Bill Pierce
Well-known
In this digital age a lot of folks are worried about how to store their images. In some ways, it’s a different world from film. In others, it’s not. Because digital storage devices can fail, multiple back ups are recommended. Files on your computer, files on a separate hard disc and files on a second hard disc stored off site seem the standard. None of my files stay on the computer’s hard drive for very long. Once they are edited, the raw files are moved to a RAID system a long with a file converted to DNG from each camera raw file. The same files are duplicated and stored on three other hard discs - two in the office and one off site. All of these discs also contain film scans in tiff form along with tiffs from the digital files that are used to make paper prints. Not only is this a bit much, but in some ways it’s pointless. Nobody looks at hard drives. They look at pictures.
Perhaps what we should be doing is making prints, paper prints independent of any digital storage device, hard drive, computer program, cloud, web site or what have you that can change, disappear or fail. To be honest, as many hard discs as I have in my office, I have many more boxes of prints.
Your thoughts?
Perhaps what we should be doing is making prints, paper prints independent of any digital storage device, hard drive, computer program, cloud, web site or what have you that can change, disappear or fail. To be honest, as many hard discs as I have in my office, I have many more boxes of prints.
Your thoughts?
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
For the same back up redundancy you will need three sets of prints and if you intend to archive the same number of images you are going to eat up a lot of: paper, ink and time.
Isn't it the case with digital you back up all but the really bad ones because its so easy, but with prints you only print and save the real keepers? Trouble is that is keepers at that time, we all know how the second or third line line can, over time, increase in importance for reasons we cannot foresee.
My boxes of negatives, carefully, mostly, indexed continues to grow untroubled by any RAID, I know pros. who spend more on storage discs than cameras or lenses in a year, and they spend heavily on those. Like the paperless office the digital photo archive promise seems to always be in the cloud, intended reference!!
Isn't it the case with digital you back up all but the really bad ones because its so easy, but with prints you only print and save the real keepers? Trouble is that is keepers at that time, we all know how the second or third line line can, over time, increase in importance for reasons we cannot foresee.
My boxes of negatives, carefully, mostly, indexed continues to grow untroubled by any RAID, I know pros. who spend more on storage discs than cameras or lenses in a year, and they spend heavily on those. Like the paperless office the digital photo archive promise seems to always be in the cloud, intended reference!!
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
I use 'my' company's IT structure (I run it; RAID5 -> onsite backup -> offsite backup) for backups of my files, plus my fileserver at home (RAID1) plus week-daily Time Machine backups of my Macbook to an external drive.
Since I'm purely an amateur photographer, you could call this overkill or me paranoid. But this whole stuff is easy and cheap for me, so why not better be safe than sorry?
Since I'm purely an amateur photographer, you could call this overkill or me paranoid. But this whole stuff is easy and cheap for me, so why not better be safe than sorry?
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Actually, I make a set of 4 prints, unless I'm making a larger run. Since I don't print a picture unless I like it, the work load is not too heavy. One set is for me. If they are of family or friends, they get a set. Most of the other prints get sorted into categories and shown, successfully or unsuccessfully, to galleries, museums, e.t.c..
The problem with any kind of digital storage is that you see a hard drive, memory stick, CD or DVD, not a picture. And, in the end, your website will disappear when you do and you stop paying the bill. One nice thing about prints is that they last longer than you do.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Indeed I suspect those left would find it easier to toss out the negatives than a box of prints, what will they make of the quaint RAID drive that they heard about in history class I wonder, about as much as I do of those 51/4 floppies I still have from my Apple IIe. Not turning this into analog v digital because digital can always, hopefully, be transferred to the latest technology, it is entirely my fault my floppies and ZIP drives are redundant and not transferred which I could have done with little effort. No images on them
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Indeed I suspect those left would find it easier to toss out the negatives than a box of prints, what will they make of the quaint RAID drive that they heard about in history class I wonder, about as much as I do of those 51/4 floppies I still have from my Apple IIe. little effort. No images on them
You have an Apple IIe too? I have one, and it still works! I do need a fresh ink cartridge for the Epson FX-85 dot matrix printer. They looked at my funny when I asked for one at Office Depot. I wonder why?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
For digital storage, I keep it simple: one working set and two backups. That's it. If they all went poof at once (very, very, very unlikely), then whatever I printed is the remains I'm left with. And I just keep going from there.
