latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

[quote=rgrenaderphoto]Redundancy is very important. I used Carbonite professionally and found while the backup was realtime and consistent, restoring files was glacially slow. Then you need imaging software like Acronis (recommended)

ACRONIS--The best and most timely support I have ever had on any software package.

bikerguy

Just because in the past there was no backup doesn't mean that taking simple steps to protect our electronic files is irrelevant. Since it is simple to backup and safeguard data, it should be done.

In the past cars did not have seat belts, anti-lock brakes or airbags. So do you disable these safeguards in your car? To me it is the same thing, I can easily protect my data against the most likely kinds of loss.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Yes, if my images are lost the world will still turn but I will not be happy. I am not the world but I am important to me, so I will do what I consider necessary to keep me happy. Whether or not my backup works will not be relevant to you outside of being an example of something that works (or not). You are free to disregard my backup strategy and use one of your own devise.



You are entitled to your opinion.
I am entitled to my opinion that the cloud is an emergency backup only. It is there in the event of a widespread disaster affecting my local area. I never expect to have to use the cloud backup since I have redundant local backup but reality and expectations sometimes diverge. I do not consider additional safeguards to be foolish.

"When it comes to backup you can't be too paranoid"

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

With digital we have the option of backing up. Doing so would be prudent.
How many people have photos on paper, in old albums, that are NOT backed up?

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

I, for one, have albums with photos in them that are NOT backed up. That bothers me actually, and I plan to scan the most important ones to save on my hard drives.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I use Back Blaze, a fraction of the cost. I also have 3 backups of my image files stored locally.
--Bob

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Kinda my point. There are MANY paper print albums out there, with no backup!
I still have a bunch to scan also.

sbohne

I was being facetious... But it IS slow. And as long as we are sticking to the facts, the fact is, you still avoid answering: what makes this data so God-awful SO much more precious that we must have 59 copies, when photographers for a century and a half got by with ONE SET of negatives.

So I say again: ONE original, ONE copy, and if you think you have created the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa, and Whistler's Mother (with An American Gothic to boot), than by all means, pay for cloud storage. All I know is, in all the years my professional studio was digital, producing tens of thousands of images annually, I lost zero images. Zero, zip, none, nada. Get it?

was_a_guru

2TB Seagate from Amazon $60-$65. Fine for backup but cloud backup in addition recommended. What happens if Your place burns down or you are robbed and they take your drives?

At least 1 onsite backup + offsite backup is best. I have 2 backup drives. Alternate between them on the 1st and 15 th of month.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Mylar negatives are not as volatile as digital files.
I've not lost any either, but the propensity to do so is higher with digital files than Mylar or paper.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Actually I did answer your question - it’s all about the data, and the difference between the film/print days is that with that technology, the image was recorded on a physical object, that lacking a fire was very resilient. The proof of that type of longevity is in my back hallway where I have probably a hundred framed B&W images of my family, most at least 50-75 years old and some daguerreotypes over a hundred. Digital images are just polarized atoms or molecules that can be destroyed or lost quite easily. There is hardly a week that goes by on the UHH that some sad soul, with no or faulty backup, posts that his HD has died and everything is gone - often the only remaining images of a memorable trip, his children, or his parents. Of course likely none are Mona Lisas, BUT they are important to that photographer, and to a man, I’m guessing they would tell you that they wished they had a better backup strategy. The fact that you have shot tens of thousands of images and lost nothing (so far) is just serendipity. If you employ a poor backup/DR strategy, eventually you will, and if you’re a working pro, I surely hope it’s not of an unrepeatable moment such as a client’s wedding.

sbohne

And again, the backup method I mentioned is more than adequate. Doesn't matter if your family pix or Sasha Obama's wedding...one original, one hard drive copy off-site, cloud if it helps you sleep at night. Ok, if I shot Sasha Obama's wedding, I might store them in my Dropbox :)

You DON'T need a dozen different backups, that's it, plain and simple. You know, if you feel you need that much protection, why don't you leave the originals on the in-camera medium (eg, your SD card). Most experts say that's where your images are the safest.

sbohne

BTW it was not serendipity. If I didn't use any backup method and never lost an image, THAT would be serendipitous. My backup plan was sufficient. There's a difference.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Just to clarify, I, and no one else here is suggesting dozens of copies or an elaborate back up system. What is being suggested by me (and any other data storage professional) is 3 copies - an active working copy, a backup copy (for convenient, quick restores), and an off-site DR copy. Simple. Sounds like you combined the last two, but there are flaws in that procedure:

1) if the off-site copy is local, it’s subject to the same natural disaster as the primary copy
2) any data between the creation of the backup/off-site copies is lost if you lose the primary storage. What if that week incorporates several important events? Gone.
3) weekly trips to the bank are inconvenient and require great discipline over long periods of time
4) a majority of disk failures occur on start-up after being powered off for long periods
5) if you lose a disc during non-business hours, you’ll wait until the next working day (perhaps Friday afternoon to Monday morning to begin your restore.
6) even with professional grade backup/restore SW, some percentage of restores fail
7) the vast majority of users employ cheap, consumer grade drives for backup

BTW, archiving your data on the original SD card is NOT a reliable long-term storage mechanism.

The reason we’re debating this isn’t that I have any investment in convincing you - you’ve made up your mind. BUT, as I said, the week doesn’t go by that some member using a poor (or no) backup system loses his data. The issue is easy to fix, and I AM interested in propagating correct information about preferred data storage practices (after working for the largest data storage companies in the world for almost 3 decades).

sbohne

I don't want to beat this to death, but I'm betting most people here do NOT take the time to back up their entire HD on a regular basis. I'm sure you do, as do I. But I don't make a dozen backups. And to be perfectly clear I never advocated NO backup. You didn't mention SSD drives. I do NOT use those for backup, as tests have shown that if they are not powered up over a period of time, they can lose data.

If I lived in an area that suffered natural disasters frequently, I would most likely employ cloud backup for everything. But please, let's not lull people into a false sense of security: those providers are subject to all of the same fatal scenarios you have outlined here. But where I live in Michigan, tornados are rare to nonexistent, same for floods (and I live on a rather high hill) so fire is my most likely disaster. And my important stuff is stored off site.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that with the advent of digital there seemed to be this attitude of "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!" about our data that no one gave a second thought to when we were shooting film. I don't know of ONE photographer who made six dupes of his/her negs and stored them in 5 different states. In closing, you don't need to be anal about it. You just need to be smart about it.

Oh, and BTW: I know you know what you are talking about, but you may want to adjust YOUR thinking regarding storing data long term on an SD card, to wit:
https://www.pcworld.com/article/199672/sandisks_sd_card_can_store_data_for_100_years.html

Best wishes,
Steve