Photos becoming corrupts after transfer and view

Zafar Iqbal · 08-13-2016, 07:13 PM

Got home from a wedding tonight, transferred all photos to the computer and then (quickly) checked the photos.

Few photos were corrupt when I first reached them but other photos I saw, or saw the thumbs of, became corrupt afterwards. I'm not sure how, why or exactly when. The photos are fine on the cards and have been copied successfully over again.

I use Photo Mechanic for this kind of viewing and proofing. Been using it for some years without any issue.

I also have a, supposedly, good disk monitoring program running permanently in the background and it reports no issues with the disks.

I cant reproduce the issue, so I cant dig deeper into this. The only recent changes to my system I can think of, are Windows updates.

What could be causing this?

**ramseybuckeye** · 08-13-2016, 07:34 PM

I would think a card error, but since you were able to retrieve them that would probably rule it out. I may be mistaken, but I think the files contain a thumbnail, separate from the main image. Most likely something happened during the transfer and they corrupted then, With the only time it has ever happened I would call it a fluke, or something unknown and unusual. Fortunately you did not lose images, and hopefully it does not happen again. I think the main thing now is to test your transferred photos before formatting your card. Hopefully a onetime event.

**jatrax** · 08-13-2016, 07:51 PM

Do you transfer via cable or card reader?
When first viewed some software will just show you the embedded jpeg but then build it's own jpeg from the RAW if set that way. So it is possible the embedded jpeg was fine which is what you saw and the RAW was corrupt which caused the jpeg built from it to be bad. No idea if Photo Mechanic does that or not.

Anyway, if the images are OK on the card then either the transfer method or the viewing software is to blame. And since they transferred OK the second time I would suspect the transfer method. Perhaps the card was not seated exactly right or the cable if you use that method.

Zafar Iqbal · 08-13-2016, 08:01 PM

The thought crossed my mind, about the embedded preview vs a new one. I do believe Photo Mechanic creates its own, but how it does it/what it uses as reference, I don't know.

I also suspected it could be card reader, which I used, related. Nothing indicates one thing or the other right now.

LensBeginner · 08-14-2016, 05:14 AM

Card readers are little bastards of a device... one (of the cheap pen-drive kind) broke on me after not even a year, corrupting the SD that was inside in the process... I was just able to retrieve the pictures with a data recovery tool, but it was a close call...

Zafar Iqbal · 08-14-2016, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by LensBeginner

Card readers are little bastards of a device... one (of the cheap pen-drive kind) broke on me after not even a year, corrupting the SD that was inside in the process... I was just able to retrieve the pictures with a data recovery tool, but it was a close call...

Yeah, tell me about it - I once bought a usb stick kind of reader and it corrupted the cards pretty much at 50/50 rate.

I currently have two that I use, bought some 3 months ago. Now that I think about it, there might have been issue but only a few times before and I didn't suspect the readers. Instead, I either suspected card or camera issue.

The recent issues are many (handful) and show up in a new way.

slip · 08-15-2016, 10:02 AM

if other things don't work, suspect a failing hard drive.

good luck!

Zafar Iqbal · 08-19-2016, 05:42 PM

I'm fairly certain now it's a card reader thing.

And that's depression, worrying and stressing. I thought I got them all, but with my kind of luck, I wanted to be extra sure, so I imported every single photo from the wedding into LR (I don't have the time to proof and need the cards tomorrow), let LR generate new thumbs (with auto-tone, so there's really truly being rendered new thumbs) and found a couple of more corrupted photos - replacing them again from the card solved it.

Anyhow - did the card reader manufacturers not get the memo, that we are in 2016? I find it impressive that data isn't being transferred in a more secure way - or that I'm not being made aware about transfer issues.

It takes ages to verify the files like this this method doesn't even guarantee anything. If the corruption shows in a too small part of a photo, then it will probably not show on the thumbs at all.

Me not likey :/

aleonx3 · 08-19-2016, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal

I'm fairly certain now it's a card reader thing.

And that's depression, worrying and stressing. I thought I got them all, but with my kind of luck, I wanted to be extra sure, so I imported every single photo from the wedding into LR (I don't have the time to proof and need the cards tomorrow), let LR generate new thumbs (with auto-tone, so there's really truly being rendered new thumbs) and found a couple of more corrupted photos - replacing them again from the card solved it.

Anyhow - did the card reader manufacturers not get the memo, that we are in 2016? I find it impressive that data isn't being transferred in a more secure way - or that I'm not being made aware about transfer issues.

It takes ages to verify the files like this this method doesn't even guarantee anything. If the corruption shows in a too small part of a photo, then it will probably not show on the thumbs at all.

Me not likey :/

Do you have LR import the RAW files directly? I would copy (transfer) the RAW files directly into the hard drive first. As others have suggested, card reader could be problematic sometimes, I use a Transcend USB 3.0 card reader to xfer the files from the SD card to the computer.

