Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: revaaron on May 04, 2010, 03:00:12 pm
-
probably a repost, but always a good topic.
first, I have the structure in my computer(s):
year\year-month number-Month Name\year-month-day - location\band,group,person
so an example
MyPhotos\2010\2010-04-April\2010-04-23 - nemhf day one\mainstage\after_the_burial\after_the_burial001.ccr.jpg
MyPhotos\2010\2010-04-April\2010-04-23 - nemhf day one\mainstage\after_the_burial\after_the_burial002.jpg
...
etc.
I synch them up using beyond compare with
1) a drobo (5TB) that sits at my work
2) a QANP 639pro (12TB) that sits in my house
3) a couple drives that stay turned off at home
4) my desktop
5) my laptop
I keep 1/2-1 year on my desktop and 4 months on my laptop (both are backed up nightly with WHS)
Before I delete them from my photos from my laptop/desktop, I will byte-wise compare the QNAP and the drobo.
I also have my webservers backup to the QNAP which rules.
what is your process? Someone I know from another forum has 4 4xdrobos and uses time machine back ups from each to each keeping a bunch of giant snap shots.
-
probably a repost, but always a good topic.
first, I have the structure in my computer(s):
year\year-month number-Month Name\year-month-day - location\band,group,person
so an example
MyPhotos\2010\2010-04-April\2010-04-23 - nemhf day one\mainstage\after_the_burial\after_the_burial001.ccr.jpg
MyPhotos\2010\2010-04-April\2010-04-23 - nemhf day one\mainstage\after_the_burial\after_the_burial002.jpg
...
etc.
I synch them up using beyond compare with
1) a drobo (5TB) that sits at my work
2) a QANP 639pro (12TB) that sits in my house
3) a couple drives that stay turned off at home
4) my desktop
5) my laptop
I keep 1/2-1 year on my desktop and 4 months on my laptop (both are backed up nightly with WHS)
Before I delete them from my photos from my laptop/desktop, I will byte-wise compare the QNAP and the drobo.
I also have my webservers backup to the QNAP which rules.
what is your process? Someone I know from another forum has 4 4xdrobos and uses time machine back ups from each to each keeping a bunch of giant snap shots.
Without getting into naming convention, automation options, etc.
From an equipment and strategy perspective, but putting aside for the moment the brand and type of devices used, the minimum standards for effective backup would be:
*a clarified data protection strategy that encompasses the following:
- redundancy of data
- simplicity of the backup process
- offsite strategy
- consistent execution
I work with photographers that have a very wide range of data capacity requirements. The amount of data that needs protecting is a crucial component of the strategy itself. The biggest problem I see with clients is that they are in a short term, high device buying cycle. Meaning, they fill up storage rapidly and add devices as they go. In many cases this makes an effective backup strategy difficult and complicated. Frequently I have found clients without any redundancy at all!
When I consult with photographers on data protection, some of the important questions are:
*how much data do you currently have?
*how much do you anticipate adding over the next 36 months?
*if the amount of data is high, are you able to discern critical data vs data that is non-critical or will be retired after a certain time period (this helps determine an offsite strategy)
I am a big proponent of RAID because the advantage over individual high capacity hard drives is much higher capacity and read/write speed (many clients use RAID as a working drive). It is very difficult to backup data from 8 or 12 individual hard drives. Right now individual hard drives top out at 2TB capacity. Non server-based RAID solutions start at 4TB's and can scale to at least 32TB's (with the solutions we sell). We try to move content producers into a (roughly) 36 month device buying cycle and they can typically do this with RAID technology because of the capacity.
This makes it much simpler for a photographer to implement a strategy. By projecting out 36 months and buying a solution that with one device/interface provides capacity for all the current and future content over the next 36 months (and duplicating that at least once with a like device for redundancy), the backup process becomes very simple, very easy. As a result, an end user is much more likely to consistently maintain the backup process.
A solution like this costs a bit more than buying individual hard drives, but reliability and performance are way higher. And the backup workflow is no longer a struggle.
I do have opinions about the equipment as well, but first, the strategy is the key.
Revaaron, you have invested the time and money to protect your data with high capacity RAID, an offsite component, and thought on the term of the storage for some of the data. So you are ahead of the game when compared to many.
My advice - don't be sorry. If you do not have a strategy that you can easily and consistently and sustainably employ, implement one today that changes all that for you and eliminates the precarious position your data is currently in.
Steve Hendrix
-
my naming is similar - year, month, day, client so it all sorts nicely by default with the last job at the bottom of a list sorted alphabetically. eg 20100505 AGT would be today's job.
I use two Drobos - one in the studio and one at home, and ferry data home every fortnight or so on an external drive. I have 6TB worth of drives in each Drobo which gives me 3.62TB on each for redundant backup. I also use time machine here at the studio for hourly backups in case something goes bad. Worst case is I lose one or two shots (setups, motifs etc) on that day's shoot. However my Drobos are filling up fast - I only have 586GB available after putting 5-6 years worth of digital jobs on it so will either have to put more 2TB drives in them or step up to the big boys that take 8 drives each. Not looking forward to that expense. The great thing about having everything in one place instead of individual hard drives in a cupboard is when a client asks for an image from 4 years ago, and I can easily search for it. Cataloging is also easy and searching for pictures based on file name or metadata is also easier if it's all in one place. I actually just let spotlight catalog it all then can search by client (folder) name or year or filename (usually a description of the shot) or a combination of all of these. It's not as good as something like Portfolio, but much less work.
I suppose it's not realistic to expect to keep all my jobs in one place like this forever, unless we get 100TB SSD drives or something like that in the near future. I may have to put the drives from my drobos on a shelf one day (carefully labelled!) and start again with a bunch of new empty drives and keep going from that point. A bit of a hassle if I want to go back to old data to remove 4 drives and shove in the 4 older ones to get to it.
Ben
-
Mine is very simple. I buy 2 identical HDs and start filling #1 with images that I import in LR and I have in the catalog. I then duplicate it to hd #2 and after that each time I do something to #1 I use carbon copy cloner app to make an incremental backup to #2. When I fill those up I buy other 2 HDs and start over. They are named in a consecutive manner and they live offline in LR, but I can still see what each contains, so all I have to do is plug the one I need and access the images. Pretty simple, cost effective and it works as advertised.
-
After massive backup hardware, how do you catalog all files?
What is the best software on mac to catalog and search these back up files?
-
After massive backup hardware, how do you catalog all files?
