File :-(, x, )
How to deal with this? Anonymous
I'm very triggerhappy, but I also like shooting .raw.

How do you guys handle a rapidly-growing image library? Burn it off once it gets past a limit?
What if there are a few pictures in particular that I do consider worth keeping on my HD for later use? Shooting less is not an option.

Pic 100% related.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:26 03:05:31Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width216Image Height90
>> Anonymous
Hard drives really aren't all that expensive, first off. There is this thing called deleting too. I'd probably suggestion a combination of the two.
>> Anonymous
I'm on a laptop, so the HD option isnt too easy to use. (could possibly buy an external one, but I cant quite justify it)
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>148019
Don't get an external, get NAT if you have to, I've yet to use a reliable external, especially with large amounts of files.
I trim down my saved files to the ones that I like, and the ones that are framed correctly and in focus. Otherwise they get deleted. I try to delete as many of the obvious ones from the camera. If you have an organized room, try burning dvds,but if you're like me, you'll forget to label the dvds and/or take shitty care of them.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>148022
NAS*
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
you keep your raw files?

process jpeg and when im happy with the result delete the .raws.

saves an assful of space, espesh considering im on a 40GB laptop HD :(
>> danchr !AZ2XAk0.RQ
>>148019
Dude, 93GB HD? You have to get an external one. What about music and movies? You store nothing but .raw-files? I wouldnt trust any HD with my life (or my pics), but its better than basicly no space at all. Another alternative is having an online library for backups. I dont know of any free unlimited ones in english, though.
>> danchr !AZ2XAk0.RQ
>>148025
wouldnt trust any -external- HD *
>> Anonymous
I probably have little over 2 gigs of music, but more likely a few vids lost here and there. I honestly don't know where all that memory went, but it's not all from raw files.

>>148024

That sounds like a good idea though I probably dont have time to fix every shot :/

Umm does keeping individual raw shoots on separate CDs seem like a sound idea? I just noticed I spent around 400MB working to get a good product shot (lighting's fun).
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>148046
well i generally reel off a heap of shots varying aperture and EV etc and then quickly go through in DPP and cull the ones i know wont work then properly process the ones i know will work/like.
>> Anonymous
Thumbs up for the Worms Armageddon cd-rom!
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>148017
Learn to edit
>> Anonymous
>>148049

I see. Yeah, should probably just batch-process the rest.

>>148050

:D

Ok thanks for the suggestions guys, except for the extremely explicit and comprehensive>>148051
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
go through your shit. Discard stuff that ou absoltely don't want... like overexposed and underexposed shit.

I've got a 300 gig drive full of raws... i'm on my second one now.
>> Anonymous
Just did, freed myself 500MB in 6 mins
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>148058

it's something that really should be done everytime you upload new photos... or make it once a week... causeif you leave it for long you just forget what you need to do
>> Anonymous
worms armageddon?

i dont like that game..

i LOVE it.
>> Anonymous
>>148019
if you need more space then its justified.....
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148022
This is what I *just did*. Western Digital MyBook World Edition. One terabyte (!!) of disk space, $240. Should get here sometime this week.

The NAS is actually just going to be backup. The main storage is going to continue to live inside my computer. But previously, I had matched sets of drives inside my machine (two 250G and two 320G). This'll let me repurpose the backups as normal hard drives.

>>148024
Gah. That's like throwing away your negatives. I am aghast.

>>148050
>>148076
Worms: Armageddon. FUCK YEAH.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is how.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>148087
I have the exact same hard drive you just bought. It's perfect for us trigger-happy raw shooters.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148093
It cost less than an external USB enclosure and two 500G hard drives on their own. I keep waiting for the catch, but there keeps not being one. It's weird and confusing.
>> Anonymous
At the moment i store all my files and ext. HD and burn backup dvd's once in a while.

However i have thought of buying 4x500gb HD's and deploying NAS on my old computer with raid 5.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
I keep almost every shot I've taken. I shoot RAW+small jpg.