I make at least one nice print, 9x12" I size, of every image I finish and store it properly. That's my true archive record of real work. Then, of course, there are the hundreds of Polaroids and small prints in albums as supplemental material.
Most negatives I shred after scanning. No need to file and save them, the digital files are enough. I do scan them all, not just the 'keepers'.
Simple, easy.
G
I make at least one nice print, 9x12" I size, of every image I finish and store it properly. That's my true archive record of real work. Then, of course, there are the hundreds of Polaroids and small prints in albums as supplemental material.
Most negatives I shred after scanning. No need to file and save them, the digital files are enough. I do scan them all, not just the 'keepers'.
Simple, easy.
G
Richard G
Veteran
You have an Apple IIe too? I have one, and it still works! I do need a fresh ink cartridge for the Epson FX-85 dot matrix printer. They looked at my funny when I asked for one at Office Depot. I wonder why?
It's only the strongest of compositions that comes through with any punch in a dot matrix print.
Corran
Well-known
Holy crap, that's nuts! Just move on and shoot digital, sheesh.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I like your idea of making prints Bill, my problem is I'm a really slow printer and getting prints to look decent takes me many tries. I'm so busy shooting right now that I don't find time for printing. But I do hate all the redundant hard drives and disks I currently have, and in a big catastrophe (like fire or flood), or severe power surge possibly, they could still be all wiped out. My negatives just seem so much more secure to me.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
Current thinking is that every hard drive will fail, at some point. That said, if you don't store film well, it can be ruined by adverse climactic conditions. I shoot mostly film, so I store the negs as well as I can, scan them and save a copy to the cloud. I'm not paranoid but I hope I have a few years left and I don't want to lose hard copies of the places I've been, the people I've met and the things I've seen.
So long as there are options to convert digital formats and re-save, I can't get too excited about this. Again, hopefully, the film niche will prevail and my negatives will be printable long after I've shuffled off this mortal coil and, frankly, beyond that, I couldn't care less.
So long as there are options to convert digital formats and re-save, I can't get too excited about this. Again, hopefully, the film niche will prevail and my negatives will be printable long after I've shuffled off this mortal coil and, frankly, beyond that, I couldn't care less.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Prints is just one of the level of redundancy.
But most simple, pleasing and WYSIWYG comparing to disks.
But most simple, pleasing and WYSIWYG comparing to disks.
Pioneer
Veteran
The digital world has not lived up to its promise. Whether it is photographs or documents, businesses and individuals must engage in multiple back ups to ensure retrieval.
The "paperless" world is a myth. Companies are buying more and more reams of paper for their high priced copiers now then ever happened in the past. Why, because it is extremely easy to create something, and blasted hard to find it in the future.
The simplest and most reliable method of ensuring that you have it when you need it is to print it or copy it and then store it as hard copies. Obviously ensuring your prints are archival is a bit trickier than ensuring your documents are archival.
Digital is fun, it is convenient, it is faster to do things like sort or edit, but it is very unstable and volatile. The hardest thing to accept is that it seems so real when you see it on your screen, but it is only a collection of zeros and ones that have been stored on non-archival memory and retrieved by a specific program (another creation of zeros and ones) that recognizes the order of those digits and knows how to re-order them to show something on your monitor. In an effort to mimic archival storage we employ redundancy on a series of non-archival storage memory units.
Whereas nothing truly lasts forever, not even the pyramids, digital almost doesn't stand a chance without a huge support framework. Companies used to employ clerks and secretaries but now employ large cadres of digital technicians. Anyone could figure out what a clerk or typist were doing, though they were undoubtedly much faster. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the digital technician.
I really am not anti-digital. There are a number of conveniences that I do enjoy. I just think that we are trying to make digital do something it is not really capable of.
The "paperless" world is a myth. Companies are buying more and more reams of paper for their high priced copiers now then ever happened in the past. Why, because it is extremely easy to create something, and blasted hard to find it in the future.
The simplest and most reliable method of ensuring that you have it when you need it is to print it or copy it and then store it as hard copies. Obviously ensuring your prints are archival is a bit trickier than ensuring your documents are archival.
