Keith nuttle wrote:
[]
> I have about 10000 pictures currently plus all of the scanned images
> that I have collected in my genealogy research. 16000 pictures does
> not seem that much for some one who was really involved with
> photograph.
Been doing digital since 1998 and have more than 31,000 images. Archived
on two PCs, two external HDs, and some on DVDs.
"ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:7lIvk.20511$mh5.10861@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> from a friend - -
> ----
> I have invested a lot of time and effort in creating a folder
> of all my photos over the years, currently ~16,000 occupying 10.7Gb on my
> hard disk.
> Having learned the lesson the hard way, I have backed them up on DVD's.
>
> Since each DVD will only hold 4.7Gb, I have to split up the folder to do
> this.
>
> I know there are flash drives available that will go to 32Gb,
> and I think now even 64Gb.
>
> My question:
> Is it "okay" to use a flash drive as an archival storage device?
> Is it as stable as DVD's? As secure?
> What if I store it in a "cool, dry place"?
>
> What are your thoughts?
> --
> ----------------------------------
> "If everything seems to be going well,
> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
>
>
Remember that back up copies should be stored off site such as a bank vault.
What happens of you have a fire, flood, earthquake, etc.?
> Keith nuttle wrote:
> []
>> I have about 10000 pictures currently plus all of the scanned
>> images that I have collected in my genealogy research. 16000
>> pictures does not seem that much for some one who was
>> really involved with photograph.
> Been doing digital since 1998 and have more than 31,000
> images. Archived on two PCs, two external HDs, and some on
> DVDs.
I wonder what is or are the best media for archiving? Have you tried
randomly recalling some of the older images and checking for loss of
quality? Another interesting thing is what sort of indexing system is
best?
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
James Silverton wrote:
[]
> I wonder what is or are the best media for archiving? Have you tried
> randomly recalling some of the older images and checking for loss of
> quality? Another interesting thing is what sort of indexing system is
> best?
Yes, when I got the external HDs I had to recover almost all off the CDs
and DVDs. All but one were readable, which might have been frustrating
had I needed images of that DVD. One HD and one set of DVDs are off-site.
> James Silverton wrote:
> []
>> I wonder what is or are the best media for archiving? Have
>> you tried randomly recalling some of the older images and
>> checking for loss of quality? Another interesting thing is
>> what sort of indexing system is best?
> Yes, when I got the external HDs I had to recover almost all
> off the CDs and DVDs. All but one were readable, which might have
> been frustrating had I needed images of that DVD. One HD
> and one set of DVDs are off-site.
> Indexing for me is strictly year-month-day.
I guess that you are saying that off-site storage, possibly multiply
redundant, is the way to go. I wonder what are current estimates of life
time of personally written DVDs? I don't *need* professionally to have a
high probability of successful retrieval tho' I'd like it.
As an amateur, I need more than a date to find an image.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
James Silverton wrote:
> David wrote on Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:53:01 GMT:
>
>> Keith nuttle wrote:
>> []
>>> I have about 10000 pictures currently plus all of the scanned
>>> images that I have collected in my genealogy research. 16000
>>> pictures does not seem that much for some one who was
>>> really involved with photograph.
>
>> Been doing digital since 1998 and have more than 31,000
>> images. Archived on two PCs, two external HDs, and some on
>> DVDs.
>
>
> I wonder what is or are the best media for archiving? Have you tried
> randomly recalling some of the older images and checking for loss of
> quality? Another interesting thing is what sort of indexing system is best?
>
>
With traditional chemical photograph, both the negative and the printed
photo degraded over time as the chemistry of the negative and photo
paper reacted to the storage environment.
With a digital photograph, the tradition loss of quality of a picture is
not a factor. The quality, resolution, etc. is dependent on each byte
of information recorded. If the bytes can be read you will always have
the original picture.
I index my pictures by year/month/day or year/month/special event/day.
Generally this works well but there are times you one picture of the
boat taken at the lake that shows the tiller. The system can not
provide this information.
In my computer files I have tried to maximize portability. Most of the
photo indexing software that I am aware of puts the image data into a
proprietary databases.
> With traditional chemical photograph, both the negative and
> the printed photo degraded over time as the chemistry of the
> negative and photo paper reacted to the storage environment.
> With a digital photograph, the tradition loss of quality of a picture
> is not a factor. The quality, resolution, etc. is
> dependent on each byte of information recorded. If the bytes
> can be read you will always have the original picture.
I'm not sure that it's an all or nothing process. Noise can be
introduced magnetically or physically but I agree that it's better than
trying, however successfully, to restore a color print when that's all
you have.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
ps56k wrote:
> from a friend - -
> ----
> I have invested a lot of time and effort in creating a folder
> of all my photos over the years, currently ~16,000 occupying 10.7Gb on my
> hard disk.
> Having learned the lesson the hard way, I have backed them up on DVD's.
>
> Since each DVD will only hold 4.7Gb, I have to split up the folder to do
> this.
>
> I know there are flash drives available that will go to 32Gb,
> and I think now even 64Gb.
>
> My question:
> Is it "okay" to use a flash drive as an archival storage device?
> Is it as stable as DVD's? As secure?
> What if I store it in a "cool, dry place"?
>
> What are your thoughts?
One thing to consider about digital files: data formats and devices
become obsolete over the years. As far as I know, none of the standard
graphic formats have disappeared--yet; but it will happen eventually.
You should think about using a lossless format so that when support for
specific formats start disappearing you can convert your files to newer
formats when indicated. Also don't count on CD or DVD devices to stay
around forever; both devices were developed for entertainment purposes
and those devices might start disappearing. Look at all the different
formats for writing and reading DVDs: DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, etc.
To me, right now it looks like the hard disk has the longest _useful_
life span. I have finally given all my 3.5" diskettes to Goodwill and I
haven't had any 5.25" or 8" for years. These issues are constantly faced
by people involved with long-term storage of commercial and scientific data.
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:24:02 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Allen
<allent@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>haven't had any 5.25" or 8" for years. These issues are constantly faced
>by people involved with long-term storage of commercial and scientific data.
Speaking of which we just got rid of a couple of boxes of reels of 10"
mag tape this summer at work.
me@mine.net wrote on Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:29:38 -0400:
>> haven't had any 5.25" or 8" for years. These issues are
>> constantly faced by people involved with long-term storage of
>> commercial and scientific data.
I haven't used mag tape for backup for many years but some people still
swear by (not at) it!
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Re: archiving of digital photos 
Linear Mode