For backup, I have one external 1TB HD at my home, and other at my parent's home. And I (try to) backup everything every day. So, even if the other place burns, nothing valuable data is lost.
Only problem is, that I don't know any good and reliable program for Windows to do it. :(
SyncToy 2 beta gives some errors randomly, and I have to do thing all over again, and it takes a lot time. :(

On my parent's place the external HD is attached to my linux box, and I access it trough sshfs (go get sftpdrive, it's just too good program to be true, can't live without it anymore).
>> Anonymous
Thas funny.. i almost always like to fuck .raw

Oh, edit BEFORE you shoot. Shows the amateur in you if you just go all panic without thinking before pushin'
>> Anonymous
>>148096

because it's not reliable

it's not just one or two, it's consistently bad
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>148166
I've had the same xhd with no problems for close to 6 years now
>> Anonymous
>>148174

nice try

it's been released in 2005
>> Anonymous
As of 2007, there have been numerous complaints on the failure of MyBook products. Reports suggest failures of the internal drive within 3 weeks to 1 year of purchase. Many users have said that prior to the failure, the hard drive would produce strange clicking noises. In other cases power supplies have failed and Western Digital has not offered any after market power supplies (except for the US Market). Western Digital prefers to replace 'whole units' as they are called, rather than resolve issues with its power supplies.
Western Digital also has a notorious reputation for referring clients who call technical support to third-party hard drive data restoration firms.

wikipedia lulz
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>148180
eh I didn't see the mybook thing

I use an Iomega 250gb xhd
>> Anonymous
does the x stand for XTREME
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>148196
XTREM
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148166
>>148182
Interesting. Although I'm guessing a lot of that is infant-mortality syndrome combined with the fact that people who have a horrible experience are more likely to be loud about their horrible experiences than people who just set the box in the corner and let it quietly and flawlessly perform for years without thinking about it.

And if the drives in there die, they were only the backups anyway. And they're user replaceable, so I can stick some non-WD drives in there.
>> Anonymous
>>148212the fact that people who have a horrible experience are more likely to be loud about their horrible experiences than people who just set the box in the corner and let it quietly and flawlessly perform for years without thinking about it.

yeah... that's what happens normally

except wd is pumping out these things in such amounts

the failure rate is laughable

i would rather burn my shit on dvds than put files on a mybook

get a real nas instead of this bullshit
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148213
Do you have a source on this information, or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
i had a 250 gig mybook that failed after a month. NEVER AGAIN.
>> Anonymous
>>148231

no, buy it if you want to, i don't give a fuck

the failure rate on WD externals are astronomical and higher than any other manufacturer

these things are built for one thing: cheap
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148243
It's already bought and en route. So... I guess I'll just see how it goes.
>> NGT
     File :-(, x)
I shoot in Raw+JPEG as well, but I also do video editing. The amount of space that video takes up is fucking insane compared to images. Now that Photoshop CS3's raw engine works with jpegs, I am finding less and less reasons to shoot raw. I hate deleting digital images, they are not like video tapes where you have a physical backup, or like an old film negative. I find that pix I took 4 yrs ago that I thought were GARBAGE look beautiful to me later.

An external device is essential for backups. I have a Seagate Freeagent 500gig that I use to backup my Raw Final Cuts (video) and my entire Images directory that I've been building since 2004. I actually have my images copied over 3 hard discs just to be safe.

Remember you don't have physical negatives, back your shit up.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:26 11:39:22Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width410Image Height127
>> Anonymous
In after apparent shitstorm (how else would a thread like this on /p/ get this many replies), but external hard drives are always the answer.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
to answer OP's question
I burn DVD's of my pics, and then delete all of the pics except the edited ones. that way i have them close at hand and the original files on DVD (and my external Hard drive)

i have 32 DVD's of backups so far (and I don't shoot RAW)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
external hard drivers are _never_ the answer

tape drives FOREVER.
>> Anonymous
>>148091
Listen to this man if you have a tower.
>> Will smith recommends stacking 6 redundant drives together OPFOR !vivjDRfsEw
>>148251
A) Burn a master dvd when you reach about 4 gigs of files and label it with date.
B)Burn Important files ,like commercial work, individually to a CD and label it.
C)Make a master back up to a external HD for redundancy sakes.

Make sure they are in a safe place. Thats what I do.
>> Anonymous
Buy a hard drive enclosure (must have a fan) and a hard drive, mount the hard drive inside the enclosure. Problem solved. This might even cost more than buying a premade external hard drive, but it'll last you a lot longer.
>> Anonymous
OP here!

>>148091
No shitstorm, actually helpful replies!

>>148251
Makes me look forward to upgrading to a real desktop even more, my laptop has really started showing its gayness.

I didn't quite have time to read about NAS last night, could someone tell me what it works like in a nutshell plz?

>>148076
>>148087
>>148050
Fuck yes indeed!
>> Anonymous
All you DVDfags enjoy backing everything up again every couple of years (not that you fag's take enough photo's to warrent burning shit to DVDs)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
DAT tape = 37gb
DVD = 4.5gb
cd = 0.6gb

DAT is designed for archive and backup. Why are you bothering with shitty optical media and non-dedicated backup solutions?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148322
Convenience. Speed. Random access. Inability to be erased by leaving 'em next to something that generates a magnetic field.

