Backing Up Your Work?

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing special about using multiple media at all- just the "multiple" bit. There's nothing about one HD to mean that its failure increases the risk of another failing, or a DVD failing, or indeed your preferred "cloud" service disappearing. Having multiple backups clearly makes sense but shouldn't be used as an argument in favour of one medium or indeed mixed media. Just two backups on different sites, ideally.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, David, I feel that is bad advice. In my experience, the people that usually offer this advice are also people that have never had anything go wrong. Human nature, most people are lazy and keep their multiple hdd's in the same place and just rotate them. One fire or theft, and it's gone. I see it often on social media. We can ask anyone that has had a hurricane or flood go through their town/state how they feel about only using hard drives. Or, like myself, that has had a virus infect everything....there's nothing worse than repeatedly building a new computer up, only to find your back up drives are also infected....and your thumb drives...and your CF cards. Bloody horrible and it can happen to anyone. DVD's and CD's dating back to 1997 saved my bum as well as the current gig I was working on. I was able to safely work on another terminal and my client didn't notice a thing.</p>

<p>You're not backed up unless you have two different types of media, imo. I do three. Burn DVD's, multiple hdd's, and Crashplan</p>

<p> </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Nitpick</em> is your term for people who don't agree with you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. It's a term that describes your nature and reputation.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>In my experience, the people that usually offer this advice are also people that have never had anything go wrong.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So IOW, they are doing it right. Unless your stance is, do what you advise until something goes wrong (after which, ignore what Eric suggests, go back to what was working). IOW, if it ain't broke...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Human nature, most people are lazy and keep their multiple hdd's in the same place and just rotate them.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, only people who don't understand the proper way to deal with this task which is clear: rotate multiple drives. <br>

And if you really care about the integrity of your raw data, DNG (your favorite whipping boy) is quite useful now that LR has an option to check the all important hash placed in the data:<br>

http://dpbestflow.org/DNG#embedded-checksum</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Or, like myself, that has had a virus infect everything....<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not doing a proper job of safe computing? Been using a computer (Mac) since 1988, never had anything like you report. I must be doing something wrong...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there's nothing worse than repeatedly building a new computer up, only to find your back up drives are also infected.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Man, you really do have bad luck. Glad we're doing things differently! </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>Man, you really do have bad luck. Glad we're doing things differently!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Different. Like one of us is out there doing it and the other sits around in an armchair on the internet talking about it. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Don't agree Eric. First I did not give the impression that its great to keep all your backups at one site. The example you use is a problem of keeping all your backups in one place, not a result of using hard drives alone. I keep a complete backup off-site. Second I don't- and I think this is pretty generally accepted strategy- keep my external HDDs connected except when actually engaged in backing up. I've had a significant virus issue; my back-up drives were unaffected, as were my thumb drives and my cards, because they weren't being used at the time. Its not how many different sorts of backups you have that gives you protection- its how many backups, where you keep them and how you manage them. </p>

<p>I will grant you that spreading your backups over different media doesn't per se do any harm, but personally I'm not going to burn 100+ dvds a year and then try to find some logical way to store and identify them when I consider the extra security that delivers to be negligible. </p>

[digitaldog]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Like one of us is out there doing it and the other sits around in an armchair on the internet talking about it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know you <em>think</em> you have a clue what I do, you don't. No more than I know what you ate for breakfast or the last time you relieved yourself. And that you continue to make such ridiculous assumptions only diminishes your lacking credibly. That you've lost data by your own admission IS telling for anyone who thinks listening to your advise is a good idea. <br>

I agree with David, you don't, fine. What is clear is your data workflow and ability to run a clean system is highly suspect by your own admission. In 24 years of working with digital images, I've never suffered any of the issues you have, so again, whatever you're recommending, I think the opposite approach is probably a sound move on anyone's part who may be reading your posts. </p>

 

 

[digitaldog]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I will grant you that spreading your backups over different media doesn't per se do any harm, but personally I'm not going to burn 100+ dvds a year and then try to find some logical way to store and identify them when I consider the extra security that delivers to be negligible.</p>

</blockquote>

Further, is anyone here suggesting DVD's can't fail years after being burned?

Like Eric's idea of uploading raw to a cloud, DVD's are slow, don't hold much, are expensive per MB and AFAIK not immune from data rot. And as you point out, finding your data on large numbers of disks is slow and frustrating.

