Travel storage/memory

Not sure if this is the right forum for this question, but it seems

as good as any. How do people manage to have enough memory for

trips, short of spending huge amounts of cash on much more memory

than they will use on a regular basis? Do you find places to back up

to CD/DVD?

 

I'm shooting with a D50 and currently have a 1G and 512 M card, which

suits me for typical use, weekend trips. But I'm planning a trip to

Hawaii this summer, and will clearly need much more than this.

 

Just curious how people deal with this, any pointers would be

appreciated.

I think either lots of memory cards ($$$$) or a portable storage device (PSD, less $). I'd suggest reading through the dpreview.com Memory&Storage forum for lots of ideas on this.

 

I recently bought a HyperdriveHD80 PSD for travel with digital, which has a 60GB hard drive and can read all types of cards. The batteries last a really long time.

 

That's only one copy, though, so if you were nervous you'd need another device for making two copies. For me, I'll trust the one...it's what I do with film when I travel.

There is currently no truly satisfactory solution to this problem.

 

The simplest and most compact solution is to buy enough memory cards for your entire trip. If you're Bill Gates that should be no problem, but most ordinary corporate serfs would probably find it too expensive.

 

The "professional" solution is a laptop computer with a DVD burner. You can upload the image files to the computer, save copies to DVD, and possibly even Photoshop the images at night (especially if you're traveling solo and have nothing else to do). But assuming you already have the laptop, do you really want to shlep it on a Hawaiian vacation?

 

If you haven't got a laptop, there are two kinds of stand-alone solutions. The first is a portable DVD burner. Plug the memory card into the burner, insert a DVD or CD, and press the button. This might be the safest solution, particularly if you make two copies each time. But these devices tend to be bulky and heavy, as do the disks (but you could FedEx one set of disks home as insurance).

 

The second solution is a portable hard drive device. Those come in two flavors. The cheap kind are "plug and pray." Plug in the memory card, press a button, and pray that it uploaded correctly, since you can't know that until you get home and transfer the files to your computer. The expensive kind have a video display that lets you look at the files so you can have at least some assurance they're intact. Both types are small enough to fit in a camera bag, which can be an important consideration if you're flying. Both types use hard disks, which are mechanical devices prone to failure at inconvenient times.

 

Faced with this problem, I chose the SmartDisk Flashtrax. It's a portable hard drive with a video display that also includes a verify function that does a byte-by-byte comparison of each uploaded file with the memory card. I try to mitigate the risk of hard disk failure by using it only when it's firmly on a solid surface (a hard disk can take quite a bit of jostling when it's powered down, but it's much more vulnerable when it's running). It's an adequate solution that's far from optimal. Copying and verifying memory cards is excruciatingly slow and the user interface is cryptic and quirky. The battery is underpowered and short-lived, though that's not a problem for me because I use it only with the AC adapter. But it works well enough to handle the daily gigabytes of raw files I shoot while traveling, and it fits in my small camera bag.

 

It's all up to you to decide how much you're willing to risk (with a portable hard drive) or how much you're willing to shlep (with a laptop or DVD burner). That's the tradeoff you'll have to make.

Dear Eric,

 

Well, that's one reason why I use film. For example, my wife and I shot over 3000 pictures on a recent trip to China (October '05) then another few hundred in Spain in December '05. Take a look at www.rogerandfrances.com.

 

One of my readers (see also my weekly column in AP) recited a horror story of paying to have his cards written to CD while in Beijing, then getting home and finding nothing there. Moral: get two CDs/DVDs written, and check them before you reformat your cards. Or use film.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

<P>I use a Vosonic Xs drive II - one of the things Ted describes as a "plug and pray". I take elementary precautions like keeping it still while it's uploading, and it has not yet let me down. It's only a hard disk in there after all, and how often does your computer hard disk screw up?</P><P>Any form of data storage - including film - is to some extent vulnerable, so just choose one that's within your budget and go with it. The worst that can happen is you lose some pictures.</P>

I have been struggling with this problem and won't go all digital until I have a good solution. I just got an Epson P-2000 storage vault to unload my 2 memory cards. The screen is large enough to review photos, and the interface is easy to use. We are going on a week-long trip next month, we'll see how it works out...

I am also facing the same quandry; I have one 1g CF card for my 20d which won't cut it for a month long vacation. I don't want to schlep my laptop like I did last time. Since I don't have an Ipod like mp3 player yet, I am leaning towards getting one of the media players like the Arcos 500 or whatever. With 40G, you can kill several birds with one stone (mp3 player, video, storage, photo viewing and storage...)

I think a lot depends upon how long a typical vacation or trip is likely to last and how much

you might typically shoot. With the falling cost of CF cards, I'm not entirely convinced of the

merits of the hard drive based storage devices. At today's prices you can get at least 10 gigs

of fast CF memory (e.g. SanDisk Ultra II) for the price of one of the better storage devices. I

know that I prefer having images spread over multiple flash-memory based CF cards than

having everything stored on a more vulnerable hard disk based device.