(That last doesn't apply to my hard drive backup solution, but it'll be a lot more obvious a lot quicker if it succumbs to it that it would be if someone happened to set the box of tapes down next to a coil)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>148323
backups != online storage. Sure a 60s seak time (average) isnt impressive, but its not for day to day use is it. HDDs die just sitting about, enclosures are even worse, NAS is storage not backup.

Why would you be putting tapes near magnets anyway, backup goes in fireproof files.

you are _ALL_ doing it wrong (and im not saying it because HP give me free tape drives)
>> Anonymous
>>148330
Any kind of backup is prone to failure. Even online storage that has it's own unique set of security risks.

I pulled a shitty FAT32 80gb external harddrive from like 1999 out of a messy, dusty box, and the thing worked perfectly. Who's to say?

The bottom line is that op should upgrade his own harddrive that also seems to be from 1999. I have about 1.5 tb on my machine and I was conservative when I put this thing together. Shit.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148330
Cost of a 500GB hard drive: $100
Cost of 500GB worth of 36 gig DAT cartriges: $129 according to the cheapest price on Newegg.

Not all of us get our tapes for free.

Additionally: Having online storage for backups means I can set up an automated script to do it every night without having to worry about changing tapes or making sure the tape is still good or (for the first backup, before I can start using incrementals, and any subsequent full backups) sitting there while it writes alllll 500 gigs to the 13 required tapes.
>> Anonymous
>>148335
Don't forget the deck to use the tapes. No deck under 599 on new egg while a optical drive that burns blue ray $359.99

blue ray =25GB/50GB
DAT tape = 37gb

Yes, shitty optical data indeed.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148340
That too.

But even more than cost, the main advantage for using online storage for me is the convenience factor. With any sort of removable storage short of a hard drive in a caddy, I will simply get lazy and not keep backups. With an always-on system, I only have to deal with it to set it up or if (or, thank you Mr. Murphy, *when*) it fails.
>> Multiple backups Sendre
First: Raid array on your computer for readily accessible, expandable, redundant storage. Not just a single drive.
Second: DVD's, On Hand, others in a safety deposit box
Third: Online. Online storage companies *can* go bankrupt.. and who's to say what they do with your shit after that?

It's downright retarded to back up anything only once if it is that important to you..

Never have a single point of failure (i.e. a 2TB external/internal HD). Cover the bases and you'll be good.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>148352
RAID = performance 9/10 not stability.

Anyway DAT tapes have guaranteed shelf life and the 37gb ones are pretty small for tape. Splash out a bit and you can get yourself 1tb tapes. It isnt a cheap easy way, but tape is the best archive format.

What happens when you drop your hdd and it breaks? Dont get that with tapes etc etc etc.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148380
>RAID = performance 9/10 not stability.
Depends on the RAID level. Some are just to increase speed. Others allow for a drive in the array to fail without data loss.

>DAT tapes have guaranteed shelf life
Guaranteed shelf life. Limited read-write life. I.e., you can't just keep backing up to the same tape or the same two tapes. You have to have a bunch of tapes.

>What happens when you drop your hdd and it breaks? Dont get that with tapes etc etc etc.
Run the numbers on that. I did. Based on the prices on newegg.com, I can drop and break 10 hard drives before I have to start worrying that I made the wrong decision by not getting a 400GB tape drive.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148380
Now, about that shelf life: I've never heard of a hard drive dying or losing its data just from being left alone for a while. Unless you can provide some data to back that up (and also corresponding data for tapes to show they'll last longer), I'm going to assume you're full of shit.

But even if that's the case... who the hell cares? I can make a full and complete backup of the drives in my system to drives outside of my system. I can then keep those drives online so I can easily reassure myself that they haven't died (or set up a script to periodically check 'em out). If they do die, I just buy some more and replace 'em. If I keep two sets, I'm even protected in the event that the backup dies and the primary dies before I can replace the backup. And I can have that for less than the cost of a tape backup drive.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>148416
only 5 and 6 (and on top of those) allow for drive failures, the ones below will destroy your entire array if you loose a single drive. RAID = performance and uptime, nothing else.

