"Better Safe Than Sorry" - Page 2

*benjikan* · 06-29-2009, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by elLuiggi

I'm not sure that you can preserve all these files for generations to come. Consider that today's filetypes (PEF, DNG, jpgs, etc) are likely to be replaced in the future and if not converted to the new standard at the time the shift happens, you are bound to loose the ability to read them

The same holds true for the media used to archive the files.

We will obviously have to adapt and upgrade to the new storage systems of the future to keep our archives readable.

elLuiggi · 06-29-2009, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by benjikan

We will obviously have to adapt and upgrade to the new storage systems of the future to keep our archives readable.

I'll give an example. Lets say that I keep my archives in DVD format and I die tomorrow. Fifty years from now somebody finds my DVDs. What are the odds that they will be able to see my pictures?

*Andi Lo* · 06-29-2009, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by elLuiggi

I'll give an example. Lets say that I keep my archives in DVD format and I die tomorrow. Fifty years from now somebody finds my DVDs. What are the odds that they will be able to see my pictures?

We don't really know... what were the chances that I can still use an SMC Takumar 50 on my K100D today? But here is the lens, making beautiful images on a camera way younger than it is.

It will depend on how the industry treat backwards compability. I still can read jpeg, bmp, wav files made from the dawn of windows (not good enough example, I know), but I'd say the answer is that we don't really know.

gamgee · 06-30-2009, 02:44 AM

Regarding file type, I supose it would be best to convert PEF to DNG in order to maximise future compatibility. I have a question about DNG and Lightroom, maybe slightly OT, maybe not.

I'm not sure if I understand this, please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that this is very important for all of us.

When in PEF format, all changes to raw file made in Lightroom are stored in something called sidecar file. (where are they located?)
When in DNG format, changes are stored inside the actual DNG file but separately from original data which is still preserved intact (as in PEF+sidecar version).

Is this true or false?
If true, does this happens automaticly when you convert already PP-ed PEFs to DNG, or you have to follow some procedure to acomplish this? Or maybe, when you convert to DNG after PP work on PEF, you loose all the PP work? (I have lots of PEF files and would , obviously, like to convert to DNG, without losing work already done, and then continue by converting imediately on import from camera and use PEFs only in camera 'cause they are smaller then in camera DNG).

timbo13 · 06-30-2009, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by joebob

Why is CD or DVD less reliable than tape?

The technology that allows you to write your own CD and DVD media on inexpensive
devices at home is not very robust by archival standards. Optical media produced
by (large, expensive) industrial processes is better.

gamgee · 06-30-2009, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by joebob

Why is CD or DVD less reliable than tape?

Photosensitive material in CD-R and DVD-R discs is actually organic and not very longlived. I read about some archive that readily jumped on the "new technology bandwagon" when CD-Rs became popular - they digitized/scanned complete archive and stored all of it on CDs. Some BACTERIA attacked the not so properly stored CDs and ATE their data...

*Duck Dodgers* · 06-30-2009, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by elLuiggi

I'm not sure that you can preserve all these files for generations to come. Consider that today's filetypes (PEF, DNG, jpgs, etc) are likely to be replaced in the future and if not converted to the new standard at the time the shift happens, you are bound to loose the ability to read them

The same holds true for the media used to archive the files.

Right, hence my caveat above, about "properly copied and stored as technology progresses." Obviously, if you had important data on 8" floppy disks, and you wanted to keep it viable, there has been a whole progression of tech that you will have had to keep up on...5-1/4" floppies, 3-1/2" low density floppies, 3-1/2" high density floppies, maybe a zip drive or two, CDs, DVDs, dual-layer DVDs, Blu-Ray DVDs, crystal matrices... and on and on. Tape, to a certain extent, has been somewhat immune...although companies and formats come and go. I have some old HP tapes that were so old that the oxide layer stuck to other layers of tape; trying to read these tapes pulled the oxide off, leaving clear patches on the tape itself. Since this particular design used optical sensing for the end of the tape, the reader then stopped at the clear patches...no way to retrieve the data without splicing out the clear sections. Fun.

Multiply the changing physical formats by the changing data formats, and you have a never-ending challenge.

Jim Royal · 06-30-2009, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by joebob

Why is CD or DVD less reliable than tape?

CDs and DVDs simply don't age as well as tape. They are more sensitive to environmental humidity. The glue that hold the layers together can crack and let oxygen in and degrade the data layer. I've seen brand-name discs go bad in just a few years. There are archive-quality CDs and DVDs available (for MAM-A, for example), but that drives the price up.

Then there's capacity. If I want to do incremental backup of my photo library, DVD is probably the most painful way to go because of the need for multiple discs.

photog · 06-30-2009, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by gamgee

Regarding file type, I supose it would be best to convert PEF to DNG in order to maximise future compatibility. I have a question about DNG and Lightroom, maybe slightly OT, maybe not.

I'm not sure if I understand this, please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that this is very important for all of us.

