Best Practices to Archive Your Photos

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by LuckyStarr I know, right? I was sweating like a whore in church! What was up with that? No ventilation whatsoever. Snowman, that one pic, I'm gonna have to work on it, long story. I screwed things up when I was trying something.

Oh No Lucky, that was my favorite of the bunch! With digital photos, what you should do it always immediately after copying them to your hard drive, set the originals to "Read Only" and use the "Save As" command when you play around them. It's also a very good idea to back up the originals (and even post-processed ones) to CD or DVD! =)

[HypoLuxa-HermesPan]

Originally Posted by Snowman Oh No Lucky, that was my favorite of the bunch! With digital photos, what you should do it always immediately after copying them to your hard drive, set the originals to "Read Only" and use the "Save As" command when you play around them. It's also a very good idea to back up the originals (and even post-processed ones) to CD or DVD! =)

Or better yet, shoot in RAW for better quality anyways... plus, RAW are not rewritable so they are always protected. You have to save them as a copy as JPG, TIF or PSD for example.

Backing up to CD/DVD is a good idea too as Snow suggested... just make sure to buy the ones for archiving (they cost more but won't delaminate after a few years), but they cost more.

[Snowman]

Most point and shoot cameras do not offer a RAW format. Also, post processing of RAW photos is time consuming and complicated to get good results. Plus the files are gigantic and a pain to work with. It's far beyond what the typical non-professional photographer needs. Since Lucky had trouble re-sizing her photos, that's probably not something appropriate to her current skill level. JPEGs at a high quality level would be just fine.

Also, I disagree that archival CDs or DVDs are needed (or even better). The vast majority of CDs and DVDs that I have burned since the second half of the 90's are fine. The only discs I have that have gone bad are early DVD-R Memorex discs that came in full jewel cases and were sold separately. Also some ultra cheap (as in free after rebate) CD-Rs by PNY have failed after being in my car for about 10 years. Media manufacturers continue to state that discs should last a lifetime if not exposed to sunlight or harsh conditions. I think they certainly will last long enough to transfer data to whatever formats come next.

If you really want to protect your photos, I would suggest burning them to a name brand blank disc but not necessarily expensive "archive" media (TY, Sony, TDK, Verbetem) and then uploading them online to a Flickr Pro account or Amazon's Simple Storage using Jungle Disk. All the backup discs in the world will not help you if they are stolen or destroyed in a fire.

[HypoLuxa-HermesPan]

Originally Posted by Snowman Most point and shoot cameras do not offer a RAW format.

Actually a lot of them do now. Really cheap ones don't, but with the popularity of RAW, a big number of P&S have been offering RAW as well as even aperture control. There doing this to keep up with the popularity of dSLRs.

Originally Posted by Snowman Also, post processing of RAW photos is time consuming and complicated to get good results.

You can have them batch converted with SW that usually ships with the camera. Good results are automatic... I mean, they are AT LEAST as good as if you would have saved JPG and only go up from there.

Originally Posted by Snowman Since Lucky had trouble re-sizing her photos, that's probably not something appropriate to her current skill level. JPEGs at a high quality level would be just fine.

It would have solved her overwriting of original files issue since it is not overwritable. True the average shooter could make due with JPG, but I've known many consumer level photographers who have had a setting wrong on the camera, and the resulting photos were all but unusable (bad color settings, under/over-exposed, etc.) RAW can completely fix a lot of problems that JPG can't. A little bit of learning to deal with RAW adjustments would greatly benefit any shooter.

Originally Posted by Snowman Also, I disagree that archival CDs or DVDs are needed (or even better). The vast majority of CDs and DVDs that I have burned since the second half of the 90's are fine.

Opposite with me man. I've seen a lot of mine (even from the 00s), and friends and colleagues delaminate. Who knows, maybe Hawaii is harsher conditions than CA, hehe. I mean, think about it. If your ONLY copy of something will be burned off to this media, wouldn't it be worth it to make SURE they are safe by choosing a media that is meant for archival quality? If you don't care about losing the files if it came to that and were only budget conscious, then hey, whatever floats your boat, or fucks your duck! (haha). Also, using cheaper media to transfer files between people, or being on of a duplicate set of archives is OK I guess... but again, if it's your only source of archiving, and it's important data... shit, spend a little extra for the peace of mind.

Originally Posted by Snowman ...and then uploading them online to a Flickr Pro account or Amazon's Simple Storage using Jungle Disk. All the backup discs in the world will not help you if they are stolen or destroyed in a fire.

True, off-site backup is always best.

[ginko23]

Originally Posted by Snowman If you really want to protect your photos, I would suggest burning them to a name brand blank disc but not necessarily expensive "archive" media (TY, Sony, TDK, Verbetem) and then uploading them online to a Flickr Pro account...

Originally Posted by HypoLuxa-HermesPan True, off-site backup is always best.

There are hackers that state that they can break into any Flickr account. I would be careful storing anything there that you would not want the world to see. One gentleman has a website (or a thread on a web site) where he posts on a routine bases the stuff he has hacked into. The shots vary from family outings to x rated.

Digital technology experts state that if you have a digital photo on your computer, you should assume that it may show up on the internet some day.

Off topic. Once your medical records are on line as proposed, you can also assume that they will be made public. Put this in your time capsule for 2012, if not sooner. Every time a Hollywood star goes to the Dr. the results will be hacked (and/or bought) and released. Every Politician and/or political commentator’s medical records will be made public.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by ginko23 There are hackers that state that they can break into any Flickr account. I would be careful storing anything there that you would not want the world to see. One gentleman has a website (or a thread on a web site) where he posts on a routine bases the stuff he has hacked into. The shots vary from family outings to x rated. Digital technology experts state that if you have a digital photo on your computer, you should assume that it may show up on the internet some day.

I'm skeptical that Flickr is that easy to hack into, but if someone is worried about this possibility, then my second suggestion about uploading the photos to Amazon via Jungle Disk would solve the problem. Jungle Disk has an option to encrypt the data using the AES 256 security. Alternatively, if one did not trust this, they could encrypt the data themselves prior to uploading by using another tool such as WinZip or WinRAR and upload the archives.

It's possible that the alleged Flickr "hacker" is actually someone who works for Flickr or Yahoo!

I'm going to copy these messages to the Photography board as a new thread. If anyone wants to add to the photo discussion, please do it there so that we can keep this thread about AMP 9.