Bill Pierce
Well-known
I recently got asked, “What are you using as a backup at this point?* Which external HD, and/or a cloud backup?”
I don’t use any cloud services as a back up. All the ones I have played with were too slow when it came to loading a large number of high megapixel images. Nor, after making the first cut, do I store images on my computer’s hard drive. There are just too many of them. Instead I use a large RAID system, in essence a super large, auxiliary hard disc with built-in backup plugged into the computer. But I could use any large auxiliary hard disc or discs to store my images.
The problem is that all hard discs can fail, and, if they do, there goes a lifetime of memories and jobs.. So, I make a second back up on another set of hard discs. Weibetech makes a device called the Ultradock that allows you to connect to a “naked” hard disc, no casing, no lights, no switches, just the disc mechanism that usually goes into a shell with those lights and switches. This keeps the price down on the second back up.
Is this enough? No. The wonderful thing about digital as compared to film is that a copy of a digital file can be identical to the original file. So, I have another complete back up of all my work, digital camera files and scans of film negatives and transparencies, sitting at a friend’s house just in case my house burns down. And would you believe - that huge amount of storage takes up a tiny amount of space compared to the closet of film negatives and slides accumulated before I went digital.
Any thoughts?
I don’t use any cloud services as a back up. All the ones I have played with were too slow when it came to loading a large number of high megapixel images. Nor, after making the first cut, do I store images on my computer’s hard drive. There are just too many of them. Instead I use a large RAID system, in essence a super large, auxiliary hard disc with built-in backup plugged into the computer. But I could use any large auxiliary hard disc or discs to store my images.
The problem is that all hard discs can fail, and, if they do, there goes a lifetime of memories and jobs.. So, I make a second back up on another set of hard discs. Weibetech makes a device called the Ultradock that allows you to connect to a “naked” hard disc, no casing, no lights, no switches, just the disc mechanism that usually goes into a shell with those lights and switches. This keeps the price down on the second back up.
Is this enough? No. The wonderful thing about digital as compared to film is that a copy of a digital file can be identical to the original file. So, I have another complete back up of all my work, digital camera files and scans of film negatives and transparencies, sitting at a friend’s house just in case my house burns down. And would you believe - that huge amount of storage takes up a tiny amount of space compared to the closet of film negatives and slides accumulated before I went digital.
Any thoughts?
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Two redundant time machine backups, plus backblaze, for me.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm not into money making with photography. Family pictures are stored digitally on different hard drives and on the flash cards. And as printable JPEG1 online as well. I'm trying to arrange home video same way as well.
Storing film and not be able to print it same way is fun. I don't have to support my name by reprinting the same as the same. This is dead end for photography to me.
Storing film and not be able to print it same way is fun. I don't have to support my name by reprinting the same as the same. This is dead end for photography to me.
kxl
Social Documentary
1) Redundant hard drives - all image files, including raw
2) Unlimited storage with my website's ISP - all image files, except raw (extra cost)
3) Amazon cloud - all image files, including raw
2) Unlimited storage with my website's ISP - all image files, except raw (extra cost)
3) Amazon cloud - all image files, including raw
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Redundant hard drives. One in safety deposit box. One with in-laws. One off-line at home. The cloud? Don't make me laugh. I tried signing up for one nationally recognized service and the upload alone took over a year. In fact, I cleared that year's images off my computer's primary drive before the backup cycle was complete. That's country DSL for ya.
michaelwj
----------------
1) A physical print.
2) The negative.
Distant 3) A single time machine backup - but more for other documents (1 and 2 cover my photos)
Photography is not a money maker for me. It is loads of fun.
2) The negative.
Distant 3) A single time machine backup - but more for other documents (1 and 2 cover my photos)
Photography is not a money maker for me. It is loads of fun.
Contarama
Well-known
In addition to hard drives, disc, thumb drives, flickr, etc I upload a bunch to a personal server. Ask me to find a certain picture...lol :bang:
stompyq
Well-known
kxl
Social Documentary
I actually only considered it after hearing about it from someone here on RFF. It is convenient and lets me keep my local folder organization. Also, at $11.99 per year (after the free trial), it's not that expensive. It's certainly worth the money for me. I upload ALL images in a variety of recognized image formats (RAW (NEF, ARW), DNG, TIF, JPEG) and even various versions of the same image (color, B&W, etc...). Amazon Cloud does not recognize all RAW files. YOu may want to check first or if your RAW file is not supported, you can always convert it to DNG.
Note that I do have FIOS connectivity at home, so uploading/downloading speeds are pretty fast.
If nothing else, I would recommend signing up for the free trial to see if it works for you.
stompyq
Well-known
johnf04
Well-known
It's worth considering the threat of ransomware, when you back up. Make sure at least one of your backups is offline. I use a USB connected external drive for mine.
Lss
Well-known
RAID is not a backup. It provides security against a disk failure (or even several), but it is still a single point of failure itself. You use RAID for convenience, reliability, capacity and/or speed.
