How should I permanently store digital photographs?

Big Bill said the following on 1/01/2005 10:43 PM:
What if we decide to put those files on tape? A *reliable* tape system
will cost big bucks, but the transfer time will be irrelevant; it can
be scheduled for otherwise empty time (we all sleep). And the tapes
will be a secure, reliable media. At least until that tape is no
longer supported, then the data will need to be migrated. But that's
not really all that time consuming, becasue the next generation of
tape will be faster and denser (this has been the trend so far, and
there's not much reason to think it will stop anytime soon).

In my experience tape is not a reliable media for the storage of
data for more than a couple of years. This experience is based on
trying to restore data from tapes.

I'm pretty close to buying a digital camera. One concern I have is
the long term storage of the images. I have serious questions about
the reliability of optical media (based on reported issues with CDRs
not being readable after a few years). Hard disks fail and I don't
consider tape a reliable storage medium for the long term. Perhaps
because I work in IT support I'm overly cynical about the hardware
involved.

One tip I would give, always keep more than one copy of data (or
images) you can't afford to lose.

Big Bill wrote:


Now calculate how many weeks at 24/7 this will take.

Aren't hypothetical situations nice? We get to decide just how
difficult we want to make them! :-)

Actually, my personal image archive is well over 20K images.

And I've already done this calculation because I was actually thinking
about the logistics of digitizing all my old film...buying a slide
scanner with a bulk feeder, the whole bit. For the question I was
asking, I was going to use a 4x DVD drive with verify enabled, and the
answer was that it would take nearly a full month running at 24/7 for
each backup copy.


What if we decide to put those files on tape? A *reliable* tape system
will cost big bucks, but the transfer time will be irrelevant...

Absolutely true...particularly the 'big bucks' part, which is what puts
it out of the financial reach of the Average Joe reading a REC.* group
to reasonably consider.


When I say that digital data is easy to backup and archive, I think
many are trying to shoot me down by coming up with some pretty
far-fetched exceptions. There are *always* exceptions.

You're right in that any monkey can drag-n-drop a folder to make a
digital duplicate of a bunch of data records. And if that's all the
archiving process really needed, it wouldn't be an issue.

Unfortunately, even though it isn't Rocket Science to conduct revision
control and compatibility on file formats, Applications, OS's, etc, this
all takes time and intelligence, an attention to detail, and a quality
assurance system to make sure that you didn't accidentally miss anything.


But our photo files are with us *now*, and are easy to back up and
archive, just as with other *current* digital files.

For just our current digital files, I agree that most of us don't really
have a "problem"...yet. For the most part, that's because our PC
technology is still ahead of our digital camera tech, and thus our data
storage needs are lagging.

For example, I have roughly 4,000 digital images in my database, and it
occupies roughly 9GB, so its backup is a mere two DVD's...quite
manageable.

But if that bunch of 1-4MP .JPG's were today's state of the art's 8MP
RAW files, I'd probably be looking at needing to backup 90-100GB, which
would no longer be a trivial task.


We can look back and find files that *weren't* archived properly
(which includes converting to new media formats as old ones go away),
and say, "See? A problem!", but the problem wasn't with the media or
format so much as with the people who were charged with the archiving.

In my example, the data file was perfectly preserved, and that's why it
is a good example that all is not necessarily as simple as it seems when
it comes to data migration. I'm glad that you understand this, but
unfortunately, I find that too many people don't "get it."



-hh

Big Bill wrote:


Now calculate how many weeks at 24/7 this will take.

Aren't hypothetical situations nice? We get to decide just how
difficult we want to make them! :-)

Actually, my personal image archive is well over 20K images.

And I've already done this calculation because I was actually thinking
about the logistics of digitizing all my old film...buying a slide
scanner with a bulk feeder, the whole bit. For the question I was
asking, I was going to use a 4x DVD drive with verify enabled, and the
answer was that it would take nearly a full month running at 24/7 for
each backup copy.


What if we decide to put those files on tape? A *reliable* tape system
will cost big bucks, but the transfer time will be irrelevant...

Absolutely true...particularly the 'big bucks' part, which is what puts
it out of the financial reach of the Average Joe reading a REC.* group
to reasonably consider.


When I say that digital data is easy to backup and archive, I think
many are trying to shoot me down by coming up with some pretty
far-fetched exceptions. There are *always* exceptions.

You're right in that any monkey can drag-n-drop a folder to make a
digital duplicate of a bunch of data records. And if that's all the
archiving process really needed, it wouldn't be an issue.

Unfortunately, even though it isn't Rocket Science to conduct revision
control and compatibility on file formats, Applications, OS's, etc, this
all takes time and intelligence, an attention to detail, and a quality
assurance system to make sure that you didn't accidentally miss anything.


But our photo files are with us *now*, and are easy to back up and
archive, just as with other *current* digital files.

For just our current digital files, I agree that most of us don't really
have a "problem"...yet. For the most part, that's because our PC
technology is still ahead of our digital camera tech, and thus our data
storage needs are lagging.

For example, I have roughly 4,000 digital images in my database, and it
occupies roughly 9GB, so its backup is a mere two DVD's...quite
manageable.

But if that bunch of 1-4MP .JPG's were today's state of the art's 8MP
RAW files, I'd probably be looking at needing to backup 90-100GB, which
would no longer be a trivial task.


