Story: Single Point of Failure Defined

[FrankS]

I choose not to be a slave of my "data". I choose the best option for "no effort required" for archiving. If my negs and cameras are lost in a fire, but I've been able to get my family and myself out of the burning house, I'll continue to be a happy guy.

If one chooses to archive digitally, it's going to take a fair bit of effort.

 

[JonasYip]

I'd guess you'd have other priorities if a Tsunami took out LA; but even so, your risk is greatly lowered for disasters of the sort more likely to happen, don't you think? Hard drive crashes, theft, or a house fire, that kind of thing.

Yeah, I consider a computer crash a non-event, at least data-wise. A house fire even, though I'd have other headaches to worry about at that point... But a "Katrina" sized event that takes out the whole city is harder to protect against. I could at least get one copy up in the cloud somewhere, but there's just too much data involved to do regular backups (even incremental) to the ether...

 

[bo_lorentzen]

BTW. Jonas, love the Paris gallery.

 

[wgerrard]

Human error.

Indeed.

I once worked for a place that generated several hundred thousand words of text daily, all backed nicely down in the data center. One four-day Thanksgiving holiday, the guy who nursemaided the backup took things offline for routine maintenance, forgot to bring it back up, got on a plane and flew away for a week's holiday. No one noticed the backups were missing until the following Monday.

 

[bmattock]

I choose not to be a slave of my "data". I choose the best option for "no effort required" for archiving. If my negs and cameras are lost in a fire, but I've been able to get my family and myself out of the burning house, I'll continue to be a happy guy.

If one chooses to archive digitally, it's going to take a fair bit of effort.

Aren't you glad that your bank does not have that attitude?

And I presume you don't mind if you eventually lose photos due to your choices? I'm not suggesting you should do anything other than whatever you prefer.

 

[JonasYip]

BTW. Jonas, love the Paris gallery.

thanks, Bo.

-j

 

[JoeV]

Sure, human error can be blamed for people who were unfortunate enough not to have the financial resources to have state-of-the-art computer systems at home with remote backup, when the levees broke. At least film is affordable, one roll at a time, for people who can't afford a computer system, and perhaps don't have the training, experience and know-how to maintain one properly.

This sounds like an area where photographers more fortunate than others could embark upon a project to help those less fortunate manage their family photographs, either film-based or usher them into an affordable yet manageable home computer system.

But it sounds a little harsh for people to say it was their own damned fault. But for the grace of God go I; etc.

~Joe

 

[Freakscene]

I make scans of all my favourite/best stuff. Stored in 3 locations, one 1600 km from the other two. 2 kinds of media at all locations. It's not hard and only a little time consuming if you're scanning anyway. It's the great advantage of digital.

Marty

 

[bmattock]

But it sounds a little harsh for people to say it was their own damned fault. But for the grace of God go I; etc.

I meant no disparagement for anyone who cannot afford computers, etc. I was merely referring to those who have the ability and technology and choose not to perform backups; I was responding to the comment that most people who have this technology are too lazy to backup. My comment stands - if they're too lazy to backup, they deserve what they get. If that doesn't bother them, then hey great.

 

[amateriat]

Bill: The trouble is that, in the harsh light of 20/20 hindsight, a lot of those people do care, and revert to the proverbial "pound of cure" (me, among others), or, in extreme cases, two pounds (forensic data-recovery outfits like DriveSavers, who can apparently recover almost any data from almost any seriously cooked hard disk, but with a stiff price tag attached). It's like one's doctor gently but firmly advising you to cut back or quit cigarettes: you can take his/her advice, or roll the dice. No one's putting a gun to anyone's head over this, although some people might end up putting a gun to their own heads as a result of ignorance.


- Barrett

 

[pakeha]

quote
Here's a photo of some maintenance guy who entered my Detroit apartment while I was at home NC for Christmas. If it were a bad guy and he took my PC that has my webcams mounted to it, I'd still have photos of his face as he took it. OK, sure, I'm paranoid. The only real question is whether I am paranoid enough.

Nice place, could do with a couple of prints on the walls, none of that digital stuff though😉

Interesting thread again Bill, i am now inspired to get my ****e sorted in regards to the topic. Yes it is not that much of an effort.

