG than a performance/size striped array as RAW.


Yes. I usually use the backup disk to transfer images between my computers, depending on which one I use to import them on (desktop/laptop). This week I had to reinstall and reformat my MacBook and transfering the images from the backup was far more easy than from the desktop (FW vs. network). I don't worry about HD space.

I convert very few of my photos to JPG. Usually only upload a few to a online gallery/album for family/friends, but my main library in Lightroom is based on RAW only. If I were to convert them all to JPG before backing up I might as well shoot JPG.

Shooting and storing JPGs are fine, but I believe that suggesting people convert their RAWs to JPGs for backup purpose, is a bad advise. It's like telling peole to keep their prints and throw away the negatives, IMHO.

The point of backup is to save the files/images. I keep multiple backups. Call me paranoid, but I have had HD fail. For thise interested in organizing and backup I can recommend Peter Krogh's (www.thedambook.com). I don't copy his system but it gives you some good ideas.

- iau

To me digital is easier, elegant and more reliable than film as long as you take precautions. These precautions including testing your equipment, using multiple cameras, formatting cards in camera, viewing images daily to check for errors, sensor dust, water drops on lens etc., creating multiple backups, not erasing memory cards until you know the image is safe in at least 2 separate locations.

Once you get the pictures out of the camera and onto two storage locations (hard drives, DVD's, etc.) you should be on solid ground.

If you copy JPG files onto the backup medium (as opposed to open them and save them again) there is no generation loss.

When backing up, make new backup CD's or DVD's each time. Should you find a corrupted file, you just go back to the backup of last year, or eleven years ago, or as far back as needed to find the last good copy.

Don't rotate through the same even three or four sets of CD-RW's, overwriting them. Otherwise a corrupted file could propagate and the last good copy of that file be lost forever in the past. You will need to rotate through if you use hard drives but you should spin off a complete round of backups on CD's or DVD's every now and them.

Check random pictures in each round of backups. While you can't check every picture for corruption it is safe to assume that if one picture is corrupted, making a new copy of just that disk will suffice.

Digital camera hints: http://www.cockam.com/digicam.htm

I put all photos that are or could become important to me on SmugMug. I trust their data centers more than any solution I could string together. And they have a service that will mirror my photos to Amazon's cloud storage as well ($0.14 per GB per month).

You can't really say one is less reliable than the other. There are ideal storage medium, environment for both. You can make film backup of your valuable film images. There were film storage service for professional photographers with ideal environment just like data centres.

It goes back to how careful and meticulous your are in archiving your images.

The posts here are spot on. I shoot RAW and jpeg. I use the jpegs for quick proofing. They are deleted once I get my best shots picked out. I always have my raws backed up in at least 2 locations before I delete them from the camera's memory card. That is just my paranoia. Digital is as reliable as the workflow you put into it. Same goes for film. Film negatives don't last forever, you need to take steps to preserve ghem. Digital has the ability to be preserved forever if you upgrade your media frequently and move your backups.

Film negatives don't last forever, you need to take steps to preserve ghem.

While I agree with your statement, I have to say I am very, very impressed by how well Kodachrome remains stable in less than ideal conditions. I have some of my dad's Kodachrome from the 30's and 40's that look like they were taken yesterday. The slides were kept in original yellow slide boxes in a closet....

While I agree with your statement, I have to say I am very, very impressed by how well Kodachrome remains stable in less than ideal conditions. I have some of my dad's Kodachrome from the 30's and 40's that look like they were taken yesterday. The slides were kept in original yellow slide boxes in a closet....

This is very true. Kodachrome has been and will always be some of the best film ever created. Sadly though they stopped making it a couple of years ago. Digital is very vedsatile, but film still has advantages. But none the less you make a great point.

While I agree with your statement, I have to say I am very, very impressed by how well Kodachrome remains stable in less than ideal conditions. I have some of my dad's Kodachrome from the 30's and 40's that look like they were taken yesterday. The slides were kept in original yellow slide boxes in a closet....Kodachrome, because of the process, holds up extremely well. Now, Ekatchrome is something else, again, and deteriorates faster than a 1st generation CD-R.

Kodachrome, because of the process, holds up extremely well. Now, Ekatchrome is something else, again, and deteriorates faster than a 1st generation CD-R.

