what device to save important pictures to.

  • Thread starter bevo
  • 20 comments
  • 3,880 views
bevo

bevo

Premium
2,483
GTP_bevofrancis
bevo francis
What is the most reliable device to save pictures to?

We are using an external drive as our mass storage device, but it will eventually fail. For pictures we never want to lose what would be the best thing to use.

Should we buy a bunch of usb flash drives and just back up the important pictures we may want to look at 20 years from now on it? Are they more reliable then HDD drives?

We had all of our wedding pictures on an imac and the HDD on it died. We took it somewhere and they got most of them off of it for us, but we got really lucky and the drive literally completely died when he unhooked it from his software. I really don't want this to happen again and am wondering how to save digital raw files for the longest time period. I would use DVDs but it would take alot of DVDs to backup RAW files.
 
Last edited:
I think the best way to make sure your files survive is to upload them to "the cloud". Yeah online cloud storage is a good way to make sure no matter what they will still be there.
 
Mikeybc
Archive grade dvd

http://www.verbatim.com/subcat/optical-media/dvd/archival-grade-gold-dvd-r/

Or a commercial/industrial grade flash drive, not the cheapo stuff at Walmart or big box stores.
Click to expand...

This. Emphasis on the "archive grade" part.

This should go without saying, but I'm gonna say it anyway: make at least two copies of everything, on different brands of media if not different types.

bluemoon_19
I think the best way to make sure your files survive is to upload them to "the cloud". Yeah online cloud storage is a good way to make sure no matter what they will still be there.
Click to expand...

I distrust the cloud for long term storage, because you have no guarantee that your chosen cloud company will still be there 20 years from now, and will still be offering cloud services, and won't have priced the service exorbitantly somewhere down the line, or any of a number of other things that could happen to cut you off from your archive.

Something to keep in mind is that computer technology does change very rapidly. Consider that if you were deciding to archive a collection 20 years ago, you likely would have chosen floppy disks. Seen a floppy drive lately?
 
Agreed, ^ probably best to back your data up every 5 years or so as technology progresses, I don't trust the "cloud" I'd rather have something I have control over.
 
The thread title should be "devices," plural. You're welcome.

Actually, the question is not about longevity of the media so much as accessibility of the media.

20 years ago every PC on the planet had a parallel port, a floppy drive, and an RS-232 serial port. Floppy storage for important files was your "forever" solution. As for hard disks, can anybody connect an ST-506 drive to their system these days? How about IDE?

So don't count on anything being archival "forever" storage. Instead, upgrade your storage with technology, and move your files to newer drives every few years. Who can say that even a USB port will be on your PC (if it's even a PC that you use) 20 years from now.
 
wfooshee
The thread title should be "devices," plural. You're welcome.

Actually, the question is not about longevity of the media so much as accessibility of the media.

20 years ago every PC on the planet had a parallel port, a floppy drive, and an RS-232 serial port. Floppy storage for important files was your "forever" solution. As for hard disks, can anybody connect an ST-506 drive to their system these days? How about IDE?

So don't count on anything being archival "forever" storage. Instead, upgrade your storage with technology, and move your files to newer drives every few years. Who can say that even a USB port will be on your PC (if it's even a PC that you use) 20 years from now.
Click to expand...

I'm just wanting to use whatever is the least likely to fail. I plan to move it when newer tech comes out and the other is obsolete. I do know though that an HDD is not all that reliable so I was wondering if flash drives are better or some sort of DVD.

Why should the title be devices? I'm wanting to save it all on one device if possible not 30 of them.
 
bevo
Why should the title be devices? I'm wanting to save it all on one device if possible not 30 of them.
Click to expand...

Because nothing is 100% reliable. Period. Thus anyone that is serious about backing up data has at least some redundancy, such as me having a couple different HDD's I use for storing master copies of my photos, along with major critical print copies being stored on "the cloud."
 
I store mine like this:

My primary Photo Hdd 1Tb, where I save all my pics.

Every now and then, I make a back up on my 3Tb Hdd were I keep backups of different kind.
The 2 disks are not in raid and not on the same PC, so in case of a virus, or mechanical failure I always have one of the 2 working.
I may loose some pics if the backup was not done during a certain time, but most of my pics are safe.

I don't trust clouds, I only would create my own cloud, but that runs on the same setups as I have now so no need for that

With around 660Gb in pics, burning them on discs is not doable, even on 50gb BluRays is not worth it.

When you get to certain size of pics numbers, the only possibility is HDD.
 
Last edited:
bevo
So it sounds like i shold put them on some cloud storage, and put the ones i really want on archive grade DVDs and put them in a safety deposit box.

Would these be fine, or is there a certain brand to look for? http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000H3B6EO/?tag=gtplanet-20
Click to expand...