 

[bmattock]

Nice place, could do with a couple of prints on the walls, none of that digital stuff though😉

It was intended to be a temporary place to sleep until we could sell our house in NC and move the family up here to MI. No real desire to decorate - I live near a very bad neighborhood and it would just encourage the hoodlums.

Interesting thread again Bill, i am now inspired to get my ****e sorted in regards to the topic. Yes it is not that much of an effort.

It really just depends on how much value you place on your photos. I have no problem with people who don't want to go to the effort.

 

[ryan26]

I have no kids, and if I did, I presume they'd treat my photographs like everyone else's kids do - by throwing them directly into the nearest landfill. I do backups for me. Prints are a single point of failure; and I have no desire to print every photograph I take, while I do want to save every photo I take.

Therefore, making prints would be a poor choice for me.

Well if your photography never leaves your computer, I can see where your paranoia comes from. As for me, I print what is important (often in books for friends), put my negatives (though I do destroy many) in an old freezer (almost a fire safe), and also scan the stuff I like (backing it up 2 times over on hard drives). I feel quite secure with my archive, though each can be a weak link if one hypothesizes enough.

I'm reading responses from people who do backups and appear to be fairly intense about it (like yourself) and others who simply seem not to give a flip. Which is fine, of course, everyone has to put a value on their time versus their photos and how much they really want to preserve them. I'm alway somewhat surprised to find some 'photographers' seem not to care what happens to their current catalog during their own lifetimes, at least.

Why is 'photographers' in quotation?

The same way you started the thread by encouraging all (film or digital) to back things up digitally, I would encourage all to back things up (film or digital) in print - which you stated is of no use to you. I don't really cary either way what somebody else does, but it's ignorant to think that an archiving method (or how much one frets over it) makes you more or less of a photographer.

Just because you back things up digitally doesn't necessary make it worthwhile for the next person.

 

[bmattock]

Bill: The trouble is that, in the harsh light of 20/20 hindsight, a lot of those people do care, and revert to the proverbial "pound of cure" (me, among others), or, in extreme cases, two pounds (forensic data-recovery outfits like DriveSavers, who can apparently recover almost any data from almost any seriously cooked hard disk, but with a stiff price tag attached). It's like one's doctor gently but firmly advising you to cut back or quit cigarettes: you can take his/her advice, or roll the dice. No one's putting a gun to anyone's head over this, although some people might end up putting a gun to their own heads as a result of ignorance.

Well, I lost photos (and old emails) that really bothered me a lot. I ended up recovering some or most of those old photos, but I decided to never let it happen again, and so far, I haven't.

I certainly 'get' when people say it's not worth the effort for them. If they're good with that, it's like deciding to keep smoking; perhaps not really smart, but their choice, their life.

I confess that it bothers me somewhat to hear people argue the longevity of film versus digital when they explicitly state that they can't be arsed to take any steps whatsoever to protect their photographs - even to the extent of stating that their photos are not that important to them. If so, fine; but then perhaps they ought not to go on about how one format is superior to another for longevity; they don't care (they say), so why do they care?

I would imagine that if a person thought their photos worthy of preservation and protection, they'd take simple and reasonable steps to protect them. That they don't do so - and even harshly deride such efforts as too difficult or too much effort or that they actually don't care that much after all - mystifies me.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This is one of those discussions where if you declare you like pie, you'll get the cake faction to yell at you that you're stupid because crust is just so complicated, and since cake doesn't need any crust, pie is stupid.

I suck at baking anyway.

 

[bmattock]

Well if your photography never leaves your computer, I can see where your paranoia comes from. As for me, I print what is important (often in books for friends), put my negatives (though I do destroy many) in an old freezer (almost a fire safe), and also scan the stuff I like (backing it up 2 times over on hard drives). I feel quite secure with my archive, though each can be a weak link if one hypothesizes enough.

If you're scanning your negs, then you're ameliorating your risk. That's a good thing. You'll get no argument from me.

Why is 'photographers' in quotation?