What is the best software on mac to catalog and search these back up files?
Extensis Portfolio
-
Mine is very simple. I buy 2 identical HDs and start filling #1 with images that I import in LR and I have in the catalog. I then duplicate it to hd #2 and after that each time I do something to #1 I use carbon copy cloner app to make an incremental backup to #2. When I fill those up I buy other 2 HDs and start over. They are named in a consecutive manner and they live offline in LR, but I can still see what each contains, so all I have to do is plug the one I need and access the images. Pretty simple, cost effective and it works as advertised.
I did it that way for YEARS. except I would have 3 hard drives with one sitting at work. it got too hard to manage with (at that time) all these 500GB drives sitting around.
-
I suppose it's not realistic to expect to keep all my jobs in one place like this forever, unless we get 100TB SSD drives or something like that in the near future. I may have to put the drives from my drobos on a shelf one day (carefully labelled!) and start again with a bunch of new empty drives and keep going from that point. A bit of a hassle if I want to go back to old data to remove 4 drives and shove in the 4 older ones to get to it.
cloud storage at home. This is an awesome article about it:
http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petab...-cloud-storage/ (http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/)
the only issue I have with it is this "ST31500341AS". That makes me not want to post this article since I bought 6 of those drives and have gone through 13 of them getting them replaced by seagate and I currently have 3 of them sitting here dead.
-
Mine is simple. Use a Drobo than to back that up I will take a 1 TB drive and put all raws in it and another and put all final Tif files in it date it than repeat as i go along. I put these bare drives off site. Also Drobo has 4 2 tb drives in once filled I store those drives as a group.
Naming Client/job date month, date, year
searstractors05032010 example of course
I try to keep it very simple.
Also any DVD burned for a client a backup is made as well for the client and me.
-
I keep 1/2-1 year on my desktop and ...
Take them off your desktop and put them in a logical location on the drive. No matter what OS you're running you're wasting system memory by having it manage the files from the desktop.
-
just an FYI for you guys, 2TB @ new egg this saturday for $120
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2010708 (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2010708)
-
Hey Rev, thanks so much for this link, absolutely fascinating! Love that they list the parts they use too, gives me a better idea about which sata cards are best
Cheers!
*steve
cloud storage at home. This is an awesome article about it:
http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petab...-cloud-storage/ (http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/)
the only issue I have with it is this "ST31500341AS". That makes me not want to post this article since I bought 6 of those drives and have gone through 13 of them getting them replaced by seagate and I currently have 3 of them sitting here dead.
-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136514 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?nm_mc=AFC-SlickDeals&cm_mmc=AFC-SlickDeals%2d%5f%2dNA%2d%5f%2dNA%2d%5f%2dNA&Item=N82E16822136514)
I have 4 of these in my Drobo . There quiet, run clean and green. Not the fastest drives but for storage your looking more for reliability than speed.
-
@Guy: those are what I'm swapping through everything in my systems cause of massive failures of my seagate 7200.11 drives. Those are also the ones that are listed as $20 less on saturday. Also, if you look at the drobo architecture for the 1st, 2nd gens, the hard drives don't matter at all for the speed. The issues with speed of the drobos is that they have a cellphone processor inside dealing with up to 16TB of data (when the 4TB drives come out).
-
I just helped a friend set up Drobo Pro 16TB with the same WD Green WD20EARS 2TB 64MB Cache hard drives mentioned above.
So far, transfer rates are about 2GB per minute (33MB/s) from LaCie (FW800)
into Drobo Pro connected via iSCSI (Gigabit ethernet).
-
my 2nd gen drobo gets around 25Mbps connected via firewire, 15Mbps when connected by USB.
I'm either buying a pro or elite for my radio station in 6 months as we transition to more digital storage.
-
I just helped a friend set up Drobo Pro 16TB with the same hard drives mentioned above.
So far, transfer rates are about 2GB per minute (33MB/s) from LaCie (FW800)
into Drobo Pro connected via iSCSI (Gigabit ethernet).
Read or Write?
Steve Hendrix
-
Read or Write?
Only write speeds matter for the moment
as contents of smaller LaCie hard drives are being copied onto Drobo Pro.
2GB per minute as timed by iPhone stop watch.
For myself, I would be interested in hearing experiences with QNAP units
which cost in the same neighborhood as the Drobo Pro, yet offers faster speed and is stand-alone NAS (with its associated features).
My hesitation being I'm only versed in Mac.
-
@Guy: those are what I'm swapping through everything in my systems cause of massive failures of my seagate 7200.11 drives. Those are also the ones that are listed as $20 less on saturday. Also, if you look at the drobo architecture for the 1st, 2nd gens, the hard drives don't matter at all for the speed. The issues with speed of the drobos is that they have a cellphone processor inside dealing with up to 16TB of data (when the 4TB drives come out).
Yea good choice they are very quiet and efficient. I have I guess the first generation Drobo with 4 drives Firewire 800. I thought about the S unit and go e-sata but now with my new I7 core MBP 15 inch i lost my express port slot . Bums me out but what I do now is keep stuff on a 2nd Drive internally on the laptop a 500gb 7200 drive just for about 1 month backup so if I need access it is a little faster than going to Drobo. I use Drobo as my safe if you will, more for storage than working with it. Guess i should point out my OS drive is SSD with the new OWC Extreme 200gb drive which is very fast .
I have some space left for awhile until 4gb drives start hitting the street than just update the 2TB and than use the 2tb to off load storage. Get to recycle these drives as they keep increasing the TB on them. Which is kind of nice.
It would be interesting to find out read and write time with all the Drobo units with the same type of drives. Kind of confusing.
-
For myself, I would be interested in hearing experiences with QNAP units
which cost in the same neighborhood as the Drobo Pro, yet offers faster speed and is stand-alone NAS (with its associated features).
My hesitation being I'm only versed in Mac.
I LOVE my QNAP and would give up 2 drobos for one QNAP in a heart beat. I can back up 3 different computers at around 35Mbps each at the same time. I would say if you want to do "other things" with the server and are familiar with linux, get a QNAP over the drobo. If you just want storage and no extras, get a drobo. I don't use iSCSI since my WHS had issues re-connecting to the iSCSI device after a reboot. I don't like how you can't connect to a iSCSI drive other than through the iSCSI target so I don't trust it.
-
I have some space left for awhile until 4gb drives start hitting the street than just update the 2TB and than use the 2tb to off load storage. Get to recycle these drives as they keep increasing the TB on them. Which is kind of nice.