Agree. The process was one of the best (for quality/longevity) that was ever created. Too bad it had to end. Most of that Kodachrome will long outlive me.

I've also got some black-white negatives from the same era that have not held up well. At all. Likewise Ektachrome. But prints are even worse.

I've also got some black-white negatives from the same era that have not held up well. At all.
There is no reason a well processed B&W shouldn't hold up. It was probably improperly fixed and washed. You can always refix and wash and that will stop further damage.

I have some of my dad's Kodachrome from the 30's and 40's that look like they were taken yesterday. The slides were kept in original yellow slide boxes in a closet....

I think that's film biggest advantage - nothing is needed to view the image aside from holding it to the light. If I had stored images on 8" floppys from the late 80's good luck finding hardware and software to read them now, never mind 20 years from now.

Digital becomes a continuous process of keeping up with the latest software and hardware and can be difficult to manage for a large photo collection. I prefer negatives and slides in archival sleeves and filed away. At least I don't have to do anything further if I ever want to view them in the future.

I think that's film biggest advantage - nothing is needed to view the image aside from holding it to the light. If I had stored images on 8" floppys from the late 80's good luck finding hardware and software to read them now, never mind 20 years from now.

Digital becomes a continuous process of keeping up with the latest software and hardware and can be difficult to manage for a large photo collection. I prefer negatives and slides in archival sleeves and filed away. At least I don't have to do anything further if I ever want to view them in the future.

+1

This is so true. Always chasing your tail getting things transferred to new computer or device. It is nice having my entire photo collection on my phone, laptops, desktop, and home network, but it is a constant updating process.

There is no reason a well processed B&W shouldn't hold up. It was probably improperly fixed and washed. You can always refix and wash and that will stop further damage.

It's both images and the base that's deteriorating (. The film was commercially processed by several labs over a span of 20 years. We're not talking just one bad roll.

The difference between Kodachrome and B&W/Ektachrome is how the dyes were imbedded in the film (Ektachrome was subtractive, while Kodachrome was additive). Kodachrome's process is far more stable.

The issue is how the film was stored. The deteriorated B&W was stored in tight rolls back in metal film cans (not strips in archival sleeves).

I think that's film biggest advantage - nothing is needed to view the image aside from holding it to the light. If I had stored images on 8" floppys from the late 80's good luck finding hardware and software to read them now, never mind 20 years from now.

Digital becomes a continuous process of keeping up with the latest software and hardware and can be difficult to manage for a large photo collection. I prefer negatives and slides in archival sleeves and filed away. At least I don't have to do anything further if I ever want to view them in the future.

I do still shoot film, but have moved a lot of my work to digital for convenience. Unfortunately, with the elimination of Kodachrome, I suspect the digital versions will last longer as long as they're morphed and converted with new technologies.

(BTW, I still have a couple of 8" floppy drives out in my garage. And a box of Inmac floppies to go with....)

Updating media and formats is not really a "continuous" process. I'd call it a "periodic" process.

Every few years I need to create a new optical backup of my critical files. My first optical backup was a CD, then I moved to a DVD a few years later. Eventually, I'll move to a BluRay, and years after that, to a holographic disk. Years after that, some other format may appear. In the interim, I have also transferred my primary copies to new PCs and new hard drives whenever I've gotten them, along with any other data files I keep.

Formats? I keep everything in JPG, and in the 11 years since I started keeping digital images, I haven't seen any incompatible changes to the JPG format. Yes, the format has changed, but thus far, today's version of Photoshop can read any variant of the JPG format that I have on hand, so I've never had to change formats on a single one of my files. I suspect that Photoshop could probably read JPGs as old as 20 years, though I don't have any to test that on.

TO the OP:
Is digital unreliable?

Answer: No

I started using digital in the late 1990's. However, I also took selected travel photos using film until 2003. For certain shots, like a tourist attraction, I took many digital pictures and maybe a few film ones.

I don't trust digital. A few pictures have become corrupted, showing only the top half. One computer had a catastrophe but there was a backup. There are online storage sites, like photobucket.

What should I do?

Print a few photos?
Have multiple backups on separate hard drives to reduce the chance file corruption?
Do the above and download them online?

I think digital is reliable as long as you take proper care of your digital files.