When in PEF format, all changes to raw file made in Lightroom are stored in something called sidecar file. (where are they located?)
When in DNG format, changes are stored inside the actual DNG file but separately from original data which is still preserved intact (as in PEF+sidecar version).

Is this true or false?
If true, does this happens automaticly when you convert already PP-ed PEFs to DNG, or you have to follow some procedure to acomplish this? Or maybe, when you convert to DNG after PP work on PEF, you loose all the PP work? (I have lots of PEF files and would , obviously, like to convert to DNG, without losing work already done, and then continue by converting imediately on import from camera and use PEFs only in camera 'cause they are smaller then in camera DNG).

Yes it is reasonable to expect DNG to be more future proof than PEF (who knows what Hoya will decide to do in future).
DNG does also allow the LR2 adjustments to be written to the metedata. Check your preferences!
Ron McDermott

gamgee · 07-01-2009, 02:16 AM

Thank you photog.

*jmc7104* · 07-01-2009, 06:19 AM

I go to a lot of estate auctions where family history and family heirlooms are being auctioned. There is usually box after box of family histery in photo's both in pictuers and negatives, so I get the impression that no one gives a s**t about Uncke Geoges military photo's or where cousin Clyde has traveled to in his younger years. If my Kids are interested in any of my photo's, I can either make them a copy or e-mail them a digital copy. My point being, this photo journy that I have taken is only important to me and close family at present time. As for me, I am +70 years young, back up to a couple different computer's, couple external hard drives. and if I passed away tommorow, most likely no one would give a shi* about my trip to Mt. Rushnore. I would liked to of had several family member's photo collection from the past but no one seems to know what happened to them. Seeing as to how I am the only one in my rapidly dwindling family that does Photo Restoration and Conversion's, these old photo's were disposed of as garbage. So I back up for me. I can imagine in the future my stuff will be at an estate auction, and a couple of people will be discussing buying that box of miscalinous electronic junk, Formating the drives and using it to store whatever is popular with them.
PS. My spell checker isnt working so pardon the spelling. Just a little different aspect. jim

*indytax* · 07-01-2009, 09:21 AM

I'm a bit surprised that more of us aren't talking about or recommending backups "in the cloud" as part of a backup workflow Ben mentioned it in his post, but gave it short shrift as not being a very viable technology. I disagree and think it should be part of all of our strategy.

I have recently begun using Mozy as my cloud backup solution and although I could handle a complicated backup program, it's dead simple to use. In fact, it's currently churning away at backing up all my data--slowly. Other solutions like Backblaze, Carbonite, SugarSync, JungleDisk, and Amazon S3 services are also perfect for this. Amazon S3 is probably the best solution for the paranoid (I use that term affectionately, not demeaningly). Of course, they aren't perfect, but none of the other solutions are, either. The biggest issues are slow initial uploads (especially for hundreds of gigabytes), delay in restoring your data as it downloads, recurring monthly fee--although Mozy and Backblaze are only $5 a month for unlimited storage--and theoretical privacy issues.

Obviously, we could all be diligent about backups, but it seems to me that unless we are masterful artists who should feel a duty to preserve their work for future society's benefit, then it is more than sufficient to have a primary storage drive, external drive backup (perhaps coupled with offsite removable media backups if you're really worried about needing fast access to data in the case of a catastrophic failure or damage of your system) and a backup in the cloud through one of the various vendors (or roll your own with an offsite computer). And it you aren't worried about needing immediate (or rapid) access to ALL of your files, then you could skip the secondary drive and just use the cloud backup for $5 or less a month.

Personally, I'll feel better when I implement another external drive to backup everything on location (merely in the event of drive failure), but not everyone needs elaborate backup schemes. In fact I think practically none of us do and we'd get more people to backup if the vocal advocates didn't make it appear so darn complicated.

*Duck Dodgers* · 07-01-2009, 09:25 AM

With my 3mb/s d/l, 400kb/s u/l connection, it would take days to upload everything.

*indytax* · 07-02-2009, 01:38 PM

Yes, that's the downside. I have a cable setup, and it's taking me days to upload only about 200GB of data to Mozy at Mozy's max speed of 1 megabit/second (although who knows what the average is), over twice your max upload speed. I'll be on vacation next week, so I hope that it'll finish while I'm gone. But once it's done, it far more secure than single backup HDs.

*bladerunner0427* · 07-03-2009, 12:24 PM

From my personal experience, I would not rely solely on using dvd/cd as back-up. As someone mentioned before, dvd/cd is subject to environmental hazards (heat, humidity) and the dye that's used degrades over time. The quality of media varies by manufacturer. Based on my search on the web, and from personal experience, Taiyo Yuden makes the most reliable dvd media and has been my dvd media of choice. Harddrives are cheap nowadays and that's how I back up my important data. For some, dvds are more practical, and I still use them for backing up non-critical data, but not large volumes of data.