joshua_shaw

<p>If you are a PPA member, contact them and you may be able to get your photos recovered through them. PPA uses a company called <a href="http://www.drivesavers.com">Drive Savers</a> that's helped us a few times.<br>

I agree with Pete and Bob - recovery software can potentially make your card worse. Send it to a recovery service asap. Also, using the PPA membership, Drive Savers doesn't charge you if they are unable to recover anything.<br>

However, if you still decide to recover the images on your own, here are some other sources you can use on your Windows computer:<br /> PC Inspector Smart Recovery: http://www.fsguard.com/Sites/smart_recovery/info.htm?language=1<br /> Undelete Plus: http://www.undelete-plus.com<br /> PhotoRec: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec<br /> http://www.ultimateslr.com/memory-card-recovery.php<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>Note that you don't have to necessarily have to keep your computer disconnected from the network for fear of getting a infected. For instance, there is a computer security competition where participants try to attack various computers. No one at the competition was able to simply attack any of the computers (Vista, Mac, Linux) by attacking the computers head-on. Instead, one of the computers (MacBook Air) was compromised when the computer was taken to a bad website. Here is some more information about this:<br /> <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9905095-37.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9905095-37.html</a> <br /> <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/132733/2008/03/hack.html">http://www.macworld.com/article/132733/2008/03/hack.html</a> <br /> Most computers become infected because of a bad website they visit or a third party software they install (like Apple QuickTime, Adobe Flash and Sun Java which are notorious for security problems). Here is an article that shows this:<br /> <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10639">http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10639</a> <br /> So my point is that as long as you are not browsing the internet or reading emails on your new computer, you should be able to safely keep it connected to the network. I would recommend not turning off UAC in Vista (the prompt that asks you to confirm when you get into a secure area of your computer) and not to install additional software like QuickTime, Flash, Java, etc unless you actually need it and to always keep your computer updated. Also, you could install antivirus software and tell it to only scan files in the middle of the night so that it does not interrupt you, but it still helps you verify that your system is clean.</p>

<p>I run Vista 64 with 10GB RAM and am really happy with the performance.<br>

As others have mentioned, older drivers may not be supported and so you may have a problem with that. I had a problem with an older Epson scanner that only offered Vista 32bit driver support. But, I did some research and found a similar Epson model that did support Vista 64 and that also worked with my scanner. So, I strongly recommend that you check your hardware compatibility. Check out the website below to determine whether your hardware is compatible (check the 64bit tab after you select an item to check for compatibility). Google is also your friend here.<br /> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility">http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility</a><br>

Another reason I decided to switch to Vista from XP is that Vista's memory management is much better. And, the more memory you throw at it, the better it performs. With my 10GB, I am able to run many different programs at once without any issues. Here is some information on the way Vista uses memory (the information is relatively technical):<br /> <a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html">http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html</a><br>

Also, one thing I noticed with some friends who complained about Vista was that there was a lot of additional software installed and running in the background (both from the computer manufacturer as well as items the user installed). If you plan on buying your computer from a company like Dell/HP, ensure you buy the business models to avoid a lot of the bloat the home edition computers come with. Also, run a slim antivirus to avoid performance issues (I personally like Eset Nod32 because of its small footprint).<br>

One tip: a problem that I faced with Vista 64bit was viewing thumbnail previews of Nikon and Canon raw files. Both companies claim that they don't support Vista 64 . However, that's not entirely true. The workaround is to install Windows Live Photo Gallery and make it your default viewer in Vista64 (http://photogallery.live.com). The reason this works is the following: Vista ships with Windows Photo Gallery (notice it is not "Live" Photo Gallery). This built in version is 64bit. However, Canon and Nikon only provide raw preview handlers for 32bit. Since "Live" Photo Gallery is 32 bit, the Canon and Nikon raw preview handlers work with this version and since it is the default viewer, Windows Explorer can now display previews for all of your RAW files. This took me a while to figure out, so I hope it helps you.<br>

Overall, I am pleased with the performance in Vista. While I am not problem-free in Vista, my system is much more stable than when I had XP. I think you'll be pleased with the performance boost you will see with a 64bit OS. Good luck!</p>

@Bob: That sounds like a useful feature to test out. Although since you always get "OK" results, it would be worth trying out the software when the disk really does go bad to see if it does successfully report it.

 

@Rainer: Thanks. I'll look into this approach for testing cards.

Thanks for all the tips folks!

 

@David: Do you re-format in the camera, or on your computer?

 

@Rainer: What software do you use to do your MD5 checksums, or is it a command line based one?

 

@Marc: Although the option exists to perform a "Verify disk" on the compactflash disk, do you know for sure whether it is actually doing anything? I'm curious to know whether the "verify" feature is actually able to identify errors on CF media too.

 

@Michael: It's interesting that you have better experience with SD cards than with SD cards. I've always assumed that they were both as reliable. I wonder if perhaps the CF card reader may be bad. Did you try to put the CF card back into the camera to see if the images were still corrupt?

 

Thanks again.

What steps do you, or can you take to test the health of CompactFlash (CF) card media? I know that hard drives

have a "S.M.A.R.T." test that can determine whether a hard drive is failing or about to start failing. Are there

any similar tests for CF media?

 

We all take as many precautions as we can by keeping a spare camera around, keeping used media in our possession,

backing up CF media to photo storage devices, etc. But, I am looking into effectively take precautions against

failing CF media cards.

