How are you dealing with your image storage issues?

[jerryk]

Hi,

DSLRs in general, and the Canon 5D and IDS in particular, eat disk space at an amazing rate. I see people posting how they have 30, 50, or 100,000 shots on their cameras. How are people dealing with all of the images they take? How about with the 100+ Mbytes TIFFs you get after a few layers.

I have 600 GBytes (2 X 300) and with originals, backups, and some converted images am completely out of space.

jerry
--
jerryk.smugmug.com

 

[Gavin_Cato]

You need to ;

1 - delete the junk shots

2 - use a versioning program like aperture that doesn't eat up huge amounts of disk with multiple versions

3 - Personally, I convert my raws to jpegs after I am satisfied they are ok.

Hi,

DSLRs in general, and the Canon 5D and IDS in particular, eat disk
space at an amazing rate. I see people posting how they have 30,
50, or 100,000 shots on their cameras. How are people dealing with
all of the images they take? How about with the 100+ Mbytes TIFFs
you get after a few layers.

I have 600 GBytes (2 X 300) and with originals, backups, and some
converted images am completely out of space.

jerry
--
jerryk.smugmug.com

--
http://www.gavincato.com

 

[Isca]

search in it, you'll get a million hits.
--
http://www.pbase.com/garethc/good_stuff

 

[centralcoastmagazine]

Storage is cheap enough. We happen to back up all the Raw on
DVD for non commercial work and keep the jpeg conversions on the
external drive as working files. The Raw can be re-imported if necessary
to make larger Tiff. Jpegs are good enough for most work, but are really
just large thumbnails compared to the tiff files.

 

[Tom Carpenter]

RAID, off-site backup rotations, optical archiving/versioning and media asset management software such as iView or Aperture. The good thing is that megabytes are cheaper than megapixels.

 

[Shane Pope]

Ultimately I do not believe that JPEGS are the answer as they deteriate over time with repeated viewing... That is one reason we now have RAW the raw data remains over time.

cheers

Shane

P.s get a few 3-400 gig extdrives or go for DVD'S

 

[PalmsWestPhoto]

We do video as well which makes photography storage requirements look like nothing.

For online storage we use a few 1 and 2 TB Raid NAS systems. We archive photography on dual DVD or CD copies.

We also have a custom built database system to organize everything

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

 

[PalmsWestPhoto]

JPG's do not deteriate with viewing

This reminds me on the thing where people think that every time you turn your computer on and off you loose a few bits

JPG's deteriorate only if recompressed.

Only if modified and resaved (recompressed)

If you dont believe me try this

Put a JPG file on a CD. This would be a readonly files and can of course not be changed. Now view it a few times and think about how a read only file would deteriorate if it was physically not possible to modify the file.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

 

[DotCom Editor]

jpeg files do not deterioriate with each viewing.

It is ONLY when a jpeg is being SAVED and recompressed that data are thrown away.

--
When I ask which Canon lenses are best,
people tell me to 'go to L.'

 

[Jim F.]

JPG's do not deteriate with viewing

This reminds me on the thing where people think that every time you
turn your computer on and off you loose a few bits

JPG's deteriorate only if recompressed.

Correct

Only if modified and resaved (recompressed)

All you need to do is save a jpeg. you don't need to modify it before saving it. The save itself forces the compression routine to reinterpret the the file and use the compression algorithm on the previously compressed file. Not a good thing. you can destroy a file by just saving it repeatedly as file_1, then file_2, then file_3, etc. or even with the same name. "Save" = destruction.....

If you dont believe me try this

Put a JPG file on a CD. This would be a readonly files and can of
course not be changed. Now view it a few times and think about how
a read only file would deteriorate if it was physically not
possible to modify the file.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

 

[Walter Muma]

I have 65000 images occupying 162GB.

I have two installed hard drives on my computer with a copy on each. I have two removeable hard drives (not USB), 320GB each, with a copy on each. One stays offsite and they get swapped every now and then.
And I burn 2 copies of all pics onto DVDs, keep one copy offsite.
I use iMatch to catalog them.

 

[foldedpath]

Ultimately I do not believe that JPEGS are the answer as they
deteriate over time with repeated viewing... That is one reason we
now have RAW the raw data remains over time.

Err... that's not quite accurate. Data is data, and doesn't deteriorate over time when simply viewed (copied from HD into RAM), unless something is seriously wrong with your hard drive or storage media.

What does deteriorate with JPEG is the image quality when you edit the file (in Photoshop, for example), and then save it again as a JPEG. Sequential saves in lossy formats is a no-no. You can get away with a little of it, but the quality loss builds up pretty quickly. So never archive images in a lossy format like JPEG, unless you're sure they'll never need further downstream editing. It's an editing issue, not a viewing issue.

The idea of RAW data remaining over time is also a touchy subkect. It will remain, as long as there is a reader for the proprietary RAW format, and that's far from guaranteed. With the rapid release of totally new and incompatible digital camera bodies every couple of years, are you willing to bet that your current 5D or 1DsII Raw files can be opened in any software made by Canon or Adobe, 10 or 20 years from now... after they've gone through 5 or 10 more camera versions? It's a big, risky bet. So I do shoot in Raw, but I also save out the most important, portfolio-grade images as an uncompressed TIFF file, for future compatibility. Which is a different type of gamble, but I think a safer one.

