Scandalous, unjustified...

[Bill Pierce]

Photographic prints aren’t forever permanent. Properly fixed and washed silver prints come close. Black and white inkjet do well, but do their best when the prints are in boxes in the dark, not on the wall. My guess is that carbon inks do best of all, but that’s something I haven’t had time to explore personally. What it comes down to is that prints last longer than images on a hard drive; so, whether it’s family snaps for future generations or the best of your photographic art, prints are a better long term solution to preserving images than hard discs whose information can decay and whose black box/no picture appearance tempts the uninformed to toss them in the trash.

That said, if you are a digital photographer or scan your film, you probably have a lot of stuff on hard discs. If the mechanical aspects of a hard disc don’t fail, I’ve been told image degradation to the magnetic signal is something that can start in 2 to 5 years. That’s a start, not complete annihilation, but, hey, that’s our pictures.

Fortunately, all that you have to do to preserve those images is every 2 to 5 years copy them to another disc and, if you wish, erase the original disc and copy the images back on to the original. I prefer that because two identical discs are protection against one failing mechanically.

It’s a gigantic pain. I’m copying one 4 terabyte disc that is a little over 75% full, and it’s going to take 10 hours. But I’ll be protected against disc failure and image decay. Besides, most of that 10 hours I’ll be asleep.

I think the point is this, everybody knows that to preserve your images long term - print. And to preserve your files - copy…

We know it, but do we do it? Your thoughts on archiving? Your protest at my scandalous and unjustified accusations of your failure to back up your images….

 

[kshapero]

I archive on the cloud.

 

[ABrosig]

Main storage used to be CD, then DVD. Now, have primary storage on a 3 TB external with automatic backup daily to a separate, 6TB external drive. Haven't burned to CD/DVD in a while. Last time I checked, the oldest disks are still readable, but that's been a while.

 

[Rob-F]

Is there any more or less degradation with a SSD solid state drive compared to a hard disk?

 

[Corran]

I’ve been told image degradation to the magnetic signal is something that can start in 2 to 5 years.

This is a myth that just won't die. Image files (JPEGs) don't just degrade over time for no reason. The "kernel of truth" here is that if you constantly open, save, close, and repeat, the JPEG image compression can over time degrade the image (highly dependent on compression ratio). But this would be as if you opened, saved, and closed the image over and over, hundreds or thousands of times, which never happens. Or at least, I don't think anyone does that! I also always use low compression rates and only save finished JPEGs - usually I keep raw .tif scan files, and RAW digital image files, for important images.

Now on the subject on degradation though, CDs and DVDs definitely do physically degrade and eventually become unusable. CDs and DVDs, even gold standard and *cough* "archival" *cough* disks are not really safe for long-term storage. Of course traditional spinning-disk HDDs have a limited lifespan too, mechanically.

Back several years ago I took some old computer parts and pieced together a server, with 10 TB of fresh enterprise-rated hard drives (now up to 16 TB). Periodic syncing with my "editing" drive, along with parity checks on the server, insure that my data is safe. Really important stuff is uploaded to the cloud - big client files and the like.

I use unRAID, a "JBOD" type server array with a parity drive system. Easy, effective, and inexpensive. No funky RAID system so each disk can still be pulled out and read individually, but is still protected from failure with up to 2 parity drives.

A devastating fire would wipe out my film scans (and the film and prints btw!) but that is a risk mitigated in other ways. Each person, dependent on their personal usage/clients/needs would need to piece together an archival system that works for them.

 

[farlymac]

I'll admit, I haven't been doing any backing up. Not that I haven't prepared for it though. Somewhere around here is a 500GB hard drive just waiting to be filled with the contents from my desktop before I decommission it. If I ever find it, that is.

PF

 

[aizan]

i just graduated from the library and information studies program at ucla. being a real dufus, i didn't take the digital preservation or the digital asset management classes when i had the chance (had other classes to do), so i just know the basics. i'll be writing a photographer's guide to digital archiving this year, though.

but your point is...on point. digital archiving is a drag on par with film scanning, but if you don't do it (and keep on doing it), your files are toast.

