Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Storing Family Videos and Pictures For Posterity?

New submitter jalvarez13 writes: I'm in my early 40's and I will become a dad in less than a month. Until now I've been quite happy with a Canon Powershot S110 for taking pictures and video, but now I'm thinking in longer terms. If some of you have already thought or done something about this, what did you consider when buying photo/video equipment? What about a plan to store the files you generate? I guess there are important decisions you made about to image quality, file formats, storage type, organizing and labelling software, etc.

I'm also wondering if there are any other technologies (stereoscopic cameras?) that I haven't thought about and may be interesting to look at.

174 comments

  1. Geographic redundancy by Rinisari · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a NAS that I regularly upgrade with new hard drives when the old ones' warranties expire. I just recently went from 4x 1 TB + 4x 750 GB in two RAID5 arrays to 8x 2TB in RAID6. That NAS is backed up off-site to another, similar NAS at trusted, non-corporate location, but only the parts of it which are 100% irreplaceable: pictures, video, financial paperwork, schoolwork, etc. The drives in the second NAS are from different batch and are 4x 3TB in RAID5.

    I've considered also paying for a service like Amazon Glacier to archive those really important things, but the price still seems too high for the amount I have to store and I have concerns about the security of it. Tarsnap is a crowd favorite, but you certainly pay for its paranoid level of security. I'm eager to see what comes of Maidsafe and Storj, which are distributed systems to which I could certainly lend a whole lot of spare space.

    1. Re:Geographic redundancy by andrew71 · · Score: 1

      Good thinking. I have a similar (but smaller) setup and make the same considerations about cloud storage.

      I wonder if you have a strategy to fight bit rot.

      --
      13-4=54/6
    2. Re:Geographic redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I did for my sister was just a BTSync share, she has RW control over it so she is the only one that can add files. Those are automatically synced out to my parents, myself and a few other people. Everyone gets copies, if someone deletes a file BTSync automatically archives that on the other systems so it can be recovered should its deletion be accidental. We are spread out over several states to handle anything local.

      BTSync (or other replication options) exist for NAS units, but really anything that copies the data to multiple places is what you want.

      A nice DSLR is great for taking pictures at a family get together or someone but really at today I'd say the majority of the pictures you take are going to be those that just kind of happen. Walking through the park and your daughter stops to smell some flowers or something along those lines. Those kind of pictures are likely to be a lot more meaningful than a staged picture with the DSLR but, the vast majority of the time you won't have the DSLR. Cameras in phones have gotten good enough for most (non-professional) use cases I wouldn't worry too much about cameras. The best camera is the camera you have with you when you need it.

    3. Re:Geographic redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to Amazon's Glacier, there's Google's Nearline. I don't know, but I'd suspect that Rackspace has something similar. In any case, there are desktop apps that interface with those storage systems.

    4. Re:Geographic redundancy by the_skywise · · Score: 2

      I've got about a terabyte of photos and video and and was also looking at glacier which seemed reasonable for .01 per gigabyte per month (basically $10/month for me) which I thought was reasonable until halfway through uploading everything a friend pointed out that Amazon had *unlimited* storage for $60/year on their Amazon Cloud Drive. So I'm now about halfway through uploading everything to that.

      The cloud drive has some nicer features in that all the data is private and I can share files are folders as I want.

      I'm a little more skittish of uploading my mp3s from ripped CDs and other videos I've captured off of my DVR though. Amazon's license agreement seems to say it's OK so long as I don't share it but we know how that goes.

    5. Re:Geographic redundancy by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      Add into this mix a cheap tape drive. I have an old LTO-3 drive which I picked a pair up off ebay for $100. New media is still easy to find. Every 3 months or so I make a new tape and take it to my parents.

      I am assuming in this case though that you aren't actually backing up 9TB of photos and family vids.

    6. Re:Geographic redundancy by mlts · · Score: 1

      Bit rot needs to be fought on multiple levels. I have wound up (just because it is easier than using multiple programs) using WinRAR with its recovery record feature for long term storage. If there is bit rot, it can be detected and recovered, especially with the 128 bit CRCs that WinRAR 5.x uses.

      Drive-wise, it would be nice if someone could come up with a special archive filesystem, preferably with WORM capabilities.

      Take UDF. Expand it to the PB realm, not the existing 2TB. Add some ZFS features like ditto blocks, 64-128 bit CRCs, cryptographically signed writes with public keys, standard encryption, standard compression, ability to duplicate the filesystem as an image (so rsync utilities are usable to preserve hierarchy), snapshot directories a la OneFS/WAFL,

      Add features like the ability to export a read-only optimized image similar to CramFS, with focus on image integrity, as opposed to read/write performance.

    7. Re:Geographic redundancy by mlts · · Score: 1

      I'm not that well versed with Nearline, but Amazon Glacier has relatively high retrieval fees, so it would be something to use as a last resort, and something you have a very good index of, just to minimize the sheer amount of data that you have to pull from it.

      I'd use Glacier as the archive of last resort, after all tapes, hard drives, and other items are found to be not usable.