4TB, I assume. Hitachi said in 2008 that their 4TB drives will be out in 2011.
-
I use a homebuilt NAS with Gigabit Ethernet and RAID 5. Current available capacity is 2TB which is fine for me, but the rig'll go up to 14TB in terms of space to install hard disks and it boots Linux from a SSD. Whole house is wired for Ethernet, since backup via WiFi is sloooow. It recently had one drive fail, which it survived without any problems. Check which drive failed, power down, remove the busted drive, pop in the new drive and off you go.
IMPORTANT TIP: One tip I would give to those considering a self-built NAS or storage appliance like the Backblaze tip (also something they don't mention) - make sure you label each drive with it's serial number in a location where you easily see it, because I've learned that the drives don't necessarily get enumerated in the OS in the order in which they are installed or connected, although this also depends on the OS. Basically, you happily build your NAS with 12 drives stacked together, and then bam! One drive fails. Which one was it? Windows/Linux shows it as the nth drive, so since I installed the drives in order, it should be the nth one up, shouldn't it? Not always. Unless you're using a fancy schmancy NAS enclosure which has a dedicated LED to indicate which drive failed, you won't know which one it was. So you check in the OS, and you get the serial number of the drive that failed, but which one was it? They're all stacked together so you can't see the manufacturer's label to find the serial number. If you only have 3 or 4 drives stacked together, although it's troublesome enough to look through, you can do it, but any more than that, and it's a hassle, downtime, far too much disruption, etc. So make sure you label each drive with it's own serial number as you install them in a location that you can easily see the label when you open up the hood (see attached pic).
Ensure your cooling is adequate, especially the disk drives. Decide on your airflow, ensuring that it all flows in a single direction (i.e., front to back for example). The motherboard will have temperature sensors on it, and each drive also has a temperature sensor. You can use utilities like HWMonitor (Windows users, or the lm_sensors package in Linux) to check the temperature of the CPU, the ambient temperature inside the casing (motherboard sensor) and the temperature of each drive. If you find your base setup is hotter than you'd like it, make one change to the cooling setup at a time and then check temperatures again over a period of time (e.g., an hour, with simulated use). If you make too many changes at once you risk having a system that doesn't seem to be making any improvement in temperatures and you won't know why. Keeping your drives cool will help them last longer.
I've heard that it's also a good idea to ensure that each drive comes out of a different production batch. If you have 45 drives, this may not be possible, but if you have a smaller number of drives, it's quite doable. Just get the supplier to indulge you a little! Supposedly, this reduces the risk that a particular manufacturing defect or tolerance will affect too many of the disks at once.
For the really paranoid, choose a NAS solution that is capable of mirroring itself to another NAS and perform an automatic failover if one array should fail altogether. Don't forget to use a good UPS. RAID 6 affords tolerance of a simultaneous 2 drive failure.
-
I have 12 x 2 TB..... use them as single drives (No raid) the first 6 are main drives the 2nd 6 are backup and I have a lot of old drives as 2nd backup.
I have the 12 bay eSATA storage unit online 24/7.
I know this system is seriously flawed, but don't have the energy to change it and don't feel like spending thousands on something better.
Active work sits on 2 of my computer hard drives (there are 4 in the mac towers..whatever you call them) so if something goes wrong I have about 3 backups and when done (after a LONG time) I move them to the external drives to never be looked at again.
I think that I have a total of 40TB in online and offline storage... it is too much... where are the days of boxes and boxes full of contact sheets??
-
oeps double post
-
I have 1 3x2tB RAID 5 and I was converting the RAID 1 2x2TB to another 3x2tB RAID 5 and something didn't finish.
I just had to reboot my QNAP and I will try again once it is done building.
-
The "rsync" command is my friend!
Can be used from any platform with a little research.
Link: http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/ (http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/)
-
The "rsync" command is my friend!
Can be used from any platform with a little research.
Link: http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/ (http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/)
I use this on my linux systems, but when I tried to get it to work on windows, it was a colossal failure. I was unable to get it to work over SSH. Also, I did find a way to do bitwise comparison.
Another thing is that sometimes my file times were messed up using rsync.
-
Not directly related to each of out individual needs but interesting, nevertheless.
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/th...-archive-system (http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-library-of-congress-unlocks-the-ultimate-archive-system)
-
cloud storage at home. This is an awesome article about it:
http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petab...-cloud-storage/ (http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/)
4gb file limit means this (otherwise great) service is useless for photographers.
-
4gb file limit means this (otherwise great) service is useless for photographers.
you have files that are over 4GB? a 190MP TIFF is 1.1GB.
-
I'm very impressed with the 'ultra-portable' pocket drives. I have a few of these, bought over the years, ranging from 160GB to 1TB. None of them have failed yet.
A very small bookshelf could hold an enormous amount of data in the form of 'WD, My Passport, 1TB' pocket drives which are powered through the USB connection.
This seems to me an ideal form of storage, considering that the 1TB versions are now so affordable.
Does anyone reading this thread have any negative comments about the reliability of 'WD My Passport' drives?
-
I have just read this thread for the first time and I am staggered. I had long realised that digital storage presents problems for the active photographer simply by considering my own current, tiny shooting rate as an ex-pro, but it seems to me to be a very expensive, time-consuming nightmare.
I have no idea how long any of you have been in practice, but when I consider my own situation, I am happy to have lived out my working life in film!
All it took was a register - a book - that carried columns with job number, film number, date, client name, location, subject; a few rows of negative bags and a metal filing cabinet containing transparencies on racks. It was all so easy, accessible and compact too.
Of course I can't know for sure how it affects others, but I imagine much of the problem with digital storage is also due to the relative ease/temptation of overshooting even the most simple subject.
Was a time one did the shot, handed over the print or transparency, went home and forgot about it until the cheque came in. Or didn't, but that was a whole other battle.
You truly have my sympathy.
Rob C
-
...Of course I can't know for sure how it affects others, but I imagine much of the problem with digital storage is also due to the relative ease/temptation of overshooting even the most simple subject...
Rob C
I join your opinion here.
I guess that overshooting is part of the digital in itself.
The irony is that in fashion for example, where the shooting rate is very high, do you see better pics now from the gurus than 15 years ago? I don't honestly.
And that, in any area. There are no better street photography despite the incredible increment in volume.
But yes, what's new is a total dependance and slavery on electronic solutions for any purpose.
It's a much bigger market, a huge industry, hungry of our money.