Zafar Iqbal · 08-19-2016, 06:25 PM

No, I never import directly to LR. Always to HDD first, and then LR. I even have the card detection feature/open import dialog feature disabled.

I transfers using two Transcend USB 3.0 readers, plugged to a PCI-E board, which gives me USB 3.0.

**jatrax** · 08-19-2016, 09:04 PM

Maybe a little off topic but I'm curious why anyone would not import to LR directly? Seems like double work. What is the reasoning behind doing it this way?

Zafar Iqbal · 08-20-2016, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by jatrax

Maybe a little off topic but I'm curious why anyone would not import to LR directly? Seems like double work. What is the reasoning behind doing it this way?

For me, proofing outside LR is much much faster and a reason alone not to import directly.

**jatrax** · 08-20-2016, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal

For me, proofing outside LR is much much faster and a reason alone not to import directly.

What do you use to proof? I always thought that quick proofing and selection was one of the key features of LR. Of course, I doubt I am importing the volume you are from wedding shoots. I generally have 50 to 100 shots max from any particular shoot.

Zafar Iqbal · 08-20-2016, 10:58 AM

I use Photo Mechanic - It's lightning fast and all I do here, is just tag photos. I don't use any fancy tools or features.

Before, I'd only remove the worst of the worst photos using Photo Mechanic, before importing to LR and then did further proofing in LR. The thought of having extra "in case" was nice, but during this winter and spring however, I got really frustrated by how much time I spend with the photos, so I've been trying to find ways to optimize my workflow - now I proof to almost final selects in Photo Mechanic and only then import.

With 50-100 shots, I think I would be fine with LR only too, but I often have 2000-3000 shots and that bit of delay that LR has when browsing or doing basic stuff, adds up in the long run.

**jatrax** · 08-20-2016, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal

but I often have 2000-3000 shots and that bit of delay that LR has when browsing or doing basic stuff,

Yes, I can see that. Sadly LR seems to get slower with each version. It does get irritating at times.

08-13-2016, 07:13 PM	#1
Zafar Iqbal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,229	Photos becoming corrupts after transfer and view Got home from a wedding tonight, transferred all photos to the computer and then (quickly) checked the photos. Few photos were corrupt when I first reached them but other photos I saw, or saw the thumbs of, became corrupt afterwards. I'm not sure how, why or exactly when. The photos are fine on the cards and have been copied successfully over again. I use Photo Mechanic for this kind of viewing and proofing. Been using it for some years without any issue. I also have a, supposedly, good disk monitoring program running permanently in the background and it reports no issues with the disks. I cant reproduce the issue, so I cant dig deeper into this. The only recent changes to my system I can think of, are Windows updates. What could be causing this?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-30 takes black photos normally but proper photos in live view?	Newtophotos	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	06-04-2016 10:49 AM
645z camera and transfer photos on Pc	sanluc	Pentax Medium Format	7	09-21-2015 05:42 AM
transfer photos from K50 to excite tablet	rca1	Pentax K-30 & K-50	8	03-31-2015 10:43 AM
Who is becoming nervous after the K5 vs. the D7000 announcement?	jpzk	Pentax News and Rumors	141	09-20-2010 07:04 AM
Suggestion "Speculation"threads should be closed after becoming OBE	MRRiley	Site Suggestions and Help	9	12-25-2008 03:47 PM

08-13-2016, 07:34 PM	#2
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,291	I would think a card error, but since you were able to retrieve them that would probably rule it out. I may be mistaken, but I think the files contain a thumbnail, separate from the main image. Most likely something happened during the transfer and they corrupted then, With the only time it has ever happened I would call it a fluke, or something unknown and unusual. Fortunately you did not lose images, and hopefully it does not happen again. I think the main thing now is to test your transferred photos before formatting your card. Hopefully a onetime event.

08-13-2016, 07:51 PM	#3
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Do you transfer via cable or card reader? When first viewed some software will just show you the embedded jpeg but then build it's own jpeg from the RAW if set that way. So it is possible the embedded jpeg was fine which is what you saw and the RAW was corrupt which caused the jpeg built from it to be bad. No idea if Photo Mechanic does that or not. Anyway, if the images are OK on the card then either the transfer method or the viewing software is to blame. And since they transferred OK the second time I would suspect the transfer method. Perhaps the card was not seated exactly right or the cable if you use that method.

08-13-2016, 08:01 PM	#4
Zafar Iqbal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,229 Original Poster	The thought crossed my mind, about the embedded preview vs a new one. I do believe Photo Mechanic creates its own, but how it does it/what it uses as reference, I don't know. I also suspected it could be card reader, which I used, related. Nothing indicates one thing or the other right now.