    8. Re:Geographic redundancy by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      But what about the bitwise media, as opposed to the hardware media? OP asked about that as well.

      It seems obvious that lossless compression is preferable to no compression, and an open-source algorithm should be used. (Like lossless PNGs for stills, FLAC for audio. Video is still kind of up for grabs, and one might have to settle for lossy compression.)

      For very long-term storage, you'd want to have the source code for your decompression/display software.

      M.disc, as opposed to standard CD or DVD, is expressly intended for long-term storage and retrieval.

    9. Re:Geographic redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this a "little" conspiracy rant?

    10. Re:Geographic redundancy by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      the vast majority of the time you won't have the DSLR

      The mistake most people make when using a DSLR, is thinking that they need all their lenses, and a massive padded nerd-bag for the thing. A DSLR isn't that large, and you can take the thing with you more than you imagine. The difference in quality between a DSLR and even the best phone camera is still huge, and if you ever plan on printing you'll be glad you used the better camera.

      staged picture with the DSLR

      Why would the photo with the DSLR be staged necessarily? Given how fast a DSLR is, you'll get much better candid photographs with it then you will with a phone. Plus it's super-annoying when the damn thing rings while you're trying to take a photo.

    11. Re:Geographic redundancy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Amazon's unlimited storage is only available in the US it seems. For the rest of us there is Glacier, but Google's Nearline is better. Same price ($0.01/gigabyte/month) but instant access (Glacier can take hours to get your files for you).

      I'm using Microsoft's OneDrive for backup at the moment. $6.99/month (sign up via the US site and it's cheaper than the UK site, don't know about the Euro price) for 1TB and a subscription copy of MS Office. If you got here you can sign up for a free upgrade to unlimited storage.

      OneDrive is currently the cheapest option. I use CloudBacko to back up to it regularly. That software is really cheap, and there is a free version. Seems to be reliable, it's based on a more mature server backup app with a more user friendly front end.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Geographic redundancy by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      The downside of WinRAR is that it is an archive, which means efficiently updating it in place is cumbersome.

      At some point I started to generate PAR files for my photos (using PAR2s generated by MultiPar - which is scriptable). This achieves a comparable recovery capability as the recovery records of WinRAR, but is much simpler to deal with when doing updates to what the PAR files cover and uploading those changes to a remote location. The PARs exist on the directory level and before regenerating them in the case of changes, I run the PAR verification pass to see if any rot has occurred.

      In addition to that, I replaced my remote NAS with a (remote) general purpose Mini-ITX box. Easier to keep secure and use ZFS with snapshotting enabled. Considering that the source files could still rot on the HDDs in my main machine, the snapshotting provides protection against uploading new rot for the data for which I am too lazy to (re)generate PAR files for. I really just need a bit-rot protection FS like ZFS for Windows for this bit, of course.

    13. Re: Geographic redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got two 6tb (2x3) raid 1 NAS, one at home and the other at my office and they back up each other at night.. + lot of regular storage on desktop pc... Some very important files for me i also cloud, but just free services..

    14. Re:Geographic redundancy by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      With all the talk about bitrot I'm kinda curious what kind of strategy these cloud services use to prevent that sort of thing (if at all) - Do they make backups of all the cloud storage? Disk redundancy? File verification? Or am I essentially just storing everything on a Windows NTFS drive at a remote location?

    15. Re:Geographic redundancy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Redundancy and a filesystem like ZFS that can detect and correct bitrot type errors and disk failures.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Geographic redundancy by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      So from your smallest box 3x 3TB = 9 TB of data, and Glacier and Google nearline (maybe others too?) are charging $0.01/GB-month, so about $90/month if you back up the whole thing. I don't know how much you pay for electricity in both locations, but if a box can run/idle at 100W and you leave it on all the time you spend ~900KW a year. At $0.20/KWh that's about $180/year per server. Disks every 3 years (if you get HGST's warranty) is $140/year (using $0.035/GB rough cost today), or $27/month per server for ongoing costs not including replacing the other hardware periodically. $54/month vs. $90/month? Sure, it's a little cheaper. If you wanted one box and one online service it makes running your own look better; $120/month vs $54/month. What about connectivity at both sites? If you are already paying an ISP for other reasons at both ends that's one thing, otherwise throw another ~$50/month on top of at least the backup server cost. AWS and Google appear to currently charge $0/GB for incoming transfers. Of course if you can get deals on cheap drives and run them past the warranty in a state with cheap electricity (or in a dorm room with free Internet/electricity) it's a lot cheaper.

      As for security, encrypt before copying anywhere. You might as well be running local disk encryption too so you never have to worry about returning a disk with plaintext for warranty repair. I don't trust any company to keep the data I upload secret (FISA courts, NSA, bla bla bla), so encrypting incremental ZFS snapshots and uploading them is an efficient way of maintaining an offsite backup. I only have 1TB I care to back up this way so it's less sticker shock each month, but I still find it amusing that the first box I built was 4*320GB RAID5 and now that costs $9/month.