 

And how about the trend to move totally away from DVD? My year old MacBook Pro doesn't even have a DVD drive. DVD, the next Syquest (if it isn't already).

 

 

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>Its not how many different sorts of backups you have that gives you protection- its how many backups, where you keep them and how you manage them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, this is an opinion, a preference, and I have difficulties when such are stated as fact or law </p>

<p>I see it differently, now. My virus wasn't easy to catch as it was only a few months old so the virus sites hadn't caught up with it. As I understand it, it sat on the bios and every time we booted-up what we thought was a fresh computer, we just reinfected pristine back-up hard drives and and went around in circles. The only way we caught wind of it was that when I was in Ubuntu, one of my jpg thumbnails was used for a weird file name and extension and it was with that info, my texh buddy was able to get it sorted from using forums. I eventually had to transfer everything from the infected computer through Google Drive and load dvd's onto a new computer. Sad, expensive, and time consuming. The only thing that saved my butt was dvd's.</p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't agree Eric. First I did not give the impression that its great to keep all your backups at one site. The example you use is a problem of keeping all your backups in one place, not a result of using hard drives alone. I keep a complete backup off-site. Second I don't- and I think this is pretty generally accepted strategy- keep my external HDDs connected except when actually engaged in backing up. I've had a significant virus issue; my back-up drives were unaffected, as were my thumb drives and my cards, because they weren't being used at the time. Its not how many different sorts of backups you have that gives you protection- its how many backups, where you keep them and how you manage them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Back-up drives that are all in one city can be considered "one site"? How many hard drives, but in different locations, still went down together with Hurricane Katrina, and others? We have forest fires here that have wiped out half of cities. Regardless, only doing hard drive back-ups is an "all eggs in one basket" approach, to me.</p>

<p><br /> I practice cloud with Crashplan (1) do multiple hard drive back ups (2) and are kept on the other side of my city. Every couple days, I plug in my 128gb PNY flash thumb drive (3) and mirror my current photos folder, and while I'm bickering with Andrew, I burn dvd's (4) in the back ground. It's easy to do as you make the data.</p>

<p> </p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>So someone mentioned backing up to the cloud. Crashplan was specifically mentioned and I have seen them mentioned before. Cost does not seem to be the biggest problem. BUT transfer rates of 10GB per day is nearly a killer. A typical single project is 20-30 GB and a wedding can be as much as 100-150GB. <br>

I will sign up for a free account and test what I was told, but if true, this does not seem to be a viable option, just like backing up to 4.7 or even 9.4 GB DVD. Yes, I could consider blue-ray, but now it is getting expensive.</p>

 

[johne37179]

<p>The first rule is: All backup systems fail. Therefore multiple backups are essential regardless of what you use. I have 17TB of RAID on a Drobo. I also have four external HD of the 1-3TB each. I also use Apples time machine for short term back up. I may be paranoid about it, because of having to recover from failed drives or simply losing one of the multiple backups in the past. Hard source, air-gapped backup DVD used to be a viable mechanism. However, the limited storage on one DVD and the fragility of the medium is probably not a safe route anymore. What do you do if your backup burns down with your house? I guess cry a lot. Nothing is for certain, but I take more comfort in multiple copies than any other part of the strategy.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Cost does not seem to be the biggest problem. BUT transfer rates of 10GB per day is nearly a killer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it can be. But you can have them ship you a big drive, copy on your end and send back. It's an extra fee. What I did was setup a Macbook and a drive and let it go for literally 10 days or so initially. I've got a decent upload speed through Comcast. Then daily updates are not bad. I'd also recommend uploading only finished files if you're working with such large numbers of images. I shot a weeding last month (don't listen Eric) and after importing in Lightroom, doing an edit and then working on the images I wanted, I only updated a subset of the good stuff so not a big deal in upload. But don't even consider uploading everything. Probably not necessary anyway, have 2+ backup's of the full shoot and move on. </p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>The largest seed drive is 1 TB per computer. For me to backup a 7TB drive to Crashplan would take 700 days! at 10 GB per day. OUCH<br>

Even to follow your idea of backup what is important from a wedding would still result in 30-50GB of data (I shoot a D800) and now I have to track in a separate folder images that were important and images not so important. It would get to be a management nightmare, I would think.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>For me to backup a 7TB drive to Crashplan would take 700 days! at 10 GB per day. OUCH</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are other means of off site backup if this just will not work. Like sending a friend or family member elsewhere a drive(s) to rotate couple times a year. Or just uploading the final hero images. But I agree, the cloud is too slow despite the future predictions from at least one member here as is download if you need to restore isn't fast enough either. <br>