There are very few people that really use and exploit digital as a completly new tool, most is a more flexible variation and interpretation of the traditional photography.
In fact, what we see is new technology for old practises. Here I'd say that I always like better the originals.
Backups are facing the problems of overshooting (over-volume of datas) plus, the problem of classification (bad folder manes) plus, the problem of reliability (unstable solutions).
-
I have just read this thread for the first time and I am staggered. I had long realised that digital storage presents problems for the active photographer simply by considering my own current, tiny shooting rate as an ex-pro, but it seems to me to be a very expensive, time-consuming nightmare.
I have no idea how long any of you have been in practice, but when I consider my own situation, I am happy to have lived out my working life in film!
All it took was a register - a book - that carried columns with job number, film number, date, client name, location, subject; a few rows of negative bags and a metal filing cabinet containing transparencies on racks. It was all so easy, accessible and compact too.
Of course I can't know for sure how it affects others, but I imagine much of the problem with digital storage is also due to the relative ease/temptation of overshooting even the most simple subject.
Was a time one did the shot, handed over the print or transparency, went home and forgot about it until the cheque came in. Or didn't, but that was a whole other battle.
You truly have my sympathy.
Rob C
Strange perspective, Rob. Digital storage is easy and cheap. What's problematic is the preservation and storage of film. It has to be scanned, and that's expensive and time-consuming. It's easier to transfer the contents of one 8GB flash card to an external hard drive than it is to scan and save one frame of film and contend with the issues of getting the colors and tonality right and removing the scratches.
As an amateur shooting film many years ago, I wasn't nearly as prolific as I've been since I started using DSLRs. However, the freedom from concern about the cost and hassles of film development every time I press the shutter is quite liberating.
-
Strange perspective, Rob. Digital storage is easy and cheap. What's problematic is the preservation and storage of film. It has to be scanned, and that's expensive and time-consuming. It's easier to transfer the contents of one 8GB flash card to an external hard drive than it is to scan and save one frame of film and contend with the issues of getting the colors and tonality right and removing the scratches.
As an amateur shooting film many years ago, I wasn't nearly as prolific as I've been since I started using DSLRs. However, the freedom from concern about the cost and hassles of film development every time I press the shutter is quite liberating.
Haven't found it that way, Ray. I have both Ektachrome 120 (few, because I hardly ever shot 120 after around the early '80s) and Kodachrome and they are still in pretty good condition. Yes, a lot of my 35mm slides were effed, but I received them that way after getting them back from my stock library when we parted company. I have written them off as too much work.
But, with commissioned work, the essential thing was that once the client had approved the shots and they had them in their hands, I was free to forget about them and look for new work or just lotus eat. Didn't have to store them! Transparencies that didn't leave my control are still okay. I find no expense with scanning: I do my own. And it saves time too, since I can edit on a lightbox far more quickly and surely than taking the time to put files through the system and then run them up together on the monitor to compare. Mabe it's just the years that make it natural for me.
Of all the professional stages, it was watching pages run off a huge litho printer that gave most angst: those mothers never matched the client-approved proofs!
As for digital being liberating - well yes, you can click to sick cheaply, but does it bring better results than holding back and preserving your powder until you see the whites of their eyes?
I repeat again what I have said quite recently: but that I had my 500 series stuff back and a 120 scanner! Expensive as those scanners may be, I am sure I have wasted far more chasing two digital formats to reach the stratus quo, and without really being totally happy having got there. The other thing is, as I get older, I feel more inclined towards considering what I shoot than I used to - slow suits me better now. ;-(
Rob C
-
Rob, I don't get this, why would the capture medium make a difference? Why would I shoot more images when using digital capture and less using film? If anything I shoot less images using digital capture simply because I have more confidence in the results and confirmation of what I've shot. This knowledge has made me more relaxed and liable to shoot all the slower. There was a time that I could only dream of the kind of hit rate that I can now achieve when using digital capture.
Klaban,
What you say is true, but I do think that you are in the very few who shoot less with digi. I tend to take this path also, in other words, less I shoot, more I like digital. More I shoot, more I hate it.
But you come from painting, so do I.
We are used of slowness.
-
Hi Keith
Yes, for you I am sure it holds true - you never were into the machine gun school because of your subject matter (if your site is representative of your thinking over the years). As Fred suggests, you are in the minority that way. Also, you are a pro and know more or less what you are looking for; many do not. In my own case, I used to use a cassette of 35mm on a shot if I was using that format, or usually a roll on 120 if on that. Why? Because the two cameras promoted different ways of doing the job and almost suggested themselves depending on the work.
With the Nikons it was a case of building up the mood until it started to degenerate and go stale; on the Hass I would be using it for shots that didn't demand much model reaction - greater than that was the need for detail/shape of outfit and room for the art department to drop in text. You got that pretty soon, and doing more than a dozen on any setup was overkill.
I suspect that doing exactly the same work today, with digi, even I would have been tempted to shoot way more than made productive sense.
That's why I can honestly declare that, today, the 'blad/scanner would be it for me - I no longer have the model work and my subjects probably don't move intentionally... But, one took the decisions as one did and that's a deal that won't permit a re-run.
Really, it's the horses for courses thing again. (There has got to be something there to add about one trick ponies; I can't quite think of it, but it's still too good an opportunity to miss!)
;-)
Rob C
PS Fred, if you are reading this, can you give me again that link to the photographer using the weebly system? I put it into Favourites for reference, but I can't remember his name and there are dozens of guys listed there!
-
The best way is still the easiest way...... or is it the easiest way is the best way ?
After calculating the cost of a Drobo, I'm convinced that using a dual HDD system is the best.
Dual HDD (back ups, NOT RAID !) all the way, from your working computer to the final storage.
It works out cheaper and easier.
You can keep one of the HDD in a safe location and put the other in a external HDD (I use a 4 tier) rack
to access your past years' files.
You can even get one of those slot in type of HDD casings to have easier access to your past years' files.
The whole thing looks and works like a giant CF card reader.
-
....... but I do think that you are in the very few who shoot less with digi. I tend to take this path also, in other words, less I shoot, more I like digital. More I shoot, more I hate it.
But you come from painting, so do I.
We are used of slowness.
This doesn't make much sense to me, Fred. But I'm an amateur.
As a matter of fact, many years ago I was amazed when I first learned that some professionals would shoot off a whole roll of film in order to get the one good shot that would satisfy the client. I was far more frugal. A roll of film could last me a month.