I'd be redundant with the DVD's as well, as last I checked, burnt optical media has a shelf life of around 10 years before general decay damages significant portions. Do some through research prior to purchasing and burning the DVD's, as it is a bit of mess depending on who you talk to. At this stage of technology, I'd probably go with Flash storage over optical, but I'll have to research it out before I commit to such a thing.
 
Flash or optical is seriously expensive compared to hard disks. Unless you're only talking about a few gigabytes, I don't know why those would even be a consideration.

Good quality hard drives will last for many years, and with any redundancy any drive failure is easily replaced. Just shoot another copy onto the new drive.
 
wfooshee
Actually, the question is not about longevity of the media so much as accessibility of the media.

20 years ago every PC on the planet had a parallel port, a floppy drive, and an RS-232 serial port. Floppy storage for important files was your "forever" solution. As for hard disks, can anybody connect an ST-506 drive to their system these days? How about IDE?
Click to expand...
Yeah. Don't go and create something that might be important archive for future generations and then go and save it on a Laserdisc, for example...
 
bevo
I really don't want this to happen again and am wondering how to save digital raw files for the longest time period. I would use DVDs but it would take alot of DVDs to backup RAW files.
Click to expand...

Just my two cents on the topic, I thinned out my photo archive over christmas, to keep the back-up size sensible, in the end it worked out as about 22,000 pictures, I've got 3 copies of everything, across 3 drives at 2 locations.. it's not ideal, but far preferable to loosing everything.. anyhow, the point I was going to make..

Why RAW? Even IF the device you've saved to is still functioning and supported in 20 years, will you even be able to open the files? I saw this a while ago and it might be relevant to your question.. particularly what's under the heading RAW Basics http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm I can't vouch for this article factually, but I had problems when I changed to CS4 from PS6, and from an EOS 20D to an EOS 60D.
 
I want to keep the RAW files because I'm always learning something new about the RAW editor in Photoshop or Lightroom, or the version I upgrade to does something not available before, or does it better or more easily. If I've tossed the RAW file because I got my JPG "as good as it gets," then a new noise filter, or dynamic range enhancement, or something else like that comes out, or I just learn something I never knew before, then I'm screwed.

Fortunately Adobe treats their RAW processor as a separately updatable module, and it works on Photoshop and Lightroom both with the same download. They are also very good and getting support for new cameras fairly quickly.
 
What I'm wanting to save are just really important family pictures. Our wedding pictures, the better ones from the kid's school events or sports, vacations etc. Pictures you just wouldn't want to lose for future family to look at. Right now we would probably only have a few hundred pictures to save.

I'm not against moving on to new tech when it comes out every 5 years or so. I'm going to check on the archive DVDs and flash drives and just put them on both and then store one set at my house and the other in a safety deposit box in case my house burns down or something.

I don't care to spend a couple hundred bucks every 5 years or so to replace the copies when new tech comes out.
 
MatskiMonk
Why RAW? Even IF the device you've saved to is still functioning and supported in 20 years, will you even be able to open the files? I saw this a while ago and it might be relevant to your question.. particularly what's under the heading RAW Basics http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm I can't vouch for this article factually, but I had problems when I changed to CS4 from PS6, and from an EOS 20D to an EOS 60D.
Click to expand...

I use to not save RAW files a few years ago, and regret it deeply - there is just so much more data preserved in a RAW file that JPG can not compare. And personally, a 20-30meg RAW file isn't that big of a deal compared to a 8meg JPG. Especially with how cheap hard drives are.
 
Mikeybc
Agreed, ^ probably best to back your data up every 5 years or so as technology progresses, I don't trust the "cloud" I'd rather have something I have control over.
Click to expand...

^ This.

Ah, the jump from running DISKCOPY B: on my precious 5.25" floppys, to 3.5" flops, to a 100MB Zip Drive, to CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, and portable hard-drives (along with USB thumb drives on-the-go and uploading pics), there will just be another technology to replace it soon enough. But in the shorter term - twice a year - it's probably good practice to check up on what's stored (if not monthly) and eye the next thing that's compatible down the line.

Technology, despite all the claims to the general public, is never completely "set-and-forget". That's the biggest lie foisted upon consumers, because everything changes, and it does so even more rapidly with the passage of time.
 
Azuremen
I use to not save RAW files a few years ago, and regret it deeply - there is just so much more data preserved in a RAW file that JPG can not compare. And personally, a 20-30meg RAW file isn't that big of a deal compared to a 8meg JPG. Especially with how cheap hard drives are.
Click to expand...

Raw certainly has its place, but I 'm wondering if it's worth the possible/probable future hassle of file compatibility, given the objective is to keep the memories preserved rather than to be able to re-process for effect.

No big problem to back-up the Raw files and processed images anyway, possibly the safest bet.
 
Yes. I didn't mean to imply earlier that RAW was all I kept. I keep both the RAW and the resulting JPG.
 

Latest Posts

Back