On the hardware storage question... I'm using a fairly low-end NAS drive (network attached storage - Buffalo Linkstation), which is basically a small box with a hard drive and its own tiny operating system, hung on the local network. It's only very slightly more expensive than a USB external hard drive, and has some advantages in standalone recovery. There is a duplicate NAS drive hooked up to the primary one, that constantly backs up the primary. I don't use compressed backup formats. It's all readable as standard files from any computer on the network.

Right now I trust "roll it forward" on multiple hard drives, much more than I trust the idea of writeable CD's or DVD's as a long-term archive media.

 

[Shane Pope]

ah Guy's I saw a news program on SKY News about 3 years ago that had two fellows who were responsible for the thing...

Well to cut a long story short they won the Nobel Peace Prize for there research into digital Photo development... Jpegs... what have you and there further research into the rate of deteriation.

They cunducted some studies saved jpegs into a folder never touched it for 18 months.... Then created a duplicate folder of the same images and veiwed them daily. After the 18 months were over an in-depth study was conducted on the two folders and there contents.

From memory files within the folder, that were viewed daily were smaller and colour was washed out where the duplicate that was not touched for 18 months was still good ...But not perfect.

Cheers

Shane

 

[tbiehn]

Use a program such as Portfolio or ACDseepro. You can archive your full-size raw or jpg to DVD while retaining a thumbnail on your hard drive. When you want to view the full size version of a thumbnail, it will direct you to the specific DVD/CD that you have archved it to. These programs will also do a great job of cataloging your pics making it easy to find the pictures at later date.

It will eventually become a huge problem trying to locate specific pictures unless you start cataloging them.
--
....I'm going there...because I've never been there!......

 

[hunk]

From memory files within the folder, that were viewed daily were
smaller and colour was washed out where the duplicate that was not
touched for 18 months was still good ...But not perfect.

Very true. I had saved a job (burned it on a CD-R) and left this CD in my car on a hot day. I don't need to say how the pictures looked when I opened them again on my computer... they were all brownish, some even had black edges!

I once lost a CD in the garden (yes I know, stupid, I was playing with the laptop) . I found this CD a couple of days later, and it had rained a lot since. Funny thing is, the moisture did lovely things to my pictures. The colors had run into each other, making for a nice effect which you could never achieve in photoshop. Of course these were jpgs. RAWs would have kept better quality.

 

[Radio Denver]

I store all raw files on a particular hard drive (call that the working drive) and do my conversions on that drive. I copy all raw files to a backup hard drive, archived by session/date (these never get used again unless it's a recovery action). Every month or so, I archive the backup drives new raw files to a DVD. All the raw files that I wish to work with are converted to TIFF and JPG format, the final TIFF Edits are copied to DVD. The Jpgs stay on the hard drive for distribution as necessary. I also try to make large prints of most of my final TIFF files. From time to time, I clear out my working drive to get more space. When the backup drive gets full, I buy a new hard drive. The hard drive removed goes on a shelf.

I also keep a copy of my photo editing software on CD and the backup drive so I can recover that if necessary. Sooner or later the software may become unsupported, but I'll at least be able to load and view the files. It all sounds tedious, but actually it's a lot simpler and faster than cataloging and archiving negatives and takes up far less space.

--
Visit me at

http://www.radiodenver.org/

 

[foldedpath]

ah Guy's I saw a news program on SKY News about 3 years ago that
had two fellows who were responsible for the thing...

Well to cut a long story short they won the Nobel Peace Prize for
there research into digital Photo development... Jpegs... what have
you and there further research into the rate of deteriation.

They're giving out Nobel Peace prizes for technical investigation into photography? Amazing!!

From memory files within the folder, that were viewed daily were
smaller and colour was washed out where the duplicate that was not
touched for 18 months was still good ...But not perfect.

I think the correct technical term for this is "voodoo science." Or "woo woo", take your pick. I'm kinda partial to the "woo woo" term myself.

Seriously, this is just wrong, and probably secondhand wrong, information.

 

[Shane Pope]

It was the two guy's who were responsible for the semiconductor...

Sorry

Shane

 

[foldedpath]

It was the two guy's who were responsible for the semiconductor...

Okay, that would have a little more credibility, but if this is a published and peer-reviewed study, then please quote a reference. I'd be very interested to see it (seriously) because it contradicts everything I know about image formats and data storage.

The data storage medium can fail... easily.... especially ephemeral writeable media like CD's and DVD's. But not the data itself, if the storage media is intact. Were you referring to a study of longevity on CD's or DVD's instead of hard drives?

 

[AUDIOZ]

Any files I am currently working on are on my laptop or on a portable USB 80 gig hard drive.

Once finished I copy them across to a 1 Terrabyte Maxtor NAS Drive Running Raid 1, which lives on my network. Hanging off this is another 300 gig of redundant back.

I archive a copy of the files to DVD as I copy them across - onto two different brands of Media. One copy lives with me and another lives off site.
--
http://www.jholko.com - JHolko Photography
Making Memories from Pixels ™