We can look back and find files that *weren't* archived properly
(which includes converting to new media formats as old ones go away),
and say, "See? A problem!", but the problem wasn't with the media or
format so much as with the people who were charged with the archiving.

In my example, the data file was perfectly preserved, and that's why it
is a good example that all is not necessarily as simple as it seems when
it comes to data migration. I'm glad that you understand this, but
unfortunately, I find that too many people don't "get it."



-hh

H. Huntzinger commented courteously ...

Actually, my personal image archive is well over 20K
images.

Me, too, and growing by leaps and bounds. Over 4000 since
August, 2004, for example.

And I've already done this calculation because I was
actually thinking about the logistics of digitizing all
my
old film...buying a slide scanner with a bulk feeder,
the
whole bit.

I bought a 2400 DPI dedicated neg and slide scanner last
year. A faster PC would certainly help, but my 1.6gig AMD
is excruciatingly slow scanning at that DPI (yeah, the
scanner is slow, too!). Plus, because I didn't spring the
bucks for a scanner with Digital Ice, my scans have more
spots from 30 years of dust than a leopard.

And, I don't even want to talk about the time I spent
getting color, brightness, contrast, saturation, noise
reduction (i.e., grain), etc. etc. repaired.

I investigated paying somebody to scan my 5,000+ slides
but decided it was *way* too expensive. And, it's a major
PITA to cull out the "good" ones, which is the bigger
issue in any archival scheme anyway.

So, I "fixed" my problem by buying a new Kodak Carosel
slide projector - surprised me they still make them - and
I display analog.

Now, so long as electricity stays 110, I'm OK. I'll leave
what to do with my film and digital to my daughter. That
stuff will be as much use to me after I'm dead as my
money, I expect!

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

H. Huntzinger commented courteously ...

Actually, my personal image archive is well over 20K
images.

Me, too, and growing by leaps and bounds. Over 4000 since
August, 2004, for example.

And I've already done this calculation because I was
actually thinking about the logistics of digitizing all
my
old film...buying a slide scanner with a bulk feeder,
the
whole bit.

I bought a 2400 DPI dedicated neg and slide scanner last
year. A faster PC would certainly help, but my 1.6gig AMD
is excruciatingly slow scanning at that DPI (yeah, the
scanner is slow, too!). Plus, because I didn't spring the
bucks for a scanner with Digital Ice, my scans have more
spots from 30 years of dust than a leopard.

And, I don't even want to talk about the time I spent
getting color, brightness, contrast, saturation, noise
reduction (i.e., grain), etc. etc. repaired.

I investigated paying somebody to scan my 5,000+ slides
but decided it was *way* too expensive. And, it's a major
PITA to cull out the "good" ones, which is the bigger
issue in any archival scheme anyway.

So, I "fixed" my problem by buying a new Kodak Carosel
slide projector - surprised me they still make them - and
I display analog.

Now, so long as electricity stays 110, I'm OK. I'll leave
what to do with my film and digital to my daughter. That
stuff will be as much use to me after I'm dead as my
money, I expect!

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

Confused commented courteously ...

If that entails a data format change then add it
to the archive copy / verify process.

How would you work out whether there was a problem?

Verify every copy (or format change) by comparing it
with
the originals. If the data is intact there are no
problems.

Not arguing with you, just commenting...

My 26-year-old daughter has told me repeatedly that if I
don't label the thousands of old family snapshots, she's
gonna garbage bag them after I'm dead. OK by me!

Given that nobody thinks Murphy will ever strike, software
companies will ever go out of business, or Bill Gates will
dictate the next graphics format (which he probably will!,
if not him, it'll be Adobe's universal RAW), it's doubtful
if more than a handful of people will try to verify the
copy/format change with the original, if they even knew
how to technically.

Just one man's opinion, your mileage may vary...

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

wrote in news:1103725728.795292.265670
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

So what would you guys say is the best file type, media format and
media type to use if I want them to be easily accessible for decades?



Archival prints.

(With Photoshop .psd, .tif, and .jpg on harddrive as backup).

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

On 1/2/05 11:52 AM, in article ,
"bob" wrote:

wrote in news:1103725728.795292.265670
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

So what would you guys say is the best file type, media format and
media type to use if I want them to be easily accessible for decades?



Archival prints.

(With Photoshop .psd, .tif, and .jpg on harddrive as backup).

Bob
AND a CD or DVD backup of that drive which WILL eventually fail...


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

George Kerby wrote in
:

Archival prints.

(With Photoshop .psd, .tif, and .jpg on harddrive as backup).

Bob
AND a CD or DVD backup of that drive which WILL eventually fail...

I'd probably choose to backup the drive with another drive, because it's
easier to verify that one 100 gig drive is still intact, than to verify 100
gb of DVD.

But the extra discs won't hurt, either!!

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

DC wrote:

I'm pretty close to buying a digital camera. One concern I have is
the long term storage of the images. I have serious questions about
the reliability of optical media (based on reported issues with CDRs
not being readable after a few years). Hard disks fail and I don't
consider tape a reliable storage medium for the long term. Perhaps
because I work in IT support I'm overly cynical about the hardware
involved.

Same here.


One tip I would give, always keep more than one copy of data (or
images) you can't afford to lose.

A tip that Pro Norbert Wu gave me awhile back for PC-based backups was
to look into USB/FW external peripheral that uses hard drives on
removable sleds: you need one reader box, 3 sleds, and 3 160GB ATA
drives, and if you shop around and DIY the assembly, its under $500.



-hh