Reading mode: Light Dark

Best way to permanent storage your photos?

Best way to permanent storage your photos?

  • Total voters
    0
Go to last post
Richard said:
It has not been tested for 1000 years. I would prefer the mdisk over color separation negatives because they are not digital and have already degraded comparing film recording vs digital recording of an image

But this is preference. There is no guarantee that either will last for 1000 years due to heat, humidity, atmospheric conditions.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you - color separation negatives are obviously an absurd solution to the problem. However, the OP did say "permanent".

We know that silver based photos will last 150 years as we have 150 year old pictures. We do not actually know that mdisks will last that long as we only have aging tests and the assumption that the results of the aging tests are valid. One other thing that we can not know - even if we bought a computer, a drive and a monitor of some type and put it in a hermetically sealed box, there are moving parts in there that will not survive.

The real answer is that there is no way to ensure permanent storage of pictures and as one poster said, who will care about them 100 years from now. So we do our reasonable best and do not worry about it.
 
geenoz said:
Blu-Ray M disc is the way to go , they last without rotting for 1000 yrs. No harddrive or media can beat that right now!
Click to expand...
I guess in 1000 years we'll know the accuracy of that statement.

As far as I'm aware, nothing can emulate the passing of time.
 
Corpy2 said:
After reading a bunch of stuff about Mdisk, I can see their promo, but in the end, it seems like they are basically just saying that their method of storing is more durable, but not in a radically different fashion.

I read buzz words ""rock-like layer," "physical change," but in the end I am seeing the same grooves.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are referring to but what matters is that it in the end age testing has given it around 1000 years of durability. American government agencies are supposedly using MDisc.
 
Richard said:
With Mdisk but not with a standard bluray.

http://www.mdisc.com/

It depends on how permanent you want it. Hard drive longevity is short.

Using backup of the hard drive to another harddrive then moving those files to another drive periodically will make sure your data stays (but you still have to have backups.

Mdisk allows for much longer time period. 1000 years. I guess you would backup to another mdisk over time or use a hard drive and use mdisk as backup so you have easy access to your date.

Mdisk is 25gb. If you have TBs of data. You are going to have a lot of mdisks but I would say that your most important photos and data for the average person will all fit on a single mdisk. Photographers may need more but in reality, once you die those images will hit the trash can.
Click to expand...
yep, MDisc is pretty awesome.
Richard said:
MisterBG said:
Mark B. said:
Corpy2 said:
bosco1955 said:
So what is the BEST way to permanent storage of your photography ?
Click to expand...
Backup HD and 25GB Blu Rays.

HD because its relatively cheap and stores a lot.

Blu Ray because it would be EXTREMELY painful if one HD goes down and takes your only copy of 3TB worth of photos with it. With Blu Ray, they are relatively dependable over a short run, and even if one dies, it's only (yes, I know, "only" is a relative term) 25GB, and I have the HD backup to make another Blu Ray from it.

I guess I could do multiple HD's, but where do I stop?

Here, I have not all eggs in one basket, and also a backup of the backup on inexpensive media.
Click to expand...
3TB of backup on 25GB DVDs - that's 120 discs. I'd rather have another (single) external HD than have to do a restore from all those discs. If you have to restore a single corrupt disc, how easy is it to figure out what files need to be restored? Seems like it makes backup & restore more complicated than it needs to be.
Click to expand...
Is there any definitive data on the longevity of home-burned Blu-Ray's?

Previous experiences with DVD show that the data is frequently unreadable after only three or four years. Is there any reason to believe that Blu-Ray's will be any better?

Multiple HD's is a far better option, provided they are exercised frequently and replaced regularly.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
MisterBG said:
Richard said:
Bosko lives in the US, Utah to be exact and english does not get any better than this simple question.

"So what is the BEST way to permanent storage of your photography ?"
Click to expand...
Please don't let us get started on the language debate again, but that statement is written in bad English, so it's not surprising that people (including myself) thought that the OP had English as a second language.
Just because they live in the US (or Britain) does not mean English is their native language.
Click to expand...
Call it bad English if you like but language evolves. English spoken in America is not all the same as the English spoken in the UK. Any native American would understand what Bosko asked.
 
Last edited:
Aberaeron said:
Use this type of thing. This one is for a Mac but there is plenty of choice available in the market.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Passport-Po...68621&sr=8-16&keywords=thunderbolt+hard+drive

I've chosen a RAID drive because it can either be used for super-fast transfer of files or it can be used as a clone, so that the two drives are identical and should one fail, all the files will be mirrored on the other. This is fast enough to be used as the only storage apart from a separate external back-up, leaving the computer's hard drive with ample free space for other things.

