Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Any photo I have that has meaning for me gets printed (even if it’s by inkjet). I know that print will last longer than any image I am able to keep copying onto digital media.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
One hangup in using a remote drive is the connection. SSDs are quick but the USB connection isn't. I use mine solely for back up, I have several. I have a 1Tb drive on my computer and just keep the last couple years of pictures on it. This keeps the load on the operating drive to a good level, it's about half full leaving plenty space for swap disc activity and such.
571514m3
Established
Really nice thread Boojam. I was going to comment about having moved to SSD as the HD takes a lot longer to back up my almost full Apple Macbook that I use because I have not moved from my LR6 (not cloud based). And I have been cleaning up even though I plan to stick around for some decades yet.
Nice one Out to Lunch! and you raise a real point. Will anyone really go through my negatives when I am gone? Even more to the point...what about digital files? I regularly print for family and friends and maybe these prints will stay around for a while. But who knows. Photography has been a joy to me all my life, and some folk have enjoyed it as well.
Döstädning is apparently a Swedish practice. I am not sure if really true and if not all cultures have that when one reaches a mid-point in life. I think they do. We give stuff away and enjoy it being received and used. Some things I received and have paced on will be passed on again. Some not.
Recently I found a painting on a wall in Nicosia. The angel of Ermou street is resting, maybe reflecting and maybe sad, with a caged heart held tight. Seems a hint to let go and share our love by letting it go and giving freely. It's on my home page.
So maybe keeping stuff on SSD/HD is a temporary thing, and the real question is what to do if it could have some value to someone here and now.
571514m3
Established
Not sure why the signature fails to show at times. Any suggestions?
https://egonbernhard.weebly.com/
https://egonbernhard.weebly.com/
boojum
Mentor
Rutger Hauer's death soliloquy in Blade Runner, ". . . like teardrops in rain . . . " It is all ephemeral. That is worth remembering. I have about 8 cubic feet of slides. Who cares other than me and I do not care much. A 2' x 2' x 2' box full. From 1954 until I gave up on film, around 2000. It amuses me but after I am dead it will all go out in the trash. And that is alright as I take photos for me. If you like them, fine, better. But they are for me. I just wish I were easier to please, but I am not.
boojum
Mentor
I am giving away a lot of stuff. I recently gave two lovely Inuit lithos to a dear friend along with two stunning water colors and some other stuff. Better it have a new home and she will enjoy them. I have more to offload. But not the cameras. ;o)
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Perhaps not for you in particular, but a large box of slides has a much better chance of surviving long term than a small collection of HDD’s or USB sticks. By “surviving”, I mean both in terms of time and in terms of not being tossed into the rubbish bin.
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
I have a Synology DS216Play unit that I bought in 2016. It's a network attached storage device (NAS) that can accommodate two drive units, allowing for total redundancy storage (RAID1 - data is duplicated on two separate drive units, which greatly enhances chances of data recovery in case of disk failure).
When I bought the NAS, I equipped it with two 2TB hard disks, thinking the 2TB storage capacity would be enough for many years to come. Two years later, I was out of storage space and upgraded to two 4TB units. I have recently upgraded the system again to two 8TB units.
The Synology device has proven reliable over the years. I also recomment my current hard disk units (Seagate Ironwolf NAS units). I don't thing SSD units are competitive for long term storage of large amounts of data. Reliability of current hardisk units is really good and cost is considerably lower than SSD for large capacity disks.
Eventhough the storage solution I chose is not 100% safe (one should always have at least one alternative back-up solution with off-site storage), I think it's a pretty safe and cost effective method to store a lerge amount of data at home.
Cheers!
Abbazz
When I bought the NAS, I equipped it with two 2TB hard disks, thinking the 2TB storage capacity would be enough for many years to come. Two years later, I was out of storage space and upgraded to two 4TB units. I have recently upgraded the system again to two 8TB units.
The Synology device has proven reliable over the years. I also recomment my current hard disk units (Seagate Ironwolf NAS units). I don't thing SSD units are competitive for long term storage of large amounts of data. Reliability of current hardisk units is really good and cost is considerably lower than SSD for large capacity disks.
Eventhough the storage solution I chose is not 100% safe (one should always have at least one alternative back-up solution with off-site storage), I think it's a pretty safe and cost effective method to store a lerge amount of data at home.
Cheers!
Abbazz
Bob Michaels
nobody special
My opinion is that those who make a personal commitment to SAVE NO MORE THAN 2% of their photographs have no significant problems with large enough media. More importantly do not have what they are looking for buried under that 98+% that should have been deleted.
Those that believe they can save everything because the good stuff has been rated in Lightroom or some other editor will find in the future that an installed and functioning copy of Lightroom is as unique as a copy of Lotus 1-2-3 or Wordstar is today.
