Backing up your images??

[tayl0124]

Okay so I am planning on backing up my images. What method does everyone on here use?? I already have an external hard drive that backs up weekly but at some point that might get full, and as I have read before, you don't actually have a good backup unless you have two copies other than the ones on your computer.

Do you save your images as raw?? Do you save every one that you take, or just the good shots?? Do you copy to dvd?? are those dvd's archival quality?? If you do save to archival how expensive are those dvd's??? and also do you use DL DVD's $$?? Anything I missed let me know.

[jorgemonkey]

I currently have last year & this years images on an internal hard drive. I also have 2 externals that have all my images on them. I keep one of them unplugged in case of a powersurge or something like that.

I am going to pick up another 2 external drives and start with my 2009 images on both of them. That way I've got all my images on 3 different drives.

[mjs1973]

I save everything that I don't delete on an external HD. I also burn copies to 2 different DVD's. This includes all of the RAW files, and any images that I converted to other formats.I take one set of DVD's to work and leave them there. That way if the house burns down, I still have a copy. I don't use anything special for my DVD's. I buy a spool of 50 or 100 from a big box store. I need to get into a better habit of backing up my images. I don't do it nearly as often as I should.

[Medley]

I don't think you can have a discussion of this sort without including some form of organizing and rating your own images. The two best pieces of software I've seen for this are Adobe's Lightroom and Apple's Aperture. I have six categories when it comes to rating my images. Unrated, and 1 thru 5, 5 being the top category.

I do backups every six months. Those images that are rated 4 or better go to online storage. Those that are rated 3 or better go to offline external hd storage.The Raw files that aren't deleted (1 or better) go to DVD backup. Those that are unrated are deleted.

- Joe U.

[mwfanelli2]

Okay so I am planning on backing up my images. What method does everyone on here use?? I already have an external hard drive that backs up weekly but at some point that might get full, and as I have read before, you don't actually have a good backup unless you have two copies other than the ones on your computer.

External hard drives are a dime a dozen these days. Buy another drive!

I backup all photos onto two external drives. One of these drives is stored at the college, the other at home. The backups run automatically every few days in the background. Important photos are backed up immediately.

[SmartWombat]

Two portable hard drive card readers, backup while on the road.
Laptop, working files while on the road.
Copied on my return to home LAN ... has RAID-5 NAS, 3TB of working data.
Backup on a 1.5TB external drive, backup the RAW files only not jpegs.
Next backup will be another 1.5TB drive, and then probably have to move to 2TB.

I keep everything.
When I see some of the out of focus, blurry shots that get into print and on major websites - I review my images and find I've got some just like that ... only my name's not Darren Heath.

[Franglais]

Do you save your images as raw??
FR>> I keep the RAW files, intermediary TIFF files and full-size JPG's I make from the RAW and TIFF on offline storage (external hard drive AND DVD-R). I keep online 800x800 JPG's

Do you save every one that you take, or just the good shots??
FR>> I don't keep the technical failures

Do you copy to dvd??
FR>> yes DVD-R.

are those dvd's archival quality??
FR>> No. But I stick to makers who have come out well in tests (Verbatim)

If you do save to archival how expensive are those dvd's???
FR>> DVD costs about $1.75

and also do you use DL DVD's $$??
FR>> No definitely not. Nor Blue-Ray. I stick to low technology products

FR>> Things you forgot for JPG's:
1. First external hard drive kept in a cupboard
2. Second encrypted hard drive kept in the cellar 5 floors below
3. Disaster recovery encrypted hard drive at my sisters place 500 miles away, updated every year

Note: I live next to an air base and there is a remote possibility that an aircraft/helicopter crashes and wipes out all my local copies, even the one in the cellar

[ciddog91]

I have an external that backs up every day (actually every few hours). I also back up on DVDs. I only back up the RAW files or original JPGs. I also back up on a 2nd external every few weeks or month. I do not have this one connected to the computer. I only plug it in when I back up. I keep this on in a safe place (gun locker at work) in a secured area with no moisture. I do not have anything "secret" or patented, just family pics, but I would hate to see them all get lost due to a power surge, disaster ect.

I also live next to a military airfield and am in the flight path so there is always a possibility of aircraft accidents.

