The best way to save photo archives in tiff?

**Tas** · 03-20-2017, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by MJKoski

NAS is a failure in a way that you cannot keep backup drives in separate locations (in case of thievery or fire etc.). Fire would waste films on the other hand

I have no desire to argue on anything, I put a suggestion forward for the OP to consider an alternative to just buying an external HDD or two.

When you consider the two NAS systems I referenced you need to understand they're not just an expensive external hard drive as they provide options for offsite back up via the internet. You can also separate locally held unitsusing your household network too, though protection from fire/theft still needs to be factored.

Offsite back up can be achieved by utilising your own or their cloud storage solutions, of course the OP has identified shortfalls in cloud storage so with an NAS system you have another alternative. And this is where these systems provide an solution similar to buying an external HDD and sending it to a family member for safe keeping as an offsite back up. However instead of this manual approach you can have another NAS of the same type at the other family members home connected to the internet and you set up the system to enable back up to this second unit.

Yes this is more expensive than just buying a hard drive and storing it with family, and if that's what the OP is happy to do then cool. A good NAS System provides the option for off site back up, in real time without ongoing cloud costs hence I thought the OP might be interested.

Oh, and the failure rate for optical drives like DVD is too high unless you buy archive standard discs and protect them from disc rot. Also, soon SDD will provide a more stable solution than HDD as their capacities rise and the costs come down. SDD have a max number of cycles before failure so again a finite answer to storage but one that has probably the most potential of the current options. The latests NAS units are incorporating SDD options too as well as SD card readers to facilitate fast data transfer.

Tas

Last edited by Tas; 03-20-2017 at 11:26 AM.

micromacro · 03-20-2017, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Tas

Yes this is more expensive than just buying a hard drive and storing it with family, and if that's what the OP is happy to do then cool. A good NAS System provides the option for off site back up, in real time without ongoing cloud costs hence I thought the OP might be interested.

Yes, I'm interested, thank you, Tas.
I probably would not pay attention myself to this kind of solution. For now I will stay with known way: 2 external drives+DVD collection. I think it's ok start for the beginning. The amount of work will be quite extensive, and I already spent around $700 totally for the scanning+archiving (scanner, cleaner, negative/slides/DVD files, disks/drives)

**davidreilly3207** · 03-20-2017, 12:52 PM

Might I suggest you familiarize yourself with RAID, specifically RAID-1. RAID-1 is a hardware solution for two hard drives to mirror each other. You only have one connection to the computer, you only have to copy the file once, and it is a very reliable way to store and backup images. The enclosures hardware and firmware take care of keeping the drives in sync. If one drive fails you replace it and the enclosure creates a new mirror image on the new drive. I have been using a 2x1 TB manufactured by Verbatim for many years for image and financial data storage.

WD offers external drives capable of RAID-1 in 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16TB sizes. Note than when used in RAID-1 the capacities are halved to 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 TB.
See Here:amazon.com: WD 4TB My Book Duo Desktop RAID External Hard Drive - USB 3.0 - WDBLWE0040JCH-NESN: Computers & Accessories?tag=pentaxforums-20&

I am withdrawing recommendation of the above drives because further research indicates that the drives are encrypted by WD and can not be read by another enclosure if the drives are good but the enclosure dies.

They also offer a portable drive in 2 and 4 TB (1 and 2 TB in RAID-1) but you would need the new thunderbolt port on your computer.
See here:https://www.amazon.com/Passport-Portable-External-Drive-WDBRMP0020DBK-NESN/d...nal+raid+drive

Hope this helps

**BigDave** · 03-20-2017, 02:20 PM

Hello All:

Take a look at this technology, Millenniata and the M-Disc system. Archival put to 1,000 years.

Corporate | M-DISC

It looks like they have DVD storage to 100 GB. If the mirrored drives are not good enough, then 100 of these babies might give you at start!

Regards,

micromacro · 03-20-2017, 02:30 PM

Interesting. Who is going to test it for 1000 years?