When I went trekking in Nepal for a couple of months about 46 years ago with my recently purchased Pentax Spotmatic, I took only 3 rolls of 36 exposure Kodachrome 64 and a couple of rolls of B&W.
That oversight probably saved my life. At that time (in 1964) the Tibetans were still putting up a resistance to the Chinese invasion. Lots of them continued to flee into Nepal where they were given shelter in U.N.-run camps. I visited them at one camp in Trisuli, and took lots of photos (ie. about 20).
Here's a couple of examples: [attachment=21887:Mounds_of_rice.jpg] [attachment=21888:Tib_monk_A3_print.jpg]
When I learned that many of these refugees would cross back and forth at will, through the high mountain passes into Tibet and back again, I got very excited about the prospects of some real adventure. I would join one of these groups going back into Tibet, photograph their struggles and way of life, and perhaps even photograph some war conflict between the Chinese and Tibetan resistance groups.
I had National Geographic in mind. I'd become famous. (I coulda bin somebody ) Of course, I was young and foolhardy. In retrospect I now realise I'd probably have got caught and thrown into a Chinese jail, if not killed.
Fortunately, perhaps (perhaps not), I was down to my last roll of film which was already half-used.
My main concern was not so much the physical risk but the frustration of coming across amazing events to photograph but not having any film left. So I regretfully decided against the plan.
I just mention this little off-topic aside to make the point that I've always followed the principle that one only photographs something that interests one, that catches one's attention, that 'moves' one in some way, whether the camera is film or digital.
There's a strong tendency to take more shots when using a digital camera simply because of the greater potential of the tool. As a result of taking multiple shots of a particular scene you may avoid the mistake of an exposure which is not ideal; you may increase dynamic range (by merging to HDR); you may turn your humble 35mm camera into a tool which surpasses an 8x10 field camera (by stitching numerous shots), and you may also increase your chances of capturing an unplanned, fortuitous, accidental masterpiece.
As George Bernard Shaw commented, when asked what he thought of the proliferation of affordable 35mm cameras bought by the masses, "The greater the total number of photos taken, the greater the number of 'good' photos taken."
-
As George Bernard Shaw commented, when asked what he thought of the proliferation of affordable 35mm cameras bought by the masses, "The greater the total number of photos taken, the greater the number of 'good' photos taken."
Unfortunately, an even greater, unavoidable volume of shit comes packaged with that deal.
Rob C
-
Unfortunately, an even greater, unavoidable volume of shit comes packaged with that deal.
Rob C
That's what I'm trying to point.
We gain in many aspects but lost in many others too.
Look at this forum, 90% is about unstable softwares, gone colors profiles, lost datas, unsatisfaction with gear features, bad tethered, slow data transfer, unreliability of components, extreme cost of MF etc...
You say you can shoot more, truth but : How many hours, time and energy spent on internet simply looking for the right information, downloads, solve computer problems, etc...I'm sure that in fact, this amount of time is huge. Where is the shooting when we have to deal with those shit in front of our monitor ?
The problem is that all that is a perfect jungle: Want to calibrate my monitor? Well here starts the race: Need to find the software, looking reviews here, there, watching users experience, then make sure this has no issues with the computer, etc...just for that task, hours and hours spent in order to know what is the right tool for one task, then calibrate and the next day they just released a new software that put this one into the dinausor age. And it's like that in every aspect.
Still run my Photoshop CS3 !! Feel already like a strange guy.
I'm not saying that internet is not usefull, it is indeed.
But to my surprise, when I was a designer in an agency and had the oportunity to meet many pros and talk to them, many of them did not shoot more like crazy because of digital.
That's a point that always surprised me. I think that the pros have a better conscience of the equation income/outcome if I can say it that way.
They generally know what they do and don't shoot for shooting.
There are some niches like fashion, sport, where they shoot like crazy, but they where doing it in film age too.
To be back in this topic, the problem of backups is asked. Solutions? Diverse.
What's the best one? don't know. Cost? not that clear. Reliability? average.
The problem IMO is that digital has created a new race of behaviour very similar to antibiotics: fear.
I'm frighten not having enough frames: digisolution.
I'm frighten of loosing my backup: digipill
I'm frighten of not having enough DR: Nikon's injection
I'm frighten of not having enough compatibility: Canon's remedy
I'm frighten to be hill: antibiotics.
-
That's what I'm trying to point.
We gain in many aspects but lost in many others too.
Look at this forum, 90% is about unstable softwares, gone colors profiles, lost datas, unsatisfaction with gear features, bad tethered, slow data transfer, unreliability of components, extreme cost of MF etc...
You say you can shoot more, truth but : How many hours, time and energy spent on internet simply looking for the right information, downloads, solve computer problems, etc...I'm sure that in fact, this amount of time is huge. Where is the shooting when we have to deal with those shit in front of our monitor ?
The problem is that all that is a perfect jungle: Want to calibrate my monitor? Well here starts the race: Need to find the software, looking reviews here, there, watching users experience, then make sure this has no issues with the computer, etc...just for that task, hours and hours spent in order to know what is the right tool for one task, then calibrate and the next day they just released a new software that put this one into the dinausor age. And it's like that in every aspect.
Still run my Photoshop CS3 !! Feel already like a strange guy.
I'm not saying that internet is not usefull, it is indeed.
But to my surprise, when I was a designer in an agency and had the oportunity to meet many pros and talk to them, many of them did not shoot more like crazy because of digital.
That's a point that always surprised me. I think that the pros have a better conscience of the equation income/outcome if I can say it that way.
They generally know what they do and don't shoot for shooting.
There are some niches like fashion, sport, where they shoot like crazy, but they where doing it in film age too.
To be back in this topic, the problem of backups is asked. Solutions? Diverse.
What's the best one? don't know. Cost? not that clear. Reliability? average.
The problem IMO is that digital has created a new race of behaviour very similar to antibiotics: fear.
I'm frighten not having enough frames: digisolution.
I'm frighten of loosing my backup: digipill
I'm frighten of not having enough DR: Nikon's injection
I'm frighten of not having enough compatibility: Canon's remedy
I'm frighten to be hill: antibiotics.
No! no! no! Fred,
For me, the digital age is wonderful. I'll just 'pick you up' on a few points you've made, if you don't mind.
How many hours, time and energy spent on internet simply looking for the right information, downloads, solve computer problems, etc...I'm sure that in fact, this amount of time is huge. Where is the shooting when we have to deal with those shit in front of our monitor ?