 

[charjohncarter]

I have family negatives which are generally kept in the dark that are 80 years old. I also have many drugstore prints (B&W) that are 70 years old that have held up. Again they are kept in the dark. So I don't worry are B&W negatives or B&W prints.

I do worry about color although the slides I have from before the war (WWII) are still fine; especially Kodak. Color prints seem to fade even if in the dark although less rapidly. I noticed Costco uses Fuji Archive Paper, I wonder if it is really archival.

I have also noticed that digitalized images that have been on Flickr are degrading if they are there more than 6 years. I don't know if that is a fact it is just a perception.

My go to mode right now is save my negatives and keep prints in the dark.

From 1948 Kodachrome, Santa Cruz, CA, taken by W.K. Amonette:

Kodachrome from 1948 by W.K. Amonette by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I checked couple of weeks ago, 6TB USB external HDD is under 200$. So, backup is not an issue anymore.
Two of these and you could even manage it as disaster recovery without paying for the cloud.

My film backup strategy? I send prints to those who likes them. 🙂

 

[kbb]

Is there any more or less degradation with a SSD solid state drive compared to a hard disk?

A few years ago. a friend of a friend ran into a Sandisk middle-level bigwig at a party. The Sandisk man said 20 years should be safe for flash memory. Better than a hard drive?

In general, I print. Inkjet. I have Epson pigment inkjet prints that were made in 2007. They have been taped up on the wall since then, in a place that gets directly bounced sunlight...in other words, very bright light. Those prints haven't faded...yet.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I don't worry about it too much. I keep a backup copy of my work on a portable hard drive, and I make prints of everything that is important to me. In addition my work is on my website. I am under no illusion that my work is going to end up in a museum, so as long as I have access to my work while I am around, and can pass on a few prints to friends and family, that's all that matters.

I think the idea that images on your hard drive decay over time is misinformed. I have word processing documents that date back to the 1980s. The words haven't faded, changed, or disappeared. Images are just ones and zeros too.

 

[al1966]

I am or have been told I am over obsessed with keeping back ups but I had 2 drives die at the same point and thankfully had a third.
First point I replace a hard drive with a larger one every year so prime library and back ups are on drives less than 2 years old. Other drives are moved down the chain with a load of older 2tb in an old machine as a third back up. Then there are 2 drives that are swapped over and taken to my dads every 4 wks or so, plus the back catalogues that are spun up on his machine at that time. Finally Amazon Prime offers unlimited photo backups on the prime plan thing if your not worried about video or music its great. I cancelled my Backblaze plan as the Amazon does not require a drive to be connected at all for the back up to remain. So there is all the images on the main PC a pair of USB drives with copies, one set on a server and another on a set off site then in the cloud, 5 in total. As an aside I have also scanned every photo as Tiff's and these are included in this set, if the house burns down we keep all of the images in one form or the other.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

I wish I had enough digital images of sufficient quality to warrant making an archive of them.

I look at a pile of archival card boxes with 200 ish negative sleeves in each which are "archived" and ponder their fate when I am not here, no, I don't ponder, I know their fate.

I also ponder the fate of the password protected cloud of digital images, who gets the password when .....
Perhaps, like Orson Welles, I shall mutter "Rosebud" at the last moment and the rush will be on to download the precious files, or not.

Commercially of course the archive assumes monumental importance and I suspect a high order of paranoia.

Indulge me a short anecdote: Back in early 1990s I won a small competition, not related to photography, the prize being a Psion3 organiser, now younger members may want to Google that now. The device is long deceased and were it not would be made obsolete by even my phone, the handbook/manual remains though on the library shelf. Print my friends print, preferably in a book.

