I need a better backup solution

bwana said:
Typically I'm paid a flat match rate. I supply them with 100+ edited and captioned images before/during/immediately after a match.

That's one thing I'm trying to establish - right now I'm working on the assumption that they want me to archive everything, as opposed to the 100+ images I've uploaded from the match itself. If it was anywhere else in the world I'd be a lot happier archiving everything I shoot because those images would be mine.
Click to expand...

Given that you don't own the rights to the images I don't think it's reasonable.

Maybe you need a section on the contract that sez:

Value Adds:

Tick here if you want me to keep all images shot for period of 2/5/10 years at a cost of XX / YY / ZZ
Tick here if you want me to supply all pictures shot on location on removable storage at a cost of XXX

Note: Images are retained in storage for a period of one month after the assignment.

Put it in a nice small font with the heading: T&C's

:D
 
bwana said:
R40k? Maybe I need to rethink backing everything up…

Converting all the raw files to JPG could potentially save a lot of space.
Click to expand...
Without reading 5 pages I would say you need a better library system. If you knew which drive your photo was on you wouldn't need RAID or any multi-drive hardware.

Let's call it creating a database (with contact prints) and a description/date etc.
 
I think in the short term I'm going to have to buy a couple large drives so I have enough room to move my existing archives around into some semblance of order. Then I can work out how much of the stuff I have is redundant and plan from there.

Again, thanks for all the help! :)
 
bwana said:
I think in the short term I'm going to have to buy a couple large drives so I have enough room to move my existing archives around into some semblance of order. Then I can work out how much of the stuff I have is redundant and plan from there.

Again, thanks for all the help! :)
Click to expand...

Perhaps start with some of the older stuff, dedupe some of it and move it to a seperate HDD or similar? And keep doing that.
 
Maybe this is a good start:
alqassam said:
20% OFF ALL WD MYCLOUD NAS. USING PROMO CODE MYCLOUDPLEX US CUSTOMERS ONLY WILL GIVE YOU A 12TB WD NAS WITH WD RED FOR R8160 AND YOU WILL NEED YO SHIP TO SA


store.wdc.com/store/wdus/en_US/pd/ThemeID.21986300/productID.314827900/parid.59193300/catid.69831000/categoryID.69831100/WDBBAZ0120JBK-NESN/My_Cloud_DL2100/Network_Storage
Click to expand...
 
As you probably know, having only one backup is almost as bad as not having one. It is common for the backup drive to also fail under the stress of recovering all the data.

Going for a multiple backup solution for all this data would be really expensive. Your suggestion on converting all the RAW files to jpeg would reduce the data size to something that would fit on a single high capacity drive with space for a lot more data. The data size would be even smaller if the older files are saved as limited resolution and/or colour depth. This would allow for a relatively cheap multiple backup plan.

The deliverable to the clients is the jpegs, the RAW files are yours and they have no say in these.
 
garyc said:
As you probably know, having only one backup is almost as bad as not having one. It is common for the backup drive to also fail under the stress of recovering all the data.
Click to expand...
I have duplicate archives of most, if not all, of my work.

garyc said:
Going for a multiple backup solution for all this data would be really expensive. Your suggestion on converting all the RAW files to jpeg would reduce the data size to something that would fit on a single high capacity drive with space for a lot more data. The data size would be even smaller if the older files are saved as limited resolution and/or colour depth. This would allow for a relatively cheap multiple backup plan.
Click to expand...
I don't know how much I would save by converting as 90%+ of my photos are jpgs anyway. Clients typically get a 3500px image saved at a 8/12 quality setting.

garyc said:
The deliverable to the clients is the jpegs, the RAW files are yours and they have no say in these.
Click to expand...
Under SA law by default they have a say in anything I take for them. :o
 
Doesn't jpegs loose quality every time you make copies of them?
 
Thor187 said:
Doesn't jpegs loose quality every time you make copies of them?
Click to expand...

They'll only really lose quality over time by editing and re-saving them over and over.
 
bwana said:
They'll only really lose quality over time by editing and re-saving them over and over.
Click to expand...

Lose* I'm sorry


Okey so it's not really something the average user will experience?

Also I always use png where possible, is this good or bad?
 
The biggest problem with jpg for many people is that files are reduced to 8 bit - if you're shooting jpg that won't make a difference since that data is already lost. If you're shooting raw then you should save the images in a lossless format tiff. IIRC png is 8bit, but I'm not 100% sure about that, so jpg to png should be fine.
 
I use the 16bit png format.

Sometimes 32bit but generally the images are then just too big for what is needed
 
Thor187 said:
Lose* I'm sorry


Okey so it's not really something the average user will experience?

Also I always use png where possible, is this good or bad?
Click to expand...
PNG is not meant for photos, the compression algorithm is similar to GIF.
 
No reason Wireless shouldn't be an option.

The software you use to browse the files is ultimately what will sort that out not the transmission method.
 
SauRoNZA said:
No reason Wireless shouldn't be an option.

The software you use to browse the files is ultimately what will sort that out not the transmission method.
Click to expand...

Some of my archives are hundreds of GB - trying to do that via USB3 is laggy enough - I can only imagine the pain doing the same over wifi will cause.
 
bwana said:
Some of my archives are hundreds of GB - trying to do that via USB3 is laggy enough - I can only imagine the pain doing the same over wifi will cause.
Click to expand...

If you are using permanent storage instead of temporary like you are then the thumbnails and metadata should be cached locally.

What are you viewing it in? Finder? Of course it will be laggy then.
 
SauRoNZA said:
If you are using permanent storage instead of temporary like you are then then the thumbnails and metadata should be cached locally.
Click to expand...

Each archive is a self contained unit.
 
With a proper live storage instead of an archive it shouldn't be a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X