Considering the above, this is actually your first backup not second.
There is no single solution that works for everyone. But everyone should take some time to think about what they would not like to lose and what risks there are. What most people should have as bare minimum is a full backup with frequent incremental backups. Consider having at least an onsite and offsite backup. For offsite backups the update frequency can be a problem for practical reasons. My offsite backups are on average two-three weeks behind. It's a risk level I am comfortable with, not a guidance.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
That print is important. Nobody sees pictures when they look at a hard disc or a negative. Prints are imperative. I should have made that clear. I can't make prints without negatives or digital files. That's why the negatives and digital files are important. Making sure that the best of those are used to generate prints is more important.
zauhar
Veteran
A second vote to not rely on RAIDs for data integrity. I have had a RAID controller go bad not once but TWICE in the last couple years, and data was corrupted across the mirrored disks. Better to go with multiple conventional backups. Carbon Copy Cloner is a great tool for this if you use OS X.
willie_901
Veteran
I have critical photography data on four seperate HDs.
I am slowly transferring all my images to Amazon Prime photos. This service provides unlimited JPEG, DNG, TIFF and raw storage. Although free raw file storage is limited to a sub-set of brands. As Bill mentions uploading the files is a slow process. The Amazon user interface for OS X is clunky at best. And disaster recovery would be slow as well.
The alternative disaster recover strategy is sneaker net. This involves odd-site back up HDs at a friend/family member's home or a safety deposit box
I am slowly transferring all my images to Amazon Prime photos. This service provides unlimited JPEG, DNG, TIFF and raw storage. Although free raw file storage is limited to a sub-set of brands. As Bill mentions uploading the files is a slow process. The Amazon user interface for OS X is clunky at best. And disaster recovery would be slow as well.
The alternative disaster recover strategy is sneaker net. This involves odd-site back up HDs at a friend/family member's home or a safety deposit box
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
This is useful information! I did not realize that the whole RAID unit could conk out and leave you with nothing.
Question: What is the highest reliability backup drive out there?
BillBingham2
Registered User
One of the things to think about is a Fr. McMurray or Lac-Mégantic issue at your home or office. Doesn't need to be an entire city or a block, could just a house or a floor.
I used to have CDs as stored at my Father-In-Law's house but as they moved I am moving to a cloud solution. It's going to have to happen over a couple of three or five months to get up to date as my upload volume is not as big as my download. Perhaps I can convince my sons to help when they are at school (uploading on a broader pipe).
Keep in mind everyone that backup drive is just 1/2 of the issue, you need to recover them afterward too! I've got 8" diskettes that were backup at one time, now they take up space. Used to have several different tape formats but they are all gone, they took up too much space. Test your recovery plan to make sure you stuff is backed up.
B2 (;->
I used to have CDs as stored at my Father-In-Law's house but as they moved I am moving to a cloud solution. It's going to have to happen over a couple of three or five months to get up to date as my upload volume is not as big as my download. Perhaps I can convince my sons to help when they are at school (uploading on a broader pipe).
Keep in mind everyone that backup drive is just 1/2 of the issue, you need to recover them afterward too! I've got 8" diskettes that were backup at one time, now they take up space. Used to have several different tape formats but they are all gone, they took up too much space. Test your recovery plan to make sure you stuff is backed up.
B2 (;->
giganova
Well-known
No, they will fail!
A single backup at the same location as your computer is not enough. You still have a single-point failure if your house gets burglarized, there is a small fire in your office, etc. That's why you need at least another backup at a remote location (or in the cloud, if you trust cloud storage).
greyelm
Malcolm
I have no commercial images but I do have many personal digital images which I don't want to lose. Hard drives are cheap and there are plenty of cloud solutions. So I have several layers of back up.
1. I have the Mac OSX Time Machine backup.
2. I have a Carbonite cloud account that runs in the background and uploads new and changed files from designated folders
3. I have a daily bootable backup clone of my master hard-drive onto a second hard-drive. This was very useful when my boot disc threw a hissy fit, I just booted from the copy and cloned the copy onto the original boot disk.
4. Although not intended as a backup solution I do have images stored on Photobucket as an intermediary for posting on forums.
Overkill? Maybe, but when the pixels hit the fan I'll be glad I have options.
1. I have the Mac OSX Time Machine backup.
2. I have a Carbonite cloud account that runs in the background and uploads new and changed files from designated folders
3. I have a daily bootable backup clone of my master hard-drive onto a second hard-drive. This was very useful when my boot disc threw a hissy fit, I just booted from the copy and cloned the copy onto the original boot disk.
4. Although not intended as a backup solution I do have images stored on Photobucket as an intermediary for posting on forums.
Overkill? Maybe, but when the pixels hit the fan I'll be glad I have options.
willie_901
Veteran
greyelm
Not overkill.
Not overkill.