08-14-2016, 05:14 AM	#5
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Card readers are little bastards of a device... one (of the cheap pen-drive kind) broke on me after not even a year, corrupting the SD that was inside in the process... I was just able to retrieve the pictures with a data recovery tool, but it was a close call...

08-14-2016, 09:51 AM	#6
Zafar Iqbal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,229 Original Poster	Originally posted by LensBeginner Card readers are little bastards of a device... one (of the cheap pen-drive kind) broke on me after not even a year, corrupting the SD that was inside in the process... I was just able to retrieve the pictures with a data recovery tool, but it was a close call... Yeah, tell me about it - I once bought a usb stick kind of reader and it corrupted the cards pretty much at 50/50 rate. I currently have two that I use, bought some 3 months ago. Now that I think about it, there might have been issue but only a few times before and I didn't suspect the readers. Instead, I either suspected card or camera issue. The recent issues are many (handful) and show up in a new way.

08-15-2016, 10:02 AM	#7
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	if other things don't work, suspect a failing hard drive. good luck!

08-19-2016, 05:42 PM	#8
Zafar Iqbal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,229 Original Poster	I'm fairly certain now it's a card reader thing. And that's depression, worrying and stressing. I thought I got them all, but with my kind of luck, I wanted to be extra sure, so I imported every single photo from the wedding into LR (I don't have the time to proof and need the cards tomorrow), let LR generate new thumbs (with auto-tone, so there's really truly being rendered new thumbs) and found a couple of more corrupted photos - replacing them again from the card solved it. Anyhow - did the card reader manufacturers not get the memo, that we are in 2016? I find it impressive that data isn't being transferred in a more secure way - or that I'm not being made aware about transfer issues. It takes ages to verify the files like this this method doesn't even guarantee anything. If the corruption shows in a too small part of a photo, then it will probably not show on the thumbs at all. Me not likey :/

08-19-2016, 06:12 PM	#9
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal I'm fairly certain now it's a card reader thing. And that's depression, worrying and stressing. I thought I got them all, but with my kind of luck, I wanted to be extra sure, so I imported every single photo from the wedding into LR (I don't have the time to proof and need the cards tomorrow), let LR generate new thumbs (with auto-tone, so there's really truly being rendered new thumbs) and found a couple of more corrupted photos - replacing them again from the card solved it. Anyhow - did the card reader manufacturers not get the memo, that we are in 2016? I find it impressive that data isn't being transferred in a more secure way - or that I'm not being made aware about transfer issues. It takes ages to verify the files like this this method doesn't even guarantee anything. If the corruption shows in a too small part of a photo, then it will probably not show on the thumbs at all. Me not likey :/ Do you have LR import the RAW files directly? I would copy (transfer) the RAW files directly into the hard drive first. As others have suggested, card reader could be problematic sometimes, I use a Transcend USB 3.0 card reader to xfer the files from the SD card to the computer.

08-19-2016, 06:25 PM	#10
Zafar Iqbal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,229 Original Poster	No, I never import directly to LR. Always to HDD first, and then LR. I even have the card detection feature/open import dialog feature disabled. I transfers using two Transcend USB 3.0 readers, plugged to a PCI-E board, which gives me USB 3.0.

08-19-2016, 09:04 PM	#11
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Maybe a little off topic but I'm curious why anyone would not import to LR directly? Seems like double work. What is the reasoning behind doing it this way?

08-20-2016, 01:01 AM	#12
Zafar Iqbal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,229 Original Poster	Originally posted by jatrax Maybe a little off topic but I'm curious why anyone would not import to LR directly? Seems like double work. What is the reasoning behind doing it this way? For me, proofing outside LR is much much faster and a reason alone not to import directly.

08-20-2016, 08:16 AM	#13
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal For me, proofing outside LR is much much faster and a reason alone not to import directly. What do you use to proof? I always thought that quick proofing and selection was one of the key features of LR. Of course, I doubt I am importing the volume you are from wedding shoots. I generally have 50 to 100 shots max from any particular shoot.

08-20-2016, 10:58 AM	#14
Zafar Iqbal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,229 Original Poster	I use Photo Mechanic - It's lightning fast and all I do here, is just tag photos. I don't use any fancy tools or features. Before, I'd only remove the worst of the worst photos using Photo Mechanic, before importing to LR and then did further proofing in LR. The thought of having extra "in case" was nice, but during this winter and spring however, I got really frustrated by how much time I spend with the photos, so I've been trying to find ways to optimize my workflow - now I proof to almost final selects in Photo Mechanic and only then import. With 50-100 shots, I think I would be fine with LR only too, but I often have 2000-3000 shots and that bit of delay that LR has when browsing or doing basic stuff, adds up in the long run.

08-20-2016, 11:17 AM	#15
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal but I often have 2000-3000 shots and that bit of delay that LR has when browsing or doing basic stuff, Yes, I can see that. Sadly LR seems to get slower with each version. It does get irritating at times.