If I were a writer, I'd care about my writing; probably enough to back up my files. If I were a painter, I'd probably want to keep them in a safe place. I have trouble grasping the concept of people who say "I'm a photographer, but I don't care about photographs, or what happens to them, and if they get destroyed, that's perfectly fine with me." Huh?

The same way you started the thread by encouraging all (film or digital) to back things up digitally, I would encourage all to back things up (film or digital) in print - which you stated is of no use to you.

I have no printer, and I have no darkroom. I live in a small apartment in Detroit and have no desire to keep hundreds of thousands of photographs in print form. I am content to send the few photographs I want to print to places like Mpix.

I don't really cary either way what somebody else does, but it's ignorant to think that an archiving method (or how much one frets over it) makes you more or less of a photographer.

I did not mean to imply that anyone's archiving method - or even none at all - makes them more or less of a photographer. Claiming that one is a photographer and then that one doesn't give a flip what happens to their photographs mystifies me, sorry.

Just because you back things up digitally doesn't necessary make it worthwhile for the next person.

Granted. I never said that. I said that digital backups offer the unique opportunity to make multiple identical copies and store them in more than one place, which film does not. It still may not be worthwhile to others, and that's fine. But it is an advantage over film - that's not my opinion of what others should do, it's just a fact of the nature of the media.

 

[pakeha]

quote
I confess that it bothers me somewhat to hear people argue the longevity of film versus digital when they explicitly state that they can't be arsed to take any steps whatsoever to protect their photographs - even to the extent of stating that their photos are not that important to them. If so, fine; but then perhaps they ought not to go on about how one format is superior to another for longevity; they don't care (they say), so why do they care?

Mostly, i think they are looking for an argument - and know you are up for it🙂

AND how come you can get away with `arsed'when i cannot with `ess- hach-i tee - e??

 

[ryan26]

All good points, if you didn't imply it, I take no offense.

Granted. I never said that. I said that digital backups offer the unique opportunity to make multiple identical copies and store them in more than one place, which film does not. It still may not be worthwhile to others, and that's fine. But it is an advantage over film - that's not my opinion of what others should do, it's just a fact of the nature of the media.

Too nitpick just a little bit😉, The only scanner I've used that captured full detail in highlights and shadows of black and white negs is the 13 and 19,000$ Flextights. The Nikon's (even the 9000) lose alot, especially in highlights. Mind you, I know where you're coming from with it - and I wish I could afford my own flextight in order to truly make 'identical copies' of my negs.

 

[dcsang]

Good Old Bill,

Always the harbinger of doom & gloom (at least of late) 😀

I think this Kodak ad from 2005 said it far better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdWwqAI6x9A

And I'm with Gabe.. baking really is a lot more difficult than cooking.

Cheers,
Dave 😀

 

[BillBingham2]

Granted. I never said that. I said that digital backups offer the unique opportunity to make multiple identical copies and store them in more than one place, which film does not. It still may not be worthwhile to others, and that's fine. But it is an advantage over film - that's not my opinion of what others should do, it's just a fact of the nature of the media.

A very interesting observation, backup with no loss in details, a big positive for digital or at least scanning negative (but you are inducing IQ loss) as a backup.

You never know about flooding and where it will happen. Back in the early to mid '70s Greece and parts of Upstate NY were underwater thanks to the level of Lake Ontario. While I'm not 100% sure, I seem to remember the Army Corp of Engineers having something to do with it. While I do not buy this global warming thing, I think it's a misnomer. I think what is really happening is that weather is getting more cyclical and the lows, highs and harshness is increasing big time. Getting warm is just part of the problem and I'm not sure it's the worst.

I'm really starting to see the advantage of Cloud computing for ubiquitous storage. Have two different clouds, one Apple the other Google and the odds of you loosing both (out side of the end of the world) are pretty much zero. Somebody hacks one, wipe it out and move the originals over from the unhacked. No local fuss, no local configuration issues, nothing to keep in a dicey apartment. When I was in Champaign I found two sublets that were safe at a good price, I was lucky. I was going to add NAS to home but now I'm look up for alternatives. You can even point your iPhoto to the cloud, with a bit of tweaking. Need to test if my wife and I can share it at the same time before I jump for joy.

B2 (;->