How do we store pictures files now?

[sven keil]

<p>All backup strategies are based on <em>(i)</em> increasing redundancy (to have several copies of the same data) and <em>(ii) </em> minimizing the risk of storage failure (use different medias, brands...). Obviously, these two quantities might not be always entirely independent.<br>

0. Keep at least <em>three security copies</em> . Make sure that these copies are located at <em>different places</em> most of the time (fire can destroy all at once if they were in the same place). In this respect online backup is a good idea, except if the server is hosted by your neighbor.<br>

1. If you use DVDs make sure that they were tested regarding <em>archival quality</em> . I remember there were re-recordables from Verbatim and once-recordables from Sony which revealed excellent long-term storage behaviour (I have about 200 - no issues after nearly 10 years). Anyway, store them under constant & friendly conditions (dry, 15-20 degrees celsius or so, and away from light sources). And have as many copies as possible on different brands.<br>

2. One of the safest options considered today are flash drives. This means that you use these guys only once: for saving your photos, that's it. Avoid writing operations afterwards. You will end up with a lot of them, but if you loose one then you still might have the others.<br>

3. External hard drives are ok if you have used them before to make sure that they have no damaged sectors. Never buy and trust it. First test it. Updating your copies is not sufficient all the time. Once in a while, erase your copies from one drive and copy everthing new to it (so that magentization is renewed). For this reason, you need at least THREE independent HDDs. Never use harddrives in your computer/laptop as a definitive backup option - they are too prone to external "attacks" (virus, accidental erasing, thunderstorms, high-voltage peaks, etc).<br>

4. Prefer USB harddrives that are shock resistant over plastic (e.g. Freecom Toughdrive). Once I dropped one a conventional external USB drive from 10 cm height. No visible external signs, but it did not work anymore. Too bad that my latest photos were on it without having a further copy. So I had to expose the magnetic disk, but it in a protective box (a corn of dust is sufficient to break it), and pushed it by hand - it rotated again and I could recover all my data :-). It was funny - it even worked fine for several months or so, until oxidation started...<br>

5. And finally, print the best ones out. They can be re-scanend in the worst case.</p><div></div>

[rgerraty]

<p>Wow. Lots of good advice. The most salient: minimum of 3 drives – and most important of all, that last point of MS Keil's: print the best ones.</p>

[ceesmaas]

<p>The best advice I can give is buy <a href="http://www.thedambook.com/smf/index.php">The Dam Book</a>.<br>

Author Peter Krogh is a professional photographer and an expert on Digital Assets Management. In the second edition of the book he brings (among more) al lot of valuable information about storage and the hardware.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I was meeting with two photographers I know, and they brought up an interesting addtional thought on the subject. Yeah, do your schemes to check and update your archives so that nothing gets loss due to DVD or HD failures.....</p>

<p>.....but what about after you are dead? Who's gonna do it them? Or are all your pics going to just be lost? Not that most of ours shouldn't be lost...........heh......but, i have a few I'd like to think would be worthwhile to future generations. One guy mentioned that there are places that actually do keep photographers stuff just for this reason. Awfully expensive though for the casual hobbiest photographer tho.....or even the low volume pro. anybody have any thoughts on how to preserve your images after you are dead. I personally don't see anyone in my family backing up stuff and keeping it usable after I'm dead. I can just barely get them to back their own stuff up once a month..........let alone my massive amount of stuff. and that would include not just digital..............but also safe guarding all my negatives.</p>

[gerber_van_der_graaf]

<p>I only shoot film for different reasons: I am not a professional shooter, not in a hurry to view my results directly after shooting and I am spending already too much time behind th computer screen for my work, which is not related to photography. Though also (colour) slides and photo´s often degenerate over time, it seems that film is still one of the best medium for long time storage. But, above all: I just like shooting on film and the processing in the darkroom. For posting on the web or emailing I scan the images.</p>

<p>I store my data only in free and open formats, like for images in PNG. Even if the format may change over time, you can probably always read the images that have been written into an older version of such a format. Because as once the information of the format is public, it will stay public forever. It is, so to say, sustainable. Eventually, a ´closed format´ image may currently be converted into an open format, but there is no guarantee it still can be read after a long period of storage time.</p>

<p>The same for the file system (no vfat, but ext2, ext3, reiserfs etc), the Operating System (Linux, OpenBSD, Hurd) as the software I am using for manipulating and storing the image (GIMP).</p>

<p>For data storage medium I currently am using writable CD/DVD´s and a second external HD. In the past I also used Magneto-Optic disks. These disks are used as a plain HD when connected to the computer (re-writable), but have a limited capacity (about 1 GB) and are rather slow. They use a combination of heat and a magnetic field to store/remove the data and seem to hold their data for quite a long period of time (30 to 50 years). It is a pity that these type of disks have never become more popular. Else, manufactures would have performed more efford to make larger and faster disks.</p>

[douglas_vitello]

<p>After reading all of this I guess it would not be a bad idea to still shoot the real important stuff on film and do digital for things you can afford to loose.I don't see anything in this thread that convinces me otherwise.They both have strenghts and weaknesses but when it comes to archival storage film has proven to be safe and readable a century from now.I lost my trust with the technology industries promises starting with music format.LP's,45's,8 track,reel to reel,cassette,micro cassette, cd,dvd,mp3 etc,etc.Most of the hardware and media is worthless junk now 40 years down the road.I have about the same amount of faith with the photo digital software folks at this point too.</p>