 

I realize that one can attempt to take a few photos and test whether they appear successfully on the card, but

that doesn't truly indicate whether the card will survive the next round of photos. Of course nothing is 100%,

but I would like to be as safe as possible.

 

What steps or softwares do you take to try to avoid card failure?

 

Thanks.

Speaking of trying to avoid card failure and minimizing loss of photos, does anyone know of any tools that can be used to identify whether a CF card is "healthy" or about to go bad? Computer hard drives have "SMART" indicators that can help warn whether a hard drive is about to go bad. But, I am not aware of anything like this for CF cards.

Don't give up just yet - a recovery service MAY be able to potentially recover files. I would contact them ASAP before you attempt to contact the clients about this situation. If you are a member of PPA, then contact Drive Savers at 800-440-1904 (PPA offers a 20% discount). If you are not a member of PPA, then you can do a Google search for other data recovery service providers. Another popular recovery service is OnTrack Recovery at http://www.ontrackdatarecovery.com.

 

At this point, in your situation, I would leave the card alone and not attempt to do any recovery - each attempt you make to read the disk may potentially lower your chances of recovering your data.

 

I would have recommended trying some recovery programs yourself, but since you formatted the disk already and wrote over it, your chances of recovery are already slim. So, I would recommend getting professionals on this before any more damage is done.

 

Good luck!

Kelly: The reason why this occurs is that by default Vista uses something called "Live File System". It

basically allows you to write things to it like it is a USB drive allowing you to add/delete/rename things. If

you've used Roxio, it's like DirectCD (I'm sure Nero has something equivalent). The reason the disc is probably

working from Nero is because you are creating a standard type of disc and not a "live" one. You need to create

what Vista calls a "Mastered" disc which is the older way where you basically add files and then burn it (like in

Nero). Here is what Microsoft has to say

about this:<br />

<a

href="http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/help/b47eb51a-ea6d-4d97-97b0-2d07a59316981033.mspx">Windows

Help: Burn a CD or DVD</a><br />

<a

href="http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/help/2af64e60-60aa-4d79-ab6c-3a5db5806cbe1033.mspx">Windows

Help: Which CD or DVD format should I use</a><br /><br />

 

However, I usually avoid using Vista's burning mechanism because I prefer using Roxio since it allows me to span

large amounts of information across multiple DVDs (when I am backing up an entire event). So to keep things

consistent, I use Roxio for everything.

Steve: That's true. A lot of changes were made. Personally, I stopped looking for items in the Control Panel (for the reason you mentioned - the names are different). Instead, I just do a quick search. For instance, open up the Control Panel and do a search for something like "Remove" for Remove Programs, "Display" for the Display options, etc. I actually find this much easier than XP now. But yes, definitely a change from XP.

 

I personally liked the new Vista explorer, but I know a few people who didn't. Here is what I would recommend to try to get (if you haven't already):

1. Click Organize | Folder and Search Options. In the General tab, under "Tasks", select "Use Windows Classic Folders. This brings back the menu bar (along with some other stuff).

2. In the same window, click the View tab, and select "Display full path in the title bar" to get back the traditional title bar.

 

Ryan: Wow, your probably the first Linux user who I know that is a pro photographer (most of the other Linux people I know are computer pros). Congrats for getting that set up - that must have saved you a lot of money in both hardware and software!

I just wanted to comment on a few things I read. Note that I am not neither anti-Mac nor anti-PC.

 

Christopher Hartt: Now that Mac's also use Intel processors, I would assume that both PCs and Mac's have the same speeds. I am curious to know whether both the PCs and Mac's where the same specs when you were comparing the speed differences? I've also seen a lot of PCs become slow because some of the software that people install. For instance, Norton AntiVirus products are notoriously slow and can cause major slowdowns. I've compared Mac and PC systems with similar specs and found that they both work at about the same speeds. I was actually surprised to find that in some situations, things ran faster on Vista because of a new technology called "SuperFetch" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_I/O_technologies#SuperFetch) which basically helps fully utilize all the memory you throw at it instead of remaining idle.

 

Peter Berger: Vista includes a feature called Previous Versions/Shadow Copies that function very similarly to recover a file (it does however require either the Business or Ultimate version). You basically right click on a file or a folder, go to Properties and you access the Previous Versions tab to recover a previous version of the file of folder. Both OS's allow the user to recover from a problem with the computer using Time Machine on the Mac vs System Restore on Windows. One advantage of Vista's recovery feature is that it doesn't require another hard drive like a Mac. However, since the Mac requires you to use another hard drive, it offers the advantage that you can recover from a failed hard drive. The same can be done with Windows if a backup is created/scheduled, but backing up to an external hard drive has to be manually set.

 

Steve C.: To be fair, any regular mouse can be plugged into the Mac to enable right click functionality. On a Mac laptop however, it's a little harder because you have to carry an extra mouse around. But a workaround is to use Option+click, which is the Mac equivalent of a right click.

While I agree XP is a great OS, I've actually been very pleased with Vista. I started using it after SP1, and I've had very good experience with it (perhaps you tried it before SP1?).

I've read that the MacBook Pro uses only a 6 bit display and hence is unable to produce millions of colors. Apparently it can only display 262,000 colors. Here is where I found this information:

 

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/26/apple-quietly-settles-macbook-6-bit-lcd-screen-lawsuit

 

http://peewaiweb.free.fr

 

This loss of color quality may potentially be the cause of your problem. I realize that you don't connect it with an external monitor for normal use. But as a test, try connecting it with an external monitor that has an 8 bit screen and then test your prints.

 

Let us know how this goes.