 

[robert blu]

I make a regular back up on two different hard disks which I alternate: one week disk A, next week disk B, than A again, than B...
The disk not in use is stored in a different location in case anyone should steal computers and hard disks I loose only one week of my archive (and usually photos are still on the cards).

The main disk is now three years old and I'll copy the content to a new one keeping the old as additional back up disk (A,B,C)

More important to me is for each photo session to print some photos, maybe small, maybe only a couple but to print. And when a friend ask me for a photo I never give him a file: I give him a print!

robert

 

[johannielscom]

My images are on a 2Tb NAS drive with RAID set up.

I keep a single drive off-site (at my mom's) and it's cycled every 6 weeks.
Currently I don't do that much work anymore (burnout recedes, but earning a living being a call center agent now...) and once every 6 weeks suffices.

Got into this m.o. a long time ago, over a decade. Read enough horror stories from others who were reckless and lost large volumes of work...

 

[02Pilot]

I have an automatic backup that runs once a day. My drives are filling up (1TB each), so I need to get some larger ones and transition everything over. Offsite and/or cloud storage are a good idea, but I haven't convinced myself to go that far just yet.

 

[Dogman]

I use 4 portable hard drives that I update often along with an Apple Airport Time Machine for system backup. Over the years, I've had one Time Machine, one external hard drive and one portable hard drive (along with two Windows-based computer internal drives) crash and burn so I know no electronic device is totally safe or permanent. Therefore, I also make prints of important photos--8.5x11 pigment inkjets on high rag content paper as a standard. I keep these prints in Lineco archival boxes--dark storage.

In the future, I intend to look into SSDs for archiving. My Mac has an internal SSD drive so I guess I'm already doing that to some degree.

The weak link here is that all the hard drives, prints and the computer drive are located within about 3 feet of each other. All could be lost in the event of a house fire or natural disaster. And there's no guarantee any of this will not end up in a landfill once I'm dead and gone. No one in my family is interested in photography so such an outcome is ultimately possible no matter how much I try to protect my photos.

 

[gdi]

Bit rot...
https://arstechnica.com/information...-and-atomic-cows-inside-next-gen-filesystems/

 

[willie_901]

I buy new data storage when advances in technology become cost effective. This seems to occur every 3-4 years.

I suspect I will switch to SSD devices in the next cycle. I already use a 512 GB SSD drive harvested from a MacBook Air I killed with an iced-tea spill.

I recently purchased two, 3TB USB3 drives at the reasonable price of $33 per terabyte. These replaced two 2TB USB2 drives that were 4 years old.

The 3 TB units are quicker and use less energy. USB-C is even faster.

My strategy is to just buy new storage every 3-5 years. Half of the old drives are either archives (bit rot or not) and the other half are used as fresh back ups to the primary drives.

Main HD -------> Time Machine back up (hourly, weekly and monthly)

External Drive 1 - Raw Image Library plus a third copy of LR Catalog from main HD

External Drive 2 - back for External Drive 1

Some decommissioned drives are used as Time Machine archives (mainly for non-photography purposes). Others are used as occasional back ups for my main HD LR Library images and redundant backups of my un-rendered raw-file archives.

I am about to upgrade my internet performance in preparation for cable/dish cutting. Then the upload speed will make cloud storage practical. I use Amazon Prime which offers unlimited raw file cloud storage. Eventually my raw archive will end up there.

Where I am negligent is in sneaker-net, off-site storage. I have to get my act together and use physical off-site storage using old storage devices at a family members home.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I lost all my negatives, slides and nearly all of my prints - 40 years of images - when my place flooded in Superstorm Sandy.
Doubtless the same would have happened regardless of storage format.

Rather than feel sorry for myself instead I think of the priceless Jacque Lowe JFK photo archive lost in The World Trade Center attack on 9/11.

My images are important to me but not likely to anyone else once I'm gone.
There's no sense in obsessing about archiving them for posterity.

There is nothing permanent in our lives, photographic images included.
Don't forget to enjoy your photos today folks.

Chris