**BigDave** · 03-20-2017, 02:33 PM

Yes, and more importantly, is there going to be an operating system that can read it then! At least it will outlast the photographer!

stevebrot · 03-21-2017, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by MJKoski

There is dire need for modern large capacity media such as DVD but in TB class instead of GB. Investing in 6TB backed up drive capacity is noy fun anymore.

The key is to not save many scans:

Treat your negatives as source
Give each negative a unique sequential id and catalog pertinent metadata to that id. I have an Access database that I maintain for that purpose.
Make proof scans at 1200 dpi or lower and name the file according the negative id above
Cull your negatives based on the proofs and/or direct examination and then delete the proof scans too
Reserve high resolution scans for images you want to print or publish
Store the negatives in a secure fire-safe location in appropriate sleeves. I prefer old-fashioned acetate slip covers. With proper storage, B&W negatives are essentially archival and color somewhat less so. Both are solid granite when compared to a digital file.

Considering that a full day shooting 4x5, even with an assistant, will number no more than about 20-40 shots. Negative storage will be less of a hassle than digital storage and with care, both can be kept to reasonable levels of pain.

Steve

stevebrot · 03-21-2017, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by micromacro

Yep. I ended up buying 50 DVDs archival quality, but only 4.7GB. One disk will fit only 47 scans.

Only scan the images you want to keep. This is a tough choice. For slides, a small light table and loupe helps. For negatives, a quick run of each strip at low resolution provides proof scans to use as a basis for culling and choosing frames for higher resolution.

Steve

stevebrot · 03-21-2017, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by micromacro

Interesting. Who is going to test it for 1000 years?

When considering family photos, the bigger question is who is going to recognize the people in the photos even ten years from now? Metadata (who, what, when, where, and why) is a huge challenge.

Originally posted by BigDave

Yes, and more importantly, is there going to be an operating system that can read it then! At least it will outlast the photographer!

There are standards for archival storage of digital media that were established by museums. A little Google work may pay a dividend here.

Steve

**beachgardener** · 03-21-2017, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by MJKoski

Just ordered Intrepid 4x5 last week

How did you get on with this? I am very interested indeed.

MJKoski · 03-22-2017, 04:28 AM

It has 8 weeks of lead time now. I just ordered it and paid with PayPal, then I got order confirmation ("Thank You") and that was it. Now there is 7 weeks left to wait

Approximately, maybe the queue moves faster (or slower). I found very nice 75mm lens already and 150mm normal. And bought some film. Maybe I have to tape one of those lenses to a shoebox, so eager to try them out.

murrelet · 03-22-2017, 05:11 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by micromacro

I can also store online, but what happens if I can't pay for the storage (lets imagine the situation, I can get sick, or die), then what?
Another disk installed in comp? It can crash also. Memory cards? Not reliable as well.

I don't know what is the most reliable way to store scans like film for long years ahead? Lets say, for 10-15 years at least.

For long-term storage, I use Amazon Glacier. It's one of their AWS services so there is a bit of a learning curve. But I'm paying less than $1/month. I like the idea of not having to maintain the hardware and manage mirrors. I upload quarterly. My volume tends to be between 10-20 GB per quarter of files from my Lightroom library.

micromacro · 03-22-2017, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Only scan the images you want to keep. This is a tough choice. For slides, a small light table and loupe helps. For negatives, a quick run of each strip at low resolution provides proof scans to use as a basis for culling and choosing frames for higher resolution.

That was my initial plan! My son however wants everything. Nonsense. He will do with his part whatever he wants. For my negatives it's up to me to decide which to scan. (kids are such a headache)