I've heard very good reviews of the Hyperdrive from several photo professionals

http://hyperdrive.com/shop/index.php

My solution has been lots of memory cards (I shoot .jpg, so I get a bit more space 400/Gb)

I use my iPod with the Belkin Media Reader. Does SD, CF, and even Memory Stick.

 

http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Merchant_Id=&Section_Id=201526&pcount=&Product_Id=158350

A positive aspect of limited storage recently dawned on me: I took the habit of deleting shots which were compositionally (the only think I can really judge on the LCD) not so interesting when reviewed a few hours/days after I took them. It's amazing how much card you can free! Think of it, do you shot much more with digital than you used to with film? Has the total number of keepers/day gone up of the same factor? For me, it has not.

 

I sometimes use a "plug and pray" (hey, great joke, I'm stealing it for sure!) hard disk with an usb cable which goes straight into camera and triggers the download with a button. It can be solar-charged by a 12V adapter, what I needed once. Some sorts of built-in checks are anyhow present and it never failed. Usually, I might do the operation twice and -before deleting the card- try to connect it to a internet-cafe or whichever friend/hotel/shop PC to check pictures are really on the disk.

An interesting rider here from a recent report in The British Journal of Photography by the founder of Travel Photographer of the Year:

 

"Strikingly, virtually all of this year's winning pictures were taken on film"

 

and later "and 'autofocus composition', with the subject centrally placed, seems to be particularly prevalent with digitally recorded images"

 

BJP is hardly a film ghetto -- Steve Hynes is one of the best reviewers of digital there is, and he's in the same issue -- but the first quote, in particular, does rather argue 'horses for courses'.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Thanks everyone for your input. I didn't really want to start a 'film vs digital' discussion (hard to avoid though, aren't they?) I've plenty of experience with film, and find that if I have the time and my main focus is photography and I'm not rushed I get better pictures with film but that if I don't have the time to really focus on photos my end results are better with the digital. That tends to be the way I travel these days.

 

Turns out I found an ipod photo 20G for sale with a photo attachment for $250 canadian today and am thinking about going that way.

The term "plug and pray" is not original to me. It dates from the early days of Windows 95, which featured an immature version of "plug and play" for perhipherals that all too often didn't deliver on its promise.

 

The lower-cost hard drive devices are probably quite reliable, since the technology is mature. I just like to have a bit more visible confirmation that the files transferred correctly. But even that can be false security. My Flashtrax can display only the embedded JPEG portion of my raw files, so a file could be corrupt even if it appears to display correctly. The byte-by-byte verify feature provides more assurance even though it means the slow copying of files takes twice as long.

 

Eventually I think having lots of memory cards will be the best solution, if only because it's the most compact. But the price of the cards doesn't seem to be in any hurry to drop, even though the capacity keeps increasing (though at a hefty price). I just looked at the B&H advert in the February Pop Photo; the price of the memory cards I bought last April hasn't changed at all.

Eric -- BEFORE YOU BUY THAT iPOD.

 

You need to check how old it is (pretty old I suppose) and how it's BATTERY LIFE is. The iPods basically lose battery capacity (well, ALL rechargeable devices on the market really) after about 3 years. And you need it to be charged up for the Belkin reader to work (you can't separately plug in power DURING a memory card read; at least I haven't come across a device that enables that).

 

Having said that you can get the iPod battery replaced at some shops (not Apple authorized but then it's an old thing anyway and out of warranty). I don't know the cost; I just know it is possible. My 40 GB iPod is not yet at the stage where I need to replace its battery. I actually don't listen to music that much on it and it is really primarily my photo storage solution.

 

The Belkin reader is a bit expensive up front but has lasted me two years now and on my last trip saved me buying 25 GB worth of SD cards (including some simple video I shot with the digital camera), plus I could listen to tunes on the airplane/bus.

 

Good luck! Note that the iPod NANO does NOT work with the Belkin reader (again, at least not at the time of this writing) but any of the other larger iPods works (3rd generation or later I believe).

Further to the memory card topic, I actually don't think having lots of memory cards is very efficient or economical. I would suggest saving money and buying ONE (or two) very large cards such as a 1 GB or 2 GB card, and then have the iPod + Belkin reader solution. This is better than having a bunch of 256 or 512 cards. You can probably keep shooting all day on a 1 or 2 GB card, and load in the photos at night in the hotel/hostel. Otherwise you end up swapping cards in the middle of the day; which is a minor hassle and anyway is not economically smart in the very long run. Card prices are falling so save your money for next year or later this year when you get a larger card for the same money. Meanwhile just keep using the hard disk storage.

I just thought of another reason not to spend too much on the cards themselves: You might get stuck with a NEW card format in a new device you buy next year! I pity my friends who invested hundreds of dollars in Memory Sticks, only to buy a new camera that uses SD cards (which is probably the more popular standard anyway). CF remains popular and is probably the cheapest for megs-per-dollar and still the fastest I think, although SD is catching up very quickly. (The Belkin (or any other hard disk) solution lets me bear with the lousy 16 MB Memory Stick PRO DUO card that came with my Sony camcorder since I don't intend to buy any Memory Sticks and besides I would rather shoot photos with a proper camera -- for me that's actually slide film, although I also use a digital P&S with SD cards for all-round snapshots).