Digital is fun, it is convenient, it is faster to do things like sort or edit, but it is very unstable and volatile. The hardest thing to accept is that it seems so real when you see it on your screen, but it is only a collection of zeros and ones that have been stored on non-archival memory and retrieved by a specific program (another creation of zeros and ones) that recognizes the order of those digits and knows how to re-order them to show something on your monitor. In an effort to mimic archival storage we employ redundancy on a series of non-archival storage memory units.
Whereas nothing truly lasts forever, not even the pyramids, digital almost doesn't stand a chance without a huge support framework. Companies used to employ clerks and secretaries but now employ large cadres of digital technicians. Anyone could figure out what a clerk or typist were doing, though they were undoubtedly much faster. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the digital technician.
I really am not anti-digital. There are a number of conveniences that I do enjoy. I just think that we are trying to make digital do something it is not really capable of.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Kodak Lives
Kodak Lives
Because the movie industry does not trust digital.
I keep a closet of old computers to retrieve my digital going back to 1995. I try to shoot at least 50% film. I believe my work will be appreciated after I am gone. Those following me can piss on my grave. I want the most yellow stained head stone in the cemetery.
Kodak Lives
Because the movie industry does not trust digital.
I keep a closet of old computers to retrieve my digital going back to 1995. I try to shoot at least 50% film. I believe my work will be appreciated after I am gone. Those following me can piss on my grave. I want the most yellow stained head stone in the cemetery.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
You have an Apple IIe too? I have one, and it still works! I do need a fresh ink cartridge for the Epson FX-85 dot matrix printer. They looked at my funny when I asked for one at Office Depot. I wonder why?
We have a validated clinical legacy program at work that would cost a fortune to re-write in the fancy new OS so we to use a dot matrix. IT expressed a desire to move on as we wouldn't be able to support it. On enquiry the market for dot matrix is small but strong, (do I feel a film analogy coming on?) apparently supported by the nuclear industry. Their critical programs were written and validated on commissioning and our stations are now largely very old, relatively, the risk of re-writing and bugs getting inis not worth it, so like us they run legacy and dot matrix, not saying they run the stations on a IIe though
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
No different in medicine or communications. Dot matrix printers still are the medium of choice for critical logging and recording purposes. They can be fed perforated endless paper (with a much higher reliability than single sheet feeders) and will deliver a mechanical imprint in the paper even if the ink tape tears or runs dry. And when fed with endless paper stacks they are relatively secure against manipulation by removing or substituting individual sheets - anybody who wants to alter the records would have to create a fake duplicate of the entire stack or roll.
willie_901
Veteran
The RAID drive's quaintness is totally irrelevant if the files are transferred to whatever the new digital storage system turns out to be.
I have archived files that started out on floppies; were transferred to CDs; then transferred again to mechanical HDs. No doubt perfect copies could be created again and again (especially with backed up data).
Obviously if we are unable to execute these transfers the data eventually evaporates into nothingness. This really isn't any different for prints... or even books of prints.
My view is the more I'm motivated for other people to view the work, the more I'm motivated to print.
willie_901
Veteran
Apple II computers are collectable. They will likely increase in value.
willie_901
Veteran
More data is stored and archived with digital media that paper media. Digital storage risks and costs are significantly lower than with paper... especially the inexpensive copy papers with high acid content.
Corporations store data on magnetic tapes stored in salt mines. There's billions of dollars at stake in terms of intellectual property rights (patent defense), and regulatory compliance. None of this is done using paper. Full and incremental backups are copied to tape and shipped to the mines on a regular basis.
Retrieval depends on investing in robust, flexible relational database technologies. The ability to retrieve paper documents is no different. Retrieval for both media require investments in time and money to design and redesign competent retrieval systems.
Corporations store data on magnetic tapes stored in salt mines. There's billions of dollars at stake in terms of intellectual property rights (patent defense), and regulatory compliance. None of this is done using paper. Full and incremental backups are copied to tape and shipped to the mines on a regular basis.
Retrieval depends on investing in robust, flexible relational database technologies. The ability to retrieve paper documents is no different. Retrieval for both media require investments in time and money to design and redesign competent retrieval systems.