03-20-2017, 12:52 PM	#18
davidreilly3207 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: South Jersey Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 720	Raid-1 Might I suggest you familiarize yourself with RAID, specifically RAID-1. RAID-1 is a hardware solution for two hard drives to mirror each other. You only have one connection to the computer, you only have to copy the file once, and it is a very reliable way to store and backup images. The enclosures hardware and firmware take care of keeping the drives in sync. If one drive fails you replace it and the enclosure creates a new mirror image on the new drive. I have been using a 2x1 TB manufactured by Verbatim for many years for image and financial data storage. WD offers external drives capable of RAID-1 in 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16TB sizes. Note than when used in RAID-1 the capacities are halved to 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 TB. See Here:amazon.com: WD 4TB My Book Duo Desktop RAID External Hard Drive - USB 3.0 - WDBLWE0040JCH-NESN: Computers & Accessories?tag=pentaxforums-20& I am withdrawing recommendation of the above drives because further research indicates that the drives are encrypted by WD and can not be read by another enclosure if the drives are good but the enclosure dies. They also offer a portable drive in 2 and 4 TB (1 and 2 TB in RAID-1) but you would need the new thunderbolt port on your computer. See here:https://www.amazon.com/Passport-Portable-External-Drive-WDBRMP0020DBK-NESN/d...nal+raid+drive Hope this helps Last edited by davidreilly3207; 03-20-2017 at 01:23 PM.

03-21-2017, 09:45 PM	#22
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by MJKoski There is dire need for modern large capacity media such as DVD but in TB class instead of GB. Investing in 6TB backed up drive capacity is noy fun anymore. The key is to not save many scans: Treat your negatives as source Give each negative a unique sequential id and catalog pertinent metadata to that id. I have an Access database that I maintain for that purpose. Make proof scans at 1200 dpi or lower and name the file according the negative id above Cull your negatives based on the proofs and/or direct examination and then delete the proof scans too Reserve high resolution scans for images you want to print or publish Store the negatives in a secure fire-safe location in appropriate sleeves. I prefer old-fashioned acetate slip covers. With proper storage, B&W negatives are essentially archival and color somewhat less so. Both are solid granite when compared to a digital file. Considering that a full day shooting 4x5, even with an assistant, will number no more than about 20-40 shots. Negative storage will be less of a hassle than digital storage and with care, both can be kept to reasonable levels of pain. Steve

03-22-2017, 05:11 AM - 1 Like	#27
murrelet Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Portland, OR, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 506	Originally posted by micromacro I can also store online, but what happens if I can't pay for the storage (lets imagine the situation, I can get sick, or die), then what? Another disk installed in comp? It can crash also. Memory cards? Not reliable as well. I don't know what is the most reliable way to store scans like film for long years ahead? Lets say, for 10-15 years at least. For long-term storage, I use Amazon Glacier. It's one of their AWS services so there is a bit of a learning curve. But I'm paying less than $1/month. I like the idea of not having to maintain the hardware and manage mirrors. I upload quarterly. My volume tends to be between 10-20 GB per quarter of files from my Lightroom library. Last edited by murrelet; 03-22-2017 at 05:16 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Streets A Few from the Archives	oculus	Post Your Photos!	5	09-19-2015 12:35 PM
The story of how major newspapers lost their photo archives and the businessman who m	interested_observer	Photographic Industry and Professionals	2	04-18-2015 10:21 AM
To TIFF or not to TIFF - Processing	Robski	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	13	05-24-2012 07:05 AM
How to save RAW shots as jpeg/tiff?	jmbower	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	6	11-11-2008 12:08 AM
Which online photo printing using TIFF?	YJD	General Talk	4	07-24-2008 06:33 AM

03-20-2017, 11:21 AM	#16
Tas Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Brisbane, QLD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,202	Originally posted by MJKoski NAS is a failure in a way that you cannot keep backup drives in separate locations (in case of thievery or fire etc.). Fire would waste films on the other hand I have no desire to argue on anything, I put a suggestion forward for the OP to consider an alternative to just buying an external HDD or two. When you consider the two NAS systems I referenced you need to understand they're not just an expensive external hard drive as they provide options for offsite back up via the internet. You can also separate locally held unitsusing your household network too, though protection from fire/theft still needs to be factored. Offsite back up can be achieved by utilising your own or their cloud storage solutions, of course the OP has identified shortfalls in cloud storage so with an NAS system you have another alternative. And this is where these systems provide an solution similar to buying an external HDD and sending it to a family member for safe keeping as an offsite back up. However instead of this manual approach you can have another NAS of the same type at the other family members home connected to the internet and you set up the system to enable back up to this second unit. Yes this is more expensive than just buying a hard drive and storing it with family, and if that's what the OP is happy to do then cool. A good NAS System provides the option for off site back up, in real time without ongoing cloud costs hence I thought the OP might be interested. Oh, and the failure rate for optical drives like DVD is too high unless you buy archive standard discs and protect them from disc rot. Also, soon SDD will provide a more stable solution than HDD as their capacities rise and the costs come down. SDD have a max number of cycles before failure so again a finite answer to storage but one that has probably the most potential of the current options. The latests NAS units are incorporating SDD options too as well as SD card readers to facilitate fast data transfer. Tas Last edited by Tas; 03-20-2017 at 11:26 AM.