Can I answer this with a question? What sort of life is it to spend half one's time in a smelly, dark, room, breathing in chemical odors which will likely be harmful to one's health in the long run? I feel very privileged that I can sit in a nice environment in front of my computer. I can interupt my work at any time, listen to music, watch the telly during a long computation process (such as image stitching), or admire the view through the window of my studio as the wallabies hop by.
Whatever I'm processing on my computer at any given moment, if I see something interesting outside, through the window, such as a visit by a migratory bird that I haven't encountered before, I can interupt what I'm doing, pick up my camera, and grab a few shots. I'm not concerned about silly issues such as 'spray and pray'. I do whetever it takes, with the tool I have, to capture a pleasing image. Birds, at least of the feathered variety, do not have a habit of cooperating whilst one stuffs around with camera settings.
One of the most popular images from the great and famous Ansel Adams is Moonrise over Hernandez. Below is a brief (plagiarised) description of the processing of that shot.
Once the photograph is taken, is the development and printing a mechanical process?
No, it is not mechanical. Although there is a procedure, there is much judgment involved on the part of the artist. Ansel said that the negative for Moonrise was difficult to print. He tried many methods using different chemicals and times and papers. With the negative in the enlarger, he increased the light hitting certain areas (burning-in) which made the sky blacker and the clouds less bright so the moon would stand out more. With all these artistic adjustments, Adams said "it is safe to say that no two prints are precisely the same."
Technical Aspects
Camera: 8 X 10 view camera
Lens: Cooke triple convertible lens.
Light meter: lost!
Film: Speed: ASA 64
Filter: Wratten No. 15 (G) filter
Exposure: 1 second at f/32.
Development: dilute D-23 and ten developer to water sequences.
Years later - refixed, washed the negative, and treated the lower section with a dilute solution of Kodak IN-5 intensifier.
But to my surprise, when I was a designer in an agency and had the oportunity to meet many pros and talk to them, many of them did not shoot more like crazy because of digital.
That's a point that always surprised me. I think that the pros have a better conscience of the equation income/outcome if I can say it that way.
They generally know what they do and don't shoot for shooting.
There are some niches like fashion, sport, where they shoot like crazy, but they where doing it in film age too.
I think the key point here is that 'they know what they do and don't shoot for shooting'. If I may add, they should also know what the client wants, even if they have to guess. That's the main purpose of their shooting. Presumably (correct me if I'm wrong), the professional photographer is working to a schedule. Time is money. A job has to be done. There's no time for experimenting with a whole lot of variations which may, or may not, produce a surprising and effective result.
As I've mentioned before, the amateur is in the privileged position of being his own client. He may not have taken any formal courses in Photography, but he will surely appreciate the learning 'feedback' opportunity of digital photography where EXIF information provides all the technical information required for the process of 'learning from one's mistakes'.
The problem IMO is that digital has created a new race of behaviour very similar to antibiotics: fear.
There's nothing to fear but fear itself
I'm frighten not having enough frames: digisolution.
No difference from the past. I made the decision not to travel into Tibet in 1964 because I had insufficient film frames to justify the risk..
I'm frighten of loosing my backup: digipill
People can be frightened of losing anything, whether Kodachrome slides, their house, their children, their job, whatever. Digitisation has not added to such fear. In fact, it's reduced it. Those in the business of preserving film images, whether still or moving, have an admirably effective solution with digitisation.
I'm frighten of not having enough DR: Nikon's injection
This was also a consideration with film. Generally, slide film had the worst DR. Negative color film was better, and B&W was the best of all. No need to be frightened. Just use the best film for the job. There's a tremendous advantage to DSLRs in respect of flexible ISO.
I'm frighten of not having enough compatibility: Canon's remedy
This is not a fear. It's merely a practical concern. I understand why Nikon and Canon do not manufacture lenses that are interchangeable between the two different brand of camera bodies. It's a pity, but there are third party lens manufacturers, such as Sigma, who try to fill this need.
I'm frighten to be hill: antibiotics.
One should never take antibiotics as a preventative. That's what immunisation is for.
You and Rob seem to be a couple of grumpy old men who are out of touch with modern developments. Get with it! .
-
"Can I answer this with a question? What sort of life is it to spend half one's time in a smelly, dark, room, breathing in chemical odors which will likely be harmful to one's health in the long run? I feel very privileged that I can sit in a nice environment in front of my computer. I can interupt my work at any time, listen to music, watch the telly during a long computation process (such as image stitching), or admire the view through the window of my studio as the wallabies hop by."
Do that as a pro and you'll be out on the street before the door hits your ass. The music, however, comes/came with the darkroom.
Viva Radio Caroline!
"There's nothing to fear but fear itself"
Bullshit! That's just an old saying based on nothing except evasion of reality. But then, if you cuddle tigers, perhaps not - just a symptom of something else.
"People can be frightened of losing anything, whether Kodachrome slides, their house, their children, their job, whatever. Digitisation has not added to such fear. In fact, it's reduced it. Those in the business of preserving film images, whether still or moving, have an admirably effective solution with digitisation."
Really?
"This was also a consideration with film. Generally, slide film had the worst DR. Negative color film was better, and B&W was the best of all. No need to be frightened. Just use the best film for the job. There's a tremendous advantage to DSLRs in respect of flexible ISO."
I can't say I ever worried about DR in real life; I shot what I shot, knew what I was doing and seldom encountered negative surprises but often quite nice ones. My problems now are all digital-based, from friggin' websites that I try to put together that confound me at every step to image formats that I once had but can no longer source, even if I could afford the damn things in the first place.
"This is not a fear. It's merely a practical concern. I understand why Nikon and Canon do not manufacture lenses that are interchangeable between the two different brand of camera bodies. It's a pity, but there are third party lens manufacturers, such as Sigma, who try to fill this need."
Throw in Leica: I once wrote to them asking why I couldn't buy their lenses in Nikon mount - they answered saying that they, Leica, produced nice cameras... just like politicians, afraid to answer the question directly.
"You and Rob seem to be a couple of grumpy old men who are out of touch with modern developments. Get with it!" .
Can't speak for Fred, but I fit the bill to the letter. It's called the passage of time and the understanding of the past. The more of it that passes the more of it there is to understand, the more representative the material from which to draw conclusions. And the message, the conclusion is ever the same: you're generally effed before you start; success is the surprise, and it does come along now and again, just don't ever depend on it.
