How do you store your images?


swarf

Link Posted 16/04/2018 - 14:30
As per the title - what is your preferred means of storing your images?

I currently have around 1Tb of images stored on a hard drive attached to my PC which is also backed up on to a second external hard drive. I have thought about going for a cloud storage option, but that seems pretty expensive. Is there any consensus on the 'best' method, or is it just a case of 'what works for you'?

Phil
K-5iiS; K-r; ME Super; ME; DA* 16-50 f2.8; DA 18-135 WR; DA 55-300 WR; HD DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited; FA 50mm f1.4; A50mm f1.7; DAL 18-55mm; M40mm f2.8; + assorted non-Pentax lenses

My Flikr Page link

davidruane

Link Posted 16/04/2018 - 14:51
I have a local HDD on the computer with the photos. This is backed up by a 2 x bay NAS box running RAID1. In addition I use Carbonite as cloud storage.

Whatever system you use, make sure the backups are physically separated. There`s no point having two HDD`s in the house - if there`s a fire you lose the lot. Worst case, take your external to your friend of neighbour each time you`ve backed it up.

BTW - Carbonite works out at about GBP 30 per year (you can opt for European storage rather than US).... alternatively, MS One-drive or Google or Dropbox gives you scope...

David.
Today is a great day - they always are if you wake up

pschlute

Link Posted 16/04/2018 - 15:48
Pretty much the same as you. A separate hard drive attached to the computer, backed up periodically to another external drive.
Peter



My Flickr page

stu62

Link Posted 16/04/2018 - 21:36
I keep mine on the memory cards just buy a new what when I want on as they are so cheap

davidwozhere

Link Posted 17/04/2018 - 01:24
I use an external 1 TB hard drive and I keep all the memory cards (as above). The cards are useful as they have all the rejects that were deleted when processing.
Both the *istDS and the K5 are incurably addicted to old glass

My page on Photocrowd - link

dangie

Link Posted 18/04/2018 - 09:09
It's odd how we feel the need to back up our digital images to 1-2-3-4 or more (I do) but back in film days we only had the one negative..!!
6th Year Apprentice Pensioner

womble

Link Posted 18/04/2018 - 09:23
dangie wrote:
It's odd how we feel the need to back up our digital images to 1-2-3-4 or more (I do) but back in film days we only had the one negative..!!

... stored in archival quality hanging files in an appropriate filing cabinet in controlled conditions... Still, they wouldn't survive a fire.

The main point is that with minimal care negs, especially BW ones, will last a long, long time, a hundred years or more, fairly easily. None of our memory cards, HDs, CDs, DVDs will last that long. Even more of a problem is that the format of the files on those devices will become unreadable too. BBC LaserDisk anyone? Not only do we need multiple copies, those copies have to be moved from device to device, and occasionally converted from one format to another. Electronic archiving is a much more pro-active process than archiving physical materials like paper or film. The argument that we should get rid of paper archives and "just" digitize everything is extremely naive.

K.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website

theonenadeem

Link Posted 18/04/2018 - 11:49
Sandisk Connect 200gb .
Suitable with a tablet device.

Regards

johnha

Link Posted 18/04/2018 - 12:52
womble wrote:

The main point is that with minimal care negs, especially BW ones, will last a long, long time, a hundred years or more, fairly easily.

For an extreme example, see: link.

womble wrote:
None of our memory cards, HDs, CDs, DVDs will last that long. Even more of a problem is that the format of the files on those devices will become unreadable too. BBC LaserDisk anyone?Not only do we need multiple copies, those copies have to be moved from device to device, and occasionally converted from one format to another. Electronic archiving is a much more pro-active process than archiving physical materials like paper or film. The argument that we should get rid of paper archives and "just" digitize everything is extremely naive.

Different digital media technologies (and manufacturers) have different prospects. Compact Flash cards are probably more stable than SD cards (and probably easier to read as they follow standard IDE interfaces). As many OEM memory cards are no longer available, readers for them will disappear sooner.

I have digital images going back to 2002 (Sandisk Compact Flash) which are still readable, I only use Sandisk SD cards. I have other OEM memory cards with computer data on from much older than that. how you treat them has an impact - constant writes & deletes will degrade the card much more than writing only once.

I store my digital images on the original SD card, buying more when I need them. I scan my film (or get it scanned) for convenience, but my archive is always the film itself. My images are important to me, but if there's a catastrophe, I'll probably have a lot more to worry about than a few photos (however a hard disc can fail at any time).
PPG Flickr

JAK

Link Posted 18/04/2018 - 13:03
Guess there's nothing wrong in keeping the original SD cards so long as important images are backed up somewhere else too. SD cards can fail at any time so not good as the only archive.
John K

johnriley

Link Posted 18/04/2018 - 14:26
Flash memory such as SD cards isn't somewhere I'd want to store images, even the instructions say that cards not used for a long time may be unreadable.

The multiple hard drive route is one way, but eventually all these will fail as long term storage unless maintained by us. Nobody will do that in the decades beyond us, the drives will probably end up in the bin.

The ubiquitous suitcase of old prints has much better odds of surviving long term.
Best regards, John

dangie

Link Posted 18/04/2018 - 19:35
womble wrote:
,,,,None of our memory cards, HDs, CDs, DVDs will last that long. Even more of a problem is that the format of the files on those devices will become unreadable too. BBC LaserDisk anyone

Surely the answer is to keep re-backing up to whatever is the latest technology.
6th Year Apprentice Pensioner

Aero

Link Posted 20/04/2018 - 15:52
There seems to be growiing interest in transferring digital files directly to film. The basic technology's been around for years in the printing industry. And I read somewhere that at least one major library or museum is photographing its archive prints on to film. Sounds like film is the new digital, although I've yet to produce an image anyone will want to see in 200 years.

pschlute

Link Posted 20/04/2018 - 18:50
Aero wrote:
although I've yet to produce an image anyone will want to see in 200 years.

Oh hush !

That is what "retrospectives" are all about
Peter



My Flickr page

SteveLedger

Link Posted 20/04/2018 - 23:47
stu62 wrote:
I keep mine on the memory cards just buy a new what when I want on as they are so cheap

Not cheap at all, much more expensive per Mb than a HDD, Stu.
1Tb External USB Hard Drive AUD$69 (Toshiba 1TB Canvio USB 3.0 Portable Hard Drive at Harvey Norman)
Can only buy 2x 32Gb Class 10 Sandisks for that price (AUD$34.96 each: SanDisk 32GB Extreme SDHC Memory Card at Harvey Norman)

Plus using them for storage means you're only getting one use per card when they are designed for multiple use.

Also note that basic card readers in most laptops are slower than the best SD Cards
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.