03-20-2017, 11:36 AM	#17
micromacro Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,722 Original Poster	Originally posted by Tas Yes this is more expensive than just buying a hard drive and storing it with family, and if that's what the OP is happy to do then cool. A good NAS System provides the option for off site back up, in real time without ongoing cloud costs hence I thought the OP might be interested. Yes, I'm interested, thank you, Tas. I probably would not pay attention myself to this kind of solution. For now I will stay with known way: 2 external drives+DVD collection. I think it's ok start for the beginning. The amount of work will be quite extensive, and I already spent around $700 totally for the scanning+archiving (scanner, cleaner, negative/slides/DVD files, disks/drives)

03-20-2017, 02:20 PM	#19
BigDave Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Hudson Valley, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,626	Hello All: Take a look at this technology, Millenniata and the M-Disc system. Archival put to 1,000 years. Corporate \| M-DISC It looks like they have DVD storage to 100 GB. If the mirrored drives are not good enough, then 100 of these babies might give you at start! Regards,

03-20-2017, 02:30 PM	#20
micromacro Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,722 Original Poster	Interesting. Who is going to test it for 1000 years?

03-20-2017, 02:33 PM	#21
BigDave Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Hudson Valley, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,626	Yes, and more importantly, is there going to be an operating system that can read it then! At least it will outlast the photographer!

03-21-2017, 09:52 PM	#23
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by micromacro Yep. I ended up buying 50 DVDs archival quality, but only 4.7GB. One disk will fit only 47 scans. Only scan the images you want to keep. This is a tough choice. For slides, a small light table and loupe helps. For negatives, a quick run of each strip at low resolution provides proof scans to use as a basis for culling and choosing frames for higher resolution. Steve

03-21-2017, 09:55 PM	#24
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by micromacro Interesting. Who is going to test it for 1000 years? When considering family photos, the bigger question is who is going to recognize the people in the photos even ten years from now? Metadata (who, what, when, where, and why) is a huge challenge. Originally posted by BigDave Yes, and more importantly, is there going to be an operating system that can read it then! At least it will outlast the photographer! There are standards for archival storage of digital media that were established by museums. A little Google work may pay a dividend here. Steve

03-21-2017, 10:44 PM	#25
beachgardener Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,842	Originally posted by MJKoski Just ordered Intrepid 4x5 last week How did you get on with this? I am very interested indeed.

03-22-2017, 04:28 AM	#26
MJKoski Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 1,784	It has 8 weeks of lead time now. I just ordered it and paid with PayPal, then I got order confirmation ("Thank You") and that was it. Now there is 7 weeks left to wait Approximately, maybe the queue moves faster (or slower). I found very nice 75mm lens already and 150mm normal. And bought some film. Maybe I have to tape one of those lenses to a shoebox, so eager to try them out.

03-22-2017, 02:40 PM	#28
micromacro Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,722 Original Poster	Originally posted by stevebrot Only scan the images you want to keep. This is a tough choice. For slides, a small light table and loupe helps. For negatives, a quick run of each strip at low resolution provides proof scans to use as a basis for culling and choosing frames for higher resolution. That was my initial plan! My son however wants everything. Nonsense. He will do with his part whatever he wants. For my negatives it's up to me to decide which to scan. (kids are such a headache)