Regarding 'modern developments' yes, there are certainly some advantages but also drawbacks. As I've said before, I wouldn't have been attracted to a life as a photographer way back then had digital been the norm - simply too cold, clinical and devoid of the 'feel' that I always got from film and, yes, the darkroom, which was seldon smelly and hardly dangerous unless you drank from the dishes or licked your fingers or bit your nails, the latter best protected with clear varnish if you dared the odd looks you might get.
You know, it was hard work, but there was also something quite romantic about working right through the night to get some urgent work out to the client as the agency doors opened... those nights sure did seem better with the Mamas and the Papas doing their "...and the darkest hour is just before dawn." It was like the radio was your buddy, someone sharing the shadows and keeping you awake. Shit, a whole way of life has gone down the drain.
Yeah, I sure do miss it all.
Grumps.
;-(
-
I shoot film and digital. Digital is for work/print publications where I need to get shots for.
Film is for my personal life. Shooting 1 or 2 frames of a summer day. Unless it's a picture of my dogs, all my prints are from film shots. I just wish adoramapix allowed files over 60MB to be uploaded. 350MP 16-bit NEFs FTW!
-
"People can be frightened of losing anything, whether Kodachrome slides, their house, their children, their job, whatever. Digitisation has not added to such fear. In fact, it's reduced it. Those in the business of preserving film images, whether still or moving, have an admirably effective solution with digitisation."
Really?
When I first bought my drobo, I got access to the drobospace forums and read HORROR STORIES so I ran out and bought a back up for my back up (QNAP) which I'm really glad I did since VISTA once killed the drobo's MBR. The thing is, Once you get a automated process in place, it does remove all the fear, but getting to that place is hard. I'm 95% of the way there after 1.5years since I started this backing up journey. I need to go and sort my "to sort" folders and weed out dups/crap.
-
"Can I answer this with a question? What sort of life is it to spend half one's time in a smelly, dark, room, breathing in chemical odors which will likely be harmful to one's health in the long run? I feel very privileged that I can sit in a nice environment in front of my computer. I can interupt my work at any time, listen to music, watch the telly during a long computation process (such as image stitching), or admire the view through the window of my studio as the wallabies hop by."
Do that as a pro and you'll be out on the street before the door hits your ass.
How do you know? You've never worked as a pro in the digital domain, have you? The point I'm making is: if I hear a cuckoo outside whilst I'm in the process of developing a print, or, if I hear a knock on the door from a friend dropping by, I can not interrupt what I'm doing to answer the door, or photograph the cuckoo, because the print will be spoiled.
However, if I'm working on the computer, whatever the task, backing up files on a very slow pocket-drive, stitching a hundred images, making careful adjustments of the 'curve' tool in Photoshop, I'm able to interrupt whatever I'm doing immediately and get back to it later without having spoiled anything or wasted my time. That's a huge advantage of the digital process, in my view.
Got it?
Bullshit! That's just an old saying based on nothing except evasion of reality. But then, if you cuddle tigers, perhaps not - just a symptom of something else.
Nonsense! Imaginary fears rule the world. Nations often go to war because of imaginary threats. Does 'weapons of mass destruction' spring to mind?
Can't speak for Fred, but I fit the bill to the letter. It's called the passage of time and the understanding of the past. The more of it that passes the more of it there is to understand, the more representative the material from which to draw conclusions. And the message, the conclusion is ever the same: you're generally effed before you start; success is the surprise, and it does come along now and again, just don't ever depend on it.
Success can be defined in many ways. My definition is: finding the circumstances which allows one to do what is meaningful, challenging, interesting and pleasurable in life. One could argue that, also getting paid for doing such, makes one even more successful. But I would argue that having more money than one needs can be a burden and can actually detract from the enjoyment of life.
Regarding 'modern developments' yes, there are certainly some advantages but also drawbacks. As I've said before, I wouldn't have been attracted to a life as a photographer way back then had digital been the norm - simply too cold, clinical and devoid of the 'feel' that I always got from film and, yes, the darkroom, which was seldon smelly and hardly dangerous unless you drank from the dishes or licked your fingers or bit your nails, the latter best protected with clear varnish if you dared the odd looks you might get.
I understand. There's a tendency to get emotionally attached to imperfections. It's called tradition. "Oh! I so love that film grain. The bigger the better. It's so romantic. I hate those awfully smooth flesh tones of digital capture, that are so clinical and cold."
That's pathetic, Rob.
You know, it was hard work, but there was also something quite romantic about working right through the night to get some urgent work out to the client as the agency doors opened... those nights sure did seem better with the Mamas and the Papas doing their "...and the darkest hour is just before dawn." It was like the radio was your buddy, someone sharing the shadows and keeping you awake. Shit, a whole way of life has gone down the drain.
Well, one can't argue with taste. If that's what was meaningful to you, excited you, enthralled you, who am I to argue. No hard feelings, I hope.
-
How do you know? You've never worked as a pro in the digital domain, have you? The point I'm making is: if I hear a cuckoo outside whilst I'm in the process of developing a print, or, if I hear a knock on the door from a friend dropping by, I can not interrupt what I'm doing to answer the door, or photograph the cuckoo, because the print will be spoiled.
However, if I'm working on the computer, whatever the task, backing up files on a very slow pocket-drive, stitching a hundred images, making careful adjustments of the 'curve' tool in Photoshop, I'm able to interrupt whatever I'm doing immediately and get back to it later without having spoiled anything or wasted my time. That's a huge advantage of the digital process, in my view.
Got it?
Nonsense! Imaginary fears rule the world. Nations often go to war because of imaginary threats. Does 'weapons of mass destruction' spring to mind?
Success can be defined in many ways. My definition is: finding the circumstances which allows one to do what is meaningful, challenging, interesting and pleasurable in life. One could argue that, also getting paid for doing such, makes one even more successful. But I would argue that having more money than one needs can be a burden and can actually detract from the enjoyment of life.
I understand. There's a tendency to get emotionally attached to imperfections. It's called tradition. "Oh! I so love that film grain. The bigger the better. It's so romantic. I hate those awfully smooth flesh tones of digital capture, that are so clinical and cold."
That's pathetic, Rob.
Well, one can't argue with taste. If that's what was meaningful to you, excited you, enthralled you, who am I to argue. No hard feelings, I hope.
Well, you're right about the last bit: taste.
As for working in any form of pro darkroom - it's about working, not swanning around at the end of a whim; if I were an employer, nobody would be sitting around with nothing to do but listen to birds on the bloom! Not for more than a very short while, anyway. You have simply looked at your own way of 'working' and extrapolated to the pro; you are mistaken- there are no free rides or concerts. Not if the business is going to run, at least.