Those that believe they can save everything because the good stuff has been rated in Lightroom or some other editor will find in the future that an installed and functioning copy of Lightroom is as unique as a copy of Lotus 1-2-3 or Wordstar is today.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Wow Bob, you're strict: Every time I import images into Lightroom, I do a quick edit, but mostly to eliminate obvious duds, or variations on a theme which are somehow "off" (missed the moment, framing not quite right, etc). But even so, I figure that I wind up keeping closer to 30% of what I shoot. But my volume isn't too high to begin with, because the only photo editor that I need to please is me!
Dogman
Mentor
I download my photos ASAP after shooting. Usually I have no more than two or three shots I'm interested in and duplicate/alternates of those shots. I trash all but the "good" shots. I'm an unrepentant user of the "delete" button. I have a lot of files but hardly anything I would consider junk. Some are just snapshots, some "art". But all the keepers are kept for a reason.
Years ago I decided to clean up my stacks of slide pages. I went through and tossed out everything but what I considered the good art. Decades later, after many--most--of my friends and relatives have passed on, I would really love to have some of those photos.
Years ago I decided to clean up my stacks of slide pages. I went through and tossed out everything but what I considered the good art. Decades later, after many--most--of my friends and relatives have passed on, I would really love to have some of those photos.
boojum
Mentor
This is why I keep everything. I have found that things I regarded as trash earlier have become more interesting, i. e., my tastes have changed. I have a number of photos I took in Patzcuaro in 2001 for Day of the Dead which I thought were too dark, etc., etc., etc. Looking at them later I understood they were taken at night under bad conditions and as dark as they were they were also what the scene looked like. I had an old GF want photos from the same period and I had them. And I enjoy those roams down memory lane. I had a lot of good times and am glad I have the image aides memoirs to help fill out those times again.
The moral of the story? Drive space is cheap and valuable.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
My grandfather also left behind a box of slides about that big. I am going through them now and discovering all sorts of interesting things about his life I didn't know. Are the photos any good? Most are not worth saving. But it's all still giving me a different perspective on his life. If you don't have grandkids or friends to pass them onto, consider donating them to a local historical society or something.
Out to Lunch, with that attitude why not just pack it in now. Throw the camera out and be done with life. Is that your point? I'm not surprised that the boomers here have such a dismal outlook on the future and they're still using CDs and DVDs to store files, etc. Bob Michaels I thought you were a great photographer, but if you're only keeping 2% of your images, I am starting to think it must just be down to luck! I have to be honest, if I threw out 98% of my images I would not have enough left to do anything with.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
You are obviously not well. Try a cold shower. Cheers, OtL
boojum
Mentor
I have lived in a lot of places over the course of my life. I have lived in NJ, CT, CA, Canada, Mexico and France and traveled in China and all over Europe. I now live in a town which has not much interest in anything other than incompetence and corruption. Our local historical society displays a Ku Klux Klan outfit on a dummy, a dead one not the usual living Klan dummy, in its basement. They are enamored with a romantic idea of their past, all of it glorious. In reality it is a history of antagonistic Scandinavian groups, hard work in lumbering and fishing, whorehouses, saloons, corruption, depravity and all sorts of fun in what was the craziest town between San Francisco and Seattle.
They have no need for my slides. The slides are no more than " . . . tears in rain . . . " I photograph for my own pleasure. If you like it, great.
Dan
Let's Sway
You have disc swapping set up over USB?
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
No, didn't know it exists. I don't try to use the remotes as files to work, just to store so the connection speed wasn't a consideration for me.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Babe Ruth held the major league baseball record for being struck out the most times until Mickey Mantle went down swinging more.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Early on, I made a couple of space-saving decisions regarding my photo library:
Where my cameras offer a "Uncompressed Raw" option, I test, and in both instances to date, have found no meaningful improvement despite much larger file sizes, so I leave that feature switched off. My hunch is that the feature exists in order to please users who think they know more than the camera's designers!
Unless I have a specific reason for saving both raw and JPEG versions of an image, such as JPEGs which have in-camera effects applied, I only save raw. And I don't use in-camera effects very often.
Where my cameras offer a "Uncompressed Raw" option, I test, and in both instances to date, have found no meaningful improvement despite much larger file sizes, so I leave that feature switched off. My hunch is that the feature exists in order to please users who think they know more than the camera's designers!
Unless I have a specific reason for saving both raw and JPEG versions of an image, such as JPEGs which have in-camera effects applied, I only save raw. And I don't use in-camera effects very often.
boojum
Mentor
I save both RAW and JPG. I live under the assumption that the camera manufacturer does the RAW > JPG conversion in what they consider the best possible way. I have the RAW as backup should I need it. Again, converting in an editor as opposed to converting in a camera offers minimal difference in my experience. YMMV