Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 25, 2006, 12:26 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Even if you can effectively store up your hardisk somewhere safe, you surely need to take it outoccasionally and input data's (Photographs)into it. Usually errors occurs when you start deletingor adding data's to and from your hardisk; so I don't think you can be that safe by placing it in a corner :-)(You still need to maintain it by occasionally defragmenting it to make sure bad sectors or isolated free spaces arewiped up)

Carrying/placing a hardisk around is risky enough (It might get exposed to static electricity or magnetism which could damage data'sin it).
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2006, 9:53 PM   #32
Member
 
Damfino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 74
Default

Nadnerb: dodgy burns are why it's CRITICAL to make sure that your CD burning software verifies every disc immediately after burning. It only takes a few extra minutes and the peace of mind is worth it.

Benjamin... defragmenting does nothing to help the health of the drive (especially one that's mostly static backups) and may shorten the life, as it's pretty intense activity. Frankly, I think the whole defragmentation thing is oversold - it rarely makes a noticable difference and takes way too long for the alleged benefits.

Errors are likely to happen no matter what you're doing - writing to the drive only is risky if you lose power half-way through. Defragmentation also has nothing to do with bad sectors. If your hard drive has ANY bad sectors, it's time to return it (if it's still under warranty) or trash it. Defragging may show you where the bad sectors are, but it's getting that information from the hard drive's firmware. Theoretically, the drive can mark those as bad and you can still use the rest, but I've always found that if you have one bad sector, you'll soon have many more.

You are absolutely correct about the dangers of moving it around (although I also think that the risk of static electricity is greatly overstated - you can fry something with a static shock but you almost need to really be trying nowadays.) But certainly moving them around isn't going to do great things for their stability.

Damfino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2006, 2:44 PM   #33
Member
 
johnyeros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 78
Default

hmm.. 100+ years? that's a long time.. considering i probably wont live till then.:lol:
johnyeros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2006, 3:53 PM   #34
Member
 
dave_g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 67
Default

One very different thought - If you are planning on passing your photos down through the family, the biggest risk is not storage media failure. The biggest risk is that too much information is much the same as no information at all.

If someone has to sortthroughthousands of images to find the few that have special meaning, it's not likely to happen. Particularly a generation or two down the road when they don't even know who the people in the pictures are. It's much more likely that the CD's or whatever will lay around for a while, and eventually degrade or get tossed.

If you take the time to sort out the really worthwhile pictures, store good descriptions in the EXIF, and organize them in a logical way. it's much more likely they will become part of a meaningful family legacy. Plus there won't be that many to store. One CD will probably be more than sufficient.

Of course you still want to back everything upfor your own use, but I have the feeling that 100 year media won't be necessary for most of us to do this.


dave_g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2006, 5:06 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

dave_g wrote:
Quote:
One very different thought - If you are planning on passing your photos down through the family, the biggest risk is not storage media failure. The biggest risk is that too much information is much the same as no information at all.

If someone has to sortthroughthousands of images to find the few that have special meaning, it's not likely to happen. Particularly a generation or two down the road when they don't even know who the people in the pictures are. It's much more likely that the CD's or whatever will lay around for a while, and eventually degrade or get tossed.

If you take the time to sort out the really worthwhile pictures, store good descriptions in the EXIF, and organize them in a logical way. it's much more likely they will become part of a meaningful family legacy. Plus there won't be that many to store. One CD will probably be more than sufficient.

Of course you still want to back everything upfor your own use, but I have the feeling that 100 year media won't be necessary for most of us to do this.

This is why we have lots of photo albums, prints in proper albums will probably be of much more interest in the future.

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2006, 5:37 PM   #36
Member
 
dave_g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 67
Default

You're probably right Ira, but I think the "proper" in "proper albums"is more important than the format. I take proper tomeanwell organized and labeled.My wifeinherited shoeboxes of old family photos whenher father passsed away. We started through them and found that we had no idea who/what many of the people/places were. What should have been a memorable session of reminiscing and discovering some geneology became so tediousthat we have yet to finish.

I do think there are some advantages toelectronic versions of the images. particularly for today's iPod (and tomorrow's who knows what) generation, but the main thing is that a photo of your greatgrandfather is just an old photo until you know it's your greatgrandfather.


dave_g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2006, 10:23 PM   #37
Member
 
macshak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 91
Default

Started reading this and it reminded I had better burn a dvd! :-)

When you say 'have the images printed', naturally I think of having a 4x6 (or whatever) print made (not inkjetted). What about these places that will actually print the photo album for you. I know Apple does this for iPhoto users. Where else does this? Do they offer 'archival' paper? Just thought of this, so no, I have not done any research, yet.

Was planning on making a slideshow DVD for the grandparants, but one does not have a DVD player. A photo album would be more convienient to pickup and show off than having to load the DVD.

macshak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2006, 10:37 PM   #38
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 28
Default

my 2 cents...

regards to the original topic - "digital has a film cost". as others have pointed out, a dslr is in the vicinity of $1K, versus $300 for a film. thats a premium of $700. a dslr is rated at a shutter life of roughly 50,000 shots? if you put that into perspective each 'shot' would cost you a real expense of 1c, added on the cost of disk space which grows as the MP goes larger.

onto storage, one of my favourite mediums is online. it has nowhere near the capacity of a CD/DVD on a cost basis, but it does have some pros:

- regular maintenace backups by the host (Surely a host the size and cred of flickr is trustworthy)

- as new mediums come about, they will upgrade the hardware and ensure our pics are migrated over to the new medium.

- its pretty much directly humanly readable (as cited from the article on page 1)

sho33y is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:33 PM.