Just my .02....

Phil

[SkipT]

I backup to DVD for long term storage. These stored in a dry cool place will last several gen or untill you have to move them to a new form of media. For temp and working storage a external 1T harddrive which is turned off when not in use.

Stuff I am working on stays on 1 of several HD running on my computer.

[GB1]

I worry about fire or theft too. I looked previously and couldn't find any auto backup scheme or software that didn't consume insane amounts of memory or bandwidth.

As funny as this sounds, I decided to save my best images and their edits in individual zip files (password protected) and upload them to a password protected directory on my website. My hosting co. allows unlimited storage space (see powweb.com).

I then upload one small JPEG of the image with the exact same name. This shows me what I have.

For example, if I have a great image and a few edits of it, I zip them all together and name them (subject)_(name or iteration)_(digital file number)_(date).zip, like DeathValley2_DSC0453_April2009.zip. I use 256 bit encryption on the zip. Then I make a small image of that file (say 800 pixels wide) and name it DeathValley2_DSC0453_April2009.jpg. I then upload both to the protected directory.

I use an automated viewing Flash thingie so that when I go to that site URL it automatically displays all the JPEGS. If I want to download the corresponding ZIP, I know it's the same name but with a .zip extension instead. I can DL it and unzip with my password.

This basically lets me save my best images in case my drives crash or are stolen or damaged. The data is safe because even if someone can hack into the site and get the zip files, they don't know the password to get the full sized images.

The downside is that it's labor intensive. but since I only do it for my best work it's manageable.

[tayl0124]

Couldn't the zip compression be bad for the files??

[xystren]

Couldn't the zip compression be bad for the files??

Possibly.... If the ZIP file get's damaged, it can be questionable how much can be restored especially if encrypted. I've had files compressed in a zip file and ended up with a bad sector that fell on that zip file. Wasn't able to get anything from it at all.

For my backups, I have a couple of removable drive bays:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...5373&CatId=285

with a couple extra trays loaded with large drives. When backup day arrives, I just plunk it in, start the backup, once done, remove it, and store if off site. For the next set, I will use the second tray, and for the third set, use the third tray. Rotate through each of them, until they are filled, then decide to either get another drive, or replace one of the past backups. I often can get at least 2 sets on a single tray depending on the size of the drive (I have a 500gb, 2x 750gb trays).

Works nicely. Since they are SATA drive, they can be hot-swapped as needed without having to power down the computer. Since HD now are so cheep, it's quite convenient and fast since it's using a SATA interface.

For pictures, I backup everything, post-production modifications I made, RAWs, etc.

[Franglais]

Couldn't the zip compression be bad for the files??

ZIP compression doesn't harm files but for files that are already compressed like JPG's it's pointless. ZIP an individual JPG and the result is likely to be bigger than the original JPG.

ZIP is useful for putting a collection of files in a single package but as others have said if you lose the package you tend to lose everything. Vista Home backup uses ZIP format but it seems to make one zip file for each folder (may be related to permissions on the file).

My long-term disaster recovery archives are the end result - the JPG's. The files are static, I figured an external disk with the files in a directory structure which I could add to was the right solution. However the disaster recovery disks are by definition far away - and might be stolen. This is not a big deal because I can always make new ones from the originals at home. However I don't like the idea of my personal photos falling into the wrong hands.

I chose the AXCRYPT tool which encrypts individual files. You give it a folder structure and an encryption password and a few hours later you still have your folder structure but there are encrypted files in it instead of the original ones (the freeware version crashes from time to time but it's easy to restart)

[another view]

If you're a professional and your images are a business asset, then it's obviously a more important thing than losing something you created just for fun. Which is to say I'd be very careful with what I shoot for fun (which is all of it for me) but even more cautious if I were doing hired work.

I rarely print and rarely save a converted RAW file, because I usually don't do much to them anyway. On my Mac, I use a program called "Super Duper" (I know, stupid name but great program) and just back up the whole system. Some recent image files will stay on this computer but the majority go to another hard drive.

Some of the ones I really like get the expense of that $1.75 DVD as another backup.

[SkipT]

Couldn't the zip compression be bad for the files??

I would never trust zip on anything I want to make sure was going to be safe. The password option can be broke to easy and if the file get crupt odds are you lose it all.