As for grain - pathetic? I can't believe you are being serious. It's an added dimension of emotion - a further tool in the film cannister.
Fear; WMDs? No, that wasn't fear, that was lies and political striving to creat 'legacy' for puppy St Tone - and who even remembers him, never mind any legacy - we've just had another election where the minorities have effed the stability of an entire country yet nobody even mentioned the holy Tone in all the propaganda time leading up to it. The joke is, the pundits all claim 'the people' were calling for a hung parliament: bullshit again, they were all hoping their party would win. Are these commentators so arrogant they think all of us fools? Yes.
Hard feelings - wishful memories more like it... or wasted opportunities.
;-)
Rob
-
Ray,
It's always interesting to confrontate apparently opposite points.
Yours are certainly interesting and there is also many truths in your opinion.
Don't get me wrong: I don't miss film age.
My point is aimed towards a fact that we should be IMHO more aware: Digital brought incredible good things,
AND proportionally (to these advantages) an incredible amount of new Hassles.
There are just different.
Regarding the fear, digital is not the cause or the source, our society is based on fear. I see it everyday, but that would be a debate
for the Coffee corner IMO.
It's not digital that fails, it is the marketing arrownd, the companies politics and the overall mess of the products, distribution,
informations etc...
The backups should be something absolutly reliable, and easy to acheive. It is not!
A good camera design should be something easy to find in many brands. It is not!
Who design cameras and equipment? Marketing departments!
Standards should be something regulated. It is not! this industry is 100% free to do any kind of extravangant action.
etc...
Digital is NOT the problem.
-
As for working in any form of pro darkroom - it's about working, not swanning around at the end of a whim; if I were an employer, nobody would be sitting around with nothing to do but listen to birds on the bloom! Not for more than a very short while, anyway. You have simply looked at your own way of 'working' and extrapolated to the pro; you are mistaken- there are no free rides or concerts. Not if the business is going to run, at least.
Rob,
Whatever the purpose of interrupting the processing of an image, whether to attend to an urgent business matter or some other work-related matter, it can be done more easily and more efficiently in the digital darkroom as opposed to the wet darkroom where prints need to be agitated in various solutions for specific amounts of time. That was my point. I'm talking about the individualistic, personal attention one might give to the development of an enlargement using dodge and burn techniques, and so on.
Fear; WMDs? No, that wasn't fear, that was lies and political striving....
The purpose of which was to create fear amongst the public in order to justify certain actions, ie. going to war.
-
The backups should be something absolutly reliable, and easy to acheive. It is not!
A good camera design should be something easy to find in many brands. It is not!
Who design cameras and equipment? Marketing departments!
Standards should be something regulated. It is not! this industry is 100% free to do any kind of extravangant action.
etc...
Digital is NOT the problem.
Nothing is absolutely reliable. There's a Mean Time Between Failure which can be 100,000 hours or more, but that doesn't mean the device is guaranteed to work for such a period.
I've experienced two failures of back-up hard drives since I began using them. Both failures were my fault. The first failure, a LaCie 500GB Big Disk, overheated (I suspect). My airconditioner wasn't working; it was the middle of summer in Australia and very hot, and I frequently forgot to swith off the power to the hard drive after I'd finished using it. In retrospect, I should simply have directed a fan at the metal case of the drive.
The second drive was positioned on its edge on my cluttered desk (no room to lay it flat as it should have been). I accidentally kicked the power cord connected to the drive as I got up from my chair. The drive fell flat on its broad side, but still on the desk. It just tipped over, but it was running at the time and the fall was sufficient to cause me to lose all the data, about 400Gb.
The principle is clear. All data should reside on at least two hard drives, preferrably in different locations. All my RAW images also reside on CD and DVD. Blu-ray blanks are still too expensive.
I'm not worried .
-
I don't get it Rob, the thread is about backup, with your film you have zero backup. One little fire or a nasty flooding and your lifes work is gone. With digital at least there is the possibility of backup for all that the original data can perhaps be lost more easily if not taken care of.
-
I don't get it Rob, the thread is about backup, with your film you have zero backup. One little fire or a nasty flooding and your lifes work is gone. With digital at least there is the possibility of backup for all that the original data can perhaps be lost more easily if not taken care of.
Ben who needs a fire or a flood when we have ourselves?
When I left the UK to come and live here in Spain, I sold the negatives that I could to the old clients, destroyed the rest, and lost most of those which I had intended to keep for sentimental reasons (pride).
Now, with photo-art a relatively new phenomenon almost unheard of in the late 70s (again, in the UK which is where my experience lay), I would have sold nothing.
I had so many fashion pictures that would now stand on their own as possible art material - even two fully black/white calendar productions -and it is all gone, for ever lost. Digital wouldn't have helped there either. In fact, an (negative, from today's persepective) advantage would have been that I could have destroyed CDs more quickly than the hours it took to shred negatives!
Rob C
-
Hi Rob,
Why would you shred your negatives? Where you having some kind of manic episode?
Cheers
Simon
-
Hi Rob,
Why would you shred your negatives? Where you having some kind of manic episode?
Cheers
Simon
My manic episodes are not episodes: they are a way of life.
The dull reality regarding the negatives was that I was moving country, from Scotland to Spain. My early self-employed photo life was mainly b/w prints as final product, but later on, colour transparency became what I did 100% because I had moved from doing normal shoots to calendars and stock only. I can't say it was planned, more that the markets changed and I had to go with it or die, jusy as it is today with you guys still working.
I never imagined I would print or want to print anything again; I sold off what original clients would buy as part of their company 'history' and dumped the rest in order to relieve myself of the space and responsibility problem that it represented. The crucial part of it was that, as far as I knew, there was no photo art market in existence, even in my imagination. The closest to that idea was stock, where you tried to sell what you wanted to shoot, which turned out to be a dying idea too, since the agencies had other plans and agendas.
As I think I mentioned, there was a couple of b/w calendar sets that I was really proud of and liked and I thought I had saved them. But I have either lost them or didn't save them - that's almost thirty years since the move - who can remember? I do have two or three pages from one of those cals, but I had them encapsulated in those plastic films and that's as far as I can go with them now. Except to realise how grainy you could get 35mm film to look if you so chose. The one thing I did save was my set of Bardot negs from her film Three Weeks in September. Thank God for that.
Ciao - Rob C
-
funny, I'm doing the exact opposite and preserving all those films from my past.