CrashPlan's software, at least on Mac is pretty flexible where you can pick folders specifically for uploads while leaving other data alone. But 10 GB per day as you point out isn't going to fly. </p>

[EricM]

<p>For me, Steven, it was my third back-up method and therefore lowest priority to rely on, so I just let it trickle away slowly and ignored it. You can plug in your externals as well and they will back-up. This was great for backing up my music and movies from my HTPC</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I wish I were as sure of anything as much as some people are sure of everything.~</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Can we all get along?<br>

Rodney King</p>

</blockquote>

[kevin_beretta]

<p>I'm an IT guy. I have 2 USB portables, a 3TB NAS and CrashPlan. I don't know how I got through life without CrashPlan. Yes, it takes a few months to back up the first time, but then it's so not an issue afterwards. You can shove many gigs per day through a medium fast connection. CrashPlan is BY FAR the best system out there, configurable like no other, no restrictions of any kind and limitless storage for $60/year with a multiple locations structure. It doesn't get much easier...</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Kevin... I am curious as to how fast you can really transfer data to Crashplan. If you make a 20GB change to your drive, can you tell how long it will take to update and does it tell you that it is backed up in its entirety?<br>

Also, have you verified that your crashplan data is intact?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I think that if there is a consensus emerging from this thread, it is that DVDs (and CDs) are not the medium to turn to.<br><br>Cloud storage? A matter of taste. Eric~ lives in fear that a whole city will disappear so a distribruted copy store needs to span multiple locations worldwide. Well, maybe. You could live in fear that your house burns down, so keeping a copy in the other room will be no good. And houses do indeed burn down. But your garden shed, your neighbour's house or your place of work hardly ever happen to go up in flames at the same time. So is it really safer?<br>Cloud storage has disadvantages too. Access to your data depends on the availability of the service and you having (fast enough) internet access. And there is that security issue: who else has access to your data, how secure is the transfer?<br><br>I think the thing to do is ask yourself how often you need to access your archive. How well did several piles of DVDs serve you? If all you are running into is the manageability of piles of small capacity disks, switching to HDs will already be a major improvement. Faster, cheaper, taking up less space.<br>If security concerns are an issue (did you have duplicate copies of all those DVDs?), you just should do what you should anyway: implement a back up regime (as many external HDs as needed, double that number, set up a back up schedule, and store the backup disks somewhere outside of your home or office) .<br>If easy access is an issue, set up a NAS in your home or workplace. You can create your own cloud using a NAS too, make it accesible over the internet, if you so wish (keep in mind though that there are security issues to deal with with anything that is accessible over the web).

[stevenseelig]

<p>Q.G. a well reasoned comment and nice summary. I think there is one more issue.<br>

I have 4 copies of each digital file with at least one away from my primary residence. Not sure I believe in the model of cities disappearing, but who knows.<br>

A more perplexing piece of the puzzle is how these digital will survive into the future. About three years ago, i scanned all my dad's slides (1948-1988). He had preserved them in carousels and each slot of the carousel was labeled. It was fun project and I enjoy looking at them. I have also scanned 1000 of pictures dating back to 1800's and early 1900's.<br>

BUT, for all my digital assets and key wording, upon my passing, who will maintain and update those digital assets? No one I suspect and thus all those great pictures I have taken of kids, grandkids, wife, friends will pass into oblivion never to be viewed again.<br>