I have not got one yet but it is on my shopping list. Once I get it I will copy existing image files to it and from then on use it as my default image store.
Click to expand...
Hard drives are not permanent. Only MDisc offers something close to that.
 
donaldsc said:
donaldsc said:
It has not been tested for 1000 years. I would prefer the mdisk over color separation negatives because they are not digital and have already degraded comparing film recording vs digital recording of an image

But this is preference. There is no guarantee that either will last for 1000 years due to heat, humidity, atmospheric conditions.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you - color separation negatives are obviously an absurd solution to the problem. However, the OP did say "permanent".

We know that silver based photos will last 150 years as we have 150 year old pictures. We do not actually know that mdisks will last that long as we only have aging tests and the assumption that the results of the aging tests are valid. One other thing that we can not know - even if we bought a computer, a drive and a monitor of some type and put it in a hermetically sealed box, there are moving parts in there that will not survive.

The real answer is that there is no way to ensure permanent storage of pictures and as one poster said, who will care about them 100 years from now. So we do our reasonable best and do not worry about it.
Click to expand...
 
either





or if you really want it to live in 1000 years





6988219b2483446f985a4a346380e4d8.jpg

low res but they last.....
 
Your idea of mosaics trumps my color separation negative idea. You win!! What is the resolution of a mosaic.
 
donaldsc said:
Your idea of mosaics trumps my color separation negative idea. You win!! What is the resolution of a mosaic.

--
Don
Click to expand...
Virtually unlimited--if you have the space. Color gamut may be a problem though.
 
You could also get higher resolution mosaics now than 1000 years ago because of the availability of very small colored glass beads with lots of color choices. You could probably even design a computer controlled machine to lay down and fuse the glass beads.

This is a hoot - computer controlled automation of a 1000 year old image production method.

--
Don
 
Last edited:
If I need any image files permanently stored, I burn them to either a M-Disc DVD or BD disc.

For general backup of all my images, I external hard drives and BackBlaze
 
The closest you can get is multiple backups to the CURRENT backup process (Today its HDD via USB 2.0/3.0, etc).

When the next generation of Backup media arrives, you need to take your current backup and migrate it to the new backup (again with multiple copies)
 
donaldsc said:
If you really really mean permanent as in nearly forever, the only solution might be to print everything and then create color separation negatives from them. Any digital images are extremely dependent on technology lasting and technology does not last. Try reading something that you have stored on an 8 in floppy drive. Might be a bit difficult to find a functioning 8" floppy drive today.

Any color prints you make will contain organic dyes and these will degrade eventually.

Color separation negative are black and white negatives created by scanning your prints through different color filters. The color separation negatives are silver and silver lasts pretty much forever although you do need to store them in a way that the substrate does not degrade.

Just being picky but you did say permanent.

--
Don
Click to expand...
Hi Don... I used to shoot my own roll film inter-negs of slides and then print from the negatives. The next step up in the "craft" was: Contact Dye Transfer. You could shoot three b&w images through three different color filters and print using a registration board and three passes of contact printing with the appropriate three colors of dye. I think the prints were only going to be good for 500 years so we are out of luck at the 1000 year target :)

Jeff
 
Last edited:
fhotoace said:
If I need any image files permanently stored, I burn them to either a M-Disc DVD or BD disc.

For general backup of all my images, I external hard drives and BackBlaze
Click to expand...
Six of your in total 8 posts have been on old threads - nine months and older. I would suggest that you do not do that unless you have something actively new to say on the topic.

Regards, Mike
 
I have multiple HDs to keep my images. A few months ago though, I got a new Kindle HD for around $ 70 to put old pictures of my wife's family to give to her 92 year old mother. I liked the idea so much after loading them, I'm not sure I want to give the Kindle to her. I have pretty much filled up the 16 GB memory with around 1800 images. Fortunately, the new Kindles can accept a micro-sd card for additional memory.

This isn't really a storage solution, only a way to access pictures of a certain genre.
 
Because by definition those are not archive quality storage .. in the end .. I shall still say the tough answer is .. yet .. still .. made prints and made archive quality prints .. They just stay in storage and certainly do not require any special equipment to view 10 years, 20 years or even 100 years down the road ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top