>>148429
I dont have data on either, but ive never heard of a tape failing, people have HDD failures all the time. No im not saying tape is 100% perfect but I think we're going to have to forget it. Im thinking of a much larger/long term backup plan you just want peace of mind.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148435
>only 5 and 6 (and on top of those) allow for drive failures
Well that's just not true.
RAID0: N disks, Sum(N) capacity. One drive goes, you're fucked.
RAID1: N disks, Sum(N/2) capacity. One drive goes, no problem, because that drive's backed up on its mirror drive in the array.
RAID3: N disks, N-1 capacity. One drive goes, no problem, because there's a checksum to let you recreate the dead drive.
RAID4: Same as RAID3 for our purposes
RAID5: Same as RAID3, but with much better performance because the parity drive isn't a bottleneck
RAID6: Like RAID5 but can handle two volumes dying.

Basically, the only one where you're fucked if a drive dies is RAID0.

>I dont have data on either, but ive never heard of a tape failing, people have HDD failures all the time.
HDs fail all the time because they're generally in constant use. If they're just sitting there, it's terribly unlikely for something to fail. No more than with a tape. And an average HD will take a hell of a lot more read/write cycles than an average tape.

Like you said, your backup plan is good for really long term backups. If you're needing to keep backups for a government requirement that every single bit must be stored forever, go with tapes and plenty of 'em. If you want to be protected if one of your hard drives dies, backup on hard drives.

Using a hard drive for backup is certainly not "doing it wrong" is my point. Your assertion that external hard drives are "never the answer" is just flat out wrong.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>148507
Tapes fail. I SEEN IT!!11
My aunt is a software writer and has been using HP tape drives for longer than I can remember, she backs up everything in duplicate in addition to files stored on the drive, but she has had atleast 1 tape that I know of fail,but then I can remember her using them since atleast 1994.
I have heard of the WD worldbooks failing, but I've also heard that the new ones from about the past 6 months are much better. I was personally looking into HPs new shit.
The HP EX475 looks like it might be nice. It's actually running windows home server.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148574
Eew, windows.

One of the main selling points of the WD for me was that it's running Linux, so I can haxx0r it with my Mad Skillz.

(E.g., my current backup script rsyncs from one drive to another. The WD box can be set up as an rsync server. So my script would only need two or three lines worth of changes to update to use the new machine)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>148091
urdoinitwrong
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>148507
Yes your right, i was thinking of online failures so that you can carry on using the array (at risk).

Anyway nothing new...
>> des
>>148323
>>Convenience. Speed. Random access.
MO.

RAID IS NOT A BACKUP SOLUTION. EVER.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148801
A backup RAID to your primary RAID is. That's the point I'm trying to make.
>> Falldog !2qYdimqiHs
>>148076
Jimmy?

Not that anyone cares, but I have a mirror of my comp's data on an external hard drive, then I have an off site backup of that external a few weeks out of date. It's not perfect, but it's not like I can pay for 100% up off site storage.

>>148801
It's great to protect drive failure though, as long as you're not using RAID 0.
>> des
>>148809
RAID 1 or 5+1 isn't going to help if the location is burned, flooded, stolen, rampant ninja hordes'd
>>148810
How often do you visit your bank? Once a week? More often? MO or tapes + safety deposit isn't perfect either but it's a lot better than losing a few weeks of work.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148812
Array #1: Three disks inside my computer
Array #2: Three other disks somewhere far away from my computer, connected by the Internet.
>> des
>>148814
They have internets on computers now?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>148814
I wonder what your online storage people back up too?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148841
My current plan is actually just to sync to a box full of drives on the other side of the room. I'm screwed in the case of a major disaster, but that's a chance I'm willing to take at this point.

(When I say "online storage" I mean "storage connected all the time to a computer", not necessarily "Storage hosted by someone else through the Internet")
>> Anonymous
>>148841
Dreamhost, Unless your website is absolutely huge, you can just upload all your pictures (I've done about 30 gigs of them)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>148847
>>148844
ITP we miss the point i was making.
>> Anonymous
>>148848
Its not trolling if no-one notices
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>148851
the _BEST_ trolling is when no one notices.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148848
I assume the point you were making is either
1. That the online storage people probably backup to tapes. Which is probably true. For them, the cost/benefit of tapes wins over a shitload of hard drives. But tape backup still doesn't make sense for normal people. And it's based on a misinterpretation of what I've been saying anyway.
2. That if I back up my storage to somewhere remote, I don't know whether or not my data's really safe because they might not be keeping it backed up. But that only matters in the edge case where I need my backup right as their backed up versions have failed. So, not a big concern. And it's based on a misinterpretation of what I've been saying anyway.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>148854

Well, it depends on HOW they DON'T notice.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>148855
I stopped caring
>>148435
here

>>148856
duh