Better to just back it up and lock it up.

Unlike jpg compression, zipping a file will never lose any picture info.

[JamesV]

I almost do the same thing that Charles does.

I save everything that I shoot, RAW, JPG and converted pictures that are uploaded.

If the picture totally didn't come out is the only time that I toss it. The others I can learn from.

I do copy to DVD-R

Not archive material but I use good quality DVDs, Verbatim or genuine Taiyo Yuden.

You can catch them on sale for $15-$20 for 100 spindle.

So in total I have 3 sets of pictures on my computer, external HD and DVD.

James

[tayl0124]

not really a backup question but a spin-off from this topic. If you can zip(compress) a file without losing quality or detail, why can't there be a format that we can shoot or convert to that lowers the file size but doesn't lose detail???

[OldClicker]

not really a backup question but a spin-off from this topic. If you can zip(compress) a file without losing quality or detail, why can't there be a format that we can shoot or convert to that lowers the file size but doesn't lose detail???

A zip would do that, but with a photo there would be very little compression. Try zipping a bitmap file. Zip only removes where there is actually no information. A photo file has very little of that while something like an Excel file is mostly non-information. Actually, I think a tiff file removes zero-info data. - TF

[xystren]

A zip would do that, but with a photo there would be very little compression. Try zipping a bitmap file. Zip only removes where there is actually no information. A photo file has very little of that while something like an Excel file is mostly non-information. Actually, I think a tiff file removes zero-info data. - TF

Compression is a complex process. The thing to remember, there are lossy compression schemes and loss-less compression schemes.

Loss-less compression schemes (used in most TIFFs and ZIP/ARJ/RAR/ARC/etc. files) compress data by finding areas of common repeated data and creating a "dictionary" of this data which is indexed/referenced with a smaller piece of data. (much the same way we would use shorthand using w/o to represent with-out, or BTW for By the Way") So in essence, the large portion of repeated data is stored only once, replaced with the indexed representation of the data, thus creating a smaller file. When decompressed, the full amount of data restored; eg: BTW becomes By the Way, w/o becomes with-out. All the data is restored to it's former self.

Lossy compression takes the data and makes a "best approximation" for representation of the data. Repeated data and similarly areas of repeated data is represented in the same way. To use the BTW example as above, BTW would be used to represent by the way, BY THE WAY, by-the-way, By The Way, and any other variation that include by the way. When this is decompressed, any occurrence of indexed/referenced BTW is replaced with by the way (regardless of the various different similar permutations of the original data). So in essence you have lost some of the original data, and only have a best representation of the data. The context is still there, but you've lost the details.

When you save a file in a lossy format such as JPG/PNG/GIF/MP3 (remember compression isn't just limited to just pictures) a portion of the data is removed due to the best approximation. In pictures, this is often done by reducing the number of colors. Where you might have 16.7million (or more) different colors in a RAW/TIFF file, when you save it as a GIF file, you take that 16.7 million colors and represent it down to either 128 or 256 different colors. When you set the quality setting when saving a JPG/GIF/PNG (or bit-rate for a MP3), you are choosing how much data/detail you are willing to lose.

This is a vast oversimplification of how compression works, but I'm sure you get the idea how things differ between a lossy and lossless compression schemes.

There is a small danger with compressing data (regardless if it is lossy or lossless) and that occurs when the compressed file becomes damaged. This can happen due to a hardware failure, power surge, bad sector of a disk/drive, virus, or by various other means. If a portion of the compressed data becomes corrupt, decompressing can become virtually impossible. If the dictionary/reference section happens to be the part that get's corrupted, you could potentially lose any file that uses that reference within the archive.

Granted, this is rare since there are multiple levels of error correction within the hardware and compression routines, but something to keep in mind when dealing with backup media. Media that has a tendency to degrade over time (ie: CD/DVD/TAPE/etc.) that contains compressed data (i.e. multiple files within a ZIP file) I consider a dangerous practice. I have some CDs from less than 7 years ago that are unreadable due to media degradation. From my past experience, ZIP files containing multiple files used for backups is dangerous. If that ZIP file becomes corrupt, you tend to lose everything contained within it. Not something I'm a fan of

Just some of my thoughts.