MY QUESTION is simple. How are people thinking about this problem of digital asset maintenance after one passes away? For me, I am leaning more and more to printing of commented books with the top 200-300 pictures per year. Another option is to just do prints and archive them in scrapbooks. Curious as to how other people are thinking about this problem.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Good point, Steven.<br>Maybe your father thought the same, but you did take up custody of his slides. So why wouldn't there be someone who will take up custody of the archive when you have to leave it be?<br><br>The bigger question however: is it all worth being preserved for ever?<br>For us it is a 'working' archive. We know what we have, the good stuff, the less good, and even the bad that made it into the archive "because you never know...". We know what may be usefull, what perhaps could make some money, or what we keep in case a client wants to return to it.<br>Family photos are another matter. They serve as memories most important to the people in them, or to family and friends contemporary to the events they captured. A bit less for next generations, who don't know who is in them anymore, need to rely on 'what is written on the back' to know they show something that relates to them. Until they all become 'historical records' of days noone remembers.<br>When considering the life of the archive beyond it's immediate use, i'm sure very much of it can be (or even should be) thrown out. The rest should be well documented with the what, who, when and where of what they record. And perhaps most importantly why they are things worth preserving, why they are 'important' documents.<br><br>After that has been settled and organised, the shape and form in which it is kept is a matter of choice.<br>I started digitizing the family's photo archive too (still far from finished). We talked about redundant copies when discussing back up strategies. But 'redundant' digital copies also make it easy to distribute and share the archive (in this case among the family) in a way you can't share old negatives (well, you can if you make good copies on film. But it's much easier to do digitally). And everyone who is receiving a copy will be the custodian of his or her copy, so that will have taken care of that problem.<br>I'm sure the archive will be enjoyed most when it is printed. Paper copies, albums, are still good. Still very enjoyable. Having all the 'raw data', anyone can select what they want to put in such an album and have it printed in whatever size or form they want.

[derek_thornton1]

<p>I appreciate all of the responses. Much of the conversation was unnecessary but still appreciate it. </p>

<p>I have come to the conclusion that I will trash the DVD's. I will have primary and back-up here at home and a third copy(favorites) at brothers house. I have 4 McCally cases with 1 TB Western Digital HD;s in each. They are separate external drives with a usb 3.0 hookup, nothing fancy. Over the years I have bought around 10 hard drives and have yet to have any failures. In fact, yesterday I hooked up a 14 year old Seagate that still worked great. Better to be safe than sorry!</p>

<p>Derek</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Q.G....<br>

1. I only took custody after my mom passed away. My dad had passed almost 20 years earlier. So there was not chain of command so to speak.<br>

2. Is it all worth preserving? That is a very good question. I can only relate a story. When I started scanning my dad's slides, nearly everyone advised me to view them and scan only the important ones. The only problem with that recommendation was I could not possibly know which slides would be important to one of my brothers or their children or even to me in the future. In the end I scanned all 12,000 of them. And I am glad I did. <br>

Let me tell you why. Last year my wife and I traveled to Peru and Machu Picchu. My parents had traveled a similar path in the late 1970's. And it was fantastic to see the pictures he took and the ones I took, nearly 35 years later. At the time I did the original scanning, those Peru slides were mostly part of the noise, those judged to be unimportant.<br>

My belief is that I am not smart enough to know what will be important in the future. Given this belief, my bias is to try to preserve as much as possible. Yes, my son in Denver has much of the digital assets and he has the knowledge and skill to maintain them. And yes, my digital copies of my dad's slides and family pictures have been digitally distributed to my 3 brothers and one niece. <br>

BUT, I have this sense of fragility and have begun exploring ideas/concepts around making hard copies of the best pictures (in my and my wife's mind in 2014). I like the idea of books because the comments are readily embedded with the pictures, but I like the purity of single prints (quality will likely be better).<br>

Have you given much thought to paper archival prints? If yes, what solutions have you come to?</p>

[kevin_beretta]

<p>Steven,<br>

My computer constantly putters away in the background, so the backup to CrashPlan is mostly continuous when I am working on files, like moving catalogs around. Yes, I have tested backups from CP and did a bit level compared with a program called Beyond Compare. It's 100% ok. Also, I have CP set so that even if I delete a file on my local machine, it is retained on CP. This is very nice and handy as I never really need to lose a shot, not even the bad ones :-)<br>

It probably means I have 100K pictures to go through if I ever wanted to get them back and look for something, but at least I can it does not cost me anything. <br>

<br />A 10G change in files takes an afternoon or so (20GB pipe here)<br>

<br />As to handing files to your kids etc., make the whole electronic thing part of your will. My will is written (legal) and part recorded (updated every few years) with a video recording of my wishes when I go senile etc. a small part of that is where my files are, how to access them etc. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>In the end, having started with the "most important" images, I came around to the "scan them all" school.<br>

Moreover, I found that my slides in boxes of 'seconds' (most would have thrown them out, but I am an anal-retentive archaeologist) were often better after scanning and bringing up the shadow detail than some of my first cut.<br>

Out of that exercise I ended up with over 76,000 images. The <em>last</em> time, I did it right. ("scan large, scan once" is my current motto).</p>