<i>Well, that's one reason why I use film. For example, my wife and I shot over 3000 pictures on a recent trip to China (October '05) then another few hundred in Spain in December '05.</i><P>

A hundred rolls of film takes up a lot more space and costs more than two of the HyperDrive digital storage units (in case you wanted to copy all of your files twice before reformatting the memory cards). I'm not knocking film, but if you're shooting tons of photos, even redundant backup/storage of digital costs less and is much more compact.

Shooting hundreds of shots of film is a lot of money for film and processing, so the route I take now is to shoot film ONLY for the carefully composed shots I want to enjoy myself, or hang on the wall, and for everything else I shoot digital on the P&S. So I end up with maybe 10 to 20 rolls of film and several gigs of digital.

Dear Mike,

 

Entirely a fair point. But then the risk is spread across 100 units that are nothing like as prone to losing ALL pictures if dropped. One can argue this one both ways forever, and I've nothing against those who choose the other route. I just thought it was worth putting in that point of view.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Dear Angus,

 

I can't quite see your argument. Sure, I carry a happy-snap camera too, but if I shoot 100 happy-snaps on a trip, that's a lot. I also use digital on some trips (if weight isn't a problem after I've packed the film cameras and, yes, lots of film) but only for pics I am reasonably confident won't be run bigger than half page at the outside. But the vast majority of my pics ARE ones of which I have high hopes (which I admit are not always met).

 

I say this not be contrary (which I sometimes do -- hey, I get paid for it) but simply to ask for clarification of how you know in advance which pics are going to be your best. I want my 'best' camera (MP) always available, even if it means shooting a few happy-snaps on it; only if I have time and can be bothered do I get out the film happy-snap or the digi.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Depends on what you're shooting, doesn't it? If its a landscape, its not going anywhere, so you take that one or two shots that really nail the detail that you want.<br><br>

 

On the other hand, if its the well rounded travel experience you want to capture, its important to get a human element in the frame. And since these are shot as they enter or otherwise pass through the frame, I tend to fire away several exposures in their passing, in order to get the best placement / posture - its not uncommon for me to exhaust 2Gb per day when on assignment.<br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.nevillebulsara.com">Neville Bulsara</a><br>Travel and documentary photography

Dear Neville,

 

Fair enough. Any further debate would go too far into silver/digital.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Hi Roger -- sorry, a bit confused over your question which could be a result of my own post so, let me try to unravel whatever we are trying to unravel here ;-)

 

To clarify, I carry a DIGITAL P&S which I use for shots that I don't really care to care about. So, I would shoot my friends making funny faces at me or an interesting trash can. Yes these could turn out to be very nice photos but the likelihood is low and IF I did want a print from them (again, not likely) then the 4 megapixel on my Ixus 400 could do a "fair" job. Hundreds of shots would be in this category.

 

For the shots that I do care about, these would be shot with my FILM kit which is likely going to be my M42 kit (Voigtlander Bessaflex TM with a variety of Cosina and Takumar M42 lenses) or one of my other film kits (e.g. Nikon F-801 or even my Leica Minilux film P&S). For these types of shots, I would probably use a tripod, the correct focal length (wide for landscape, 100mm for portrait or detail, etc.) and likely take a few minutes figuring out the shots. I would also 99% of the time shoot SLIDE film. I reckon I will have around 300 such shots for a trip of a week (but of course this varies depending on where I go and how many attractions I visit). I would take more time to compose and figure out the exposure so I can minimize on film shots.

 

The key issue for me is COST which is to minimize my film development (in other words, increase the percentage of "keepers" in my film batch).

 

If cost and transport and scanning effort were not issues I would shoot ALL film and only film.

 

See my other thread on this:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EjCi&tag=

 

As for your question on "how you know in advance which pics are going to be your best" you're right, I don't. But see above my rationale on what I reckon COULD be keepers.

 

The judgement call mostly for me is "do I want to invest a dollar or two for this shot?" (i.e., film cost, P&D cost, etc. and time/effort cost in approximate financial terms).

 

Cheers,

Angus

Roger -- After perusing your Website I now understand where you're coming from; I completely agree with your stance on film. So, there's no argument from me on that. Apologies for not being familiar with your work but I remain a newcomer to the photography scene (although I have early childhood memories of the Kodak 110 cartridge and the funky "flash cube"; I was always amazed how much the used cubes resembled ice.)

 

My own analogy to the film/digital is <A HREF="http://www.atpm.com/11.07/segments-hit.shtml">Macintosh/Windows</A> for the same argument that if there wasn't something very special about film/Mac why would anyone bother at all and go against the grain (no pun intended!). Anyway, as you rightly indicate on your Website, to each his own and for those who have chosen to explore the nuances of film it's great you are providing a route. (I just might be anting up some funds for your modules soon too!)

 

Cheers,

Angus