    17. Re:Geographic redundancy by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      Take UDF. Expand it to the PB realm, not the existing 2TB. Add some ZFS features like ditto blocks, 64-128 bit CRCs, cryptographically signed writes with public keys, standard encryption, standard compression, ability to duplicate the filesystem as an image (so rsync utilities are usable to preserve hierarchy), snapshot directories a la OneFS/WAFL,

      ZFS is probably your best bet for now. Oracle built filesystem-level encryption into the Solaris offering, no luck for the free versions. No cryptographic signing of writes, but that is imho overkill when you have to trust the whole kernel and filesystem layer and so whole-disk encryption plus SHA256 checksums gives basically the same assurance that no data has been modified. You can hold snapshots in ZFS to prevent them from being accidentally deleted and treat them as basically WORM.

    18. Re:Geographic redundancy by SylvesterTheCat · · Score: 1

      The best camera is the camera you have with you when you need it.

      This is very true.

      There are 3 primary variables when it comes to camera selection: physical size, photo quality, and price.
      My advice (based on my experience) is to get the best camera you can for a size that will make it easy for you to carry with you. While cost was important, it was the least important of the 3 variables.

      I went with one of the Canon point-and-shoots ( PowerShot SD1100 IS) partly because it was supported by CHDK which enables me to take pictures in both jpg and raw formats and its small size makes it easy to carry in my pants pocket.

      I bought that at least 5 years ago, so there may be better choices now. I took it with me on my last overseas deployment and it worked quite well. I was able to take a number of pictures that I would not have been able with a DSLR just because of physical size. I was able to stick together a number of panoramic shots that turned out quite well.

      Also a last piece of advice is don't try to live the moment through the camera. If something happens that is worth a photo or two, take several in quick succession realizing that most may be crap, but one or two may capture the moment... Then put it away and actually live the moment.

    19. Re:Geographic redundancy by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      How does this have anything to do with the topic under discussion?

      If you have specific objections to anything that was written, bring them up! Oh, but wait... I already told you I won't discuss Twitter with you on Slashdot. So never mind.

    20. Re:Geographic redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also won't discuss Twitter with anyone on Twitter, remember? You just call it a "debate" and say Twitter isn't suitable. But Slashdot doesn't have Twitter's character limits. So don't all your excuses sound pathetic even to you?

    21. Re:Geographic redundancy by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1
      However, I will reply to something else you stated here on Slashdot:

      It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave [slashdot.org] Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 [pik-potsdam.de], Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.

      There are more recent papers (in 2013 and more recently) that debunk the debunkers. We could do that kind of back-and-forth forever. You've proved nothing.

      The issue isn't settled. And as for "debunked for years", that's pretty hard to do. 2011 was not that long ago, and if I am not mistaken the original Humlum paper wasn't even actually published until 2012. So if "years" means 3 years, okay. But again, there have been more recent papers as well.

      No, I'm not going to "debate" this with you. I was just pointing out some of the sillier things you wrote.

    22. Re:Geographic redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more recent papers (in 2013 and more recently) that debunk the debunkers. We could do that kind of back-and-forth forever. You've proved nothing. The issue isn't settled. ... again, there have been more recent papers as well. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

      Jane, don't you see the irony here? I repeatedly gave you links and even gave you ready-to-run source code with data included, all showing that Houston and Dean 2011 was a massive cherry-pick. In response, you actually cited Houston and Dean 2011! Why, if all these other more recent papers (which Jane doesn't even name) supposedly exist? Again, read the 2013 IPCC AR5 SPM:

      "Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."

      If Jane is hiding blockbuster peer-reviewed papers that overturn that latest 2013 literature review, why would Jane keep them secret? Unless they don't exist, and as usual Jane is just 100% bluster.

      ... if I am not mistaken the original Humlum paper wasn't even actually published until 2012. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

      Good grief. Jane, you're slipping again. The Humlum paper you and other Sky Dragon Slayers promoted had NOTHING to do with sea level rise! Here's what the Humlum paper was about:

      Paper: atmospheric CO2 *lags* sea-surface temperature change by 12 months or so. Since surface temperature increases occur before CO2 increases, CO2 could NOT be the cause. bit.ly/YTcYvI [Lonny Eachus, 2013-02-25]

      Lonny linked to Humlum et al. 2013 which mistakenly claimed that "Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."

      A real skeptic would wonder why Humlum et al. analyzed the long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 by taking its time derivative. Differentiation is a high-pass filter because it amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

      Here's why. If A(w) is the amplitude at angular frequency "w", its time dependence is A(w)*exp(i*w*t). Its time derivative is i*w*A(w)*exp(i*w*t). So taking the time derivative multiplies the amplitude by a large "w" for fast frequencies, and multiplies it by a small "w" for slow, long-term frequencies. This amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

      Since our CO2 emissions increase atmospheric CO2 over the long term, Prof. Humlum's analysis can't even detect the rise he claims to be analyzing. However, his method amplifies the faster annual carbon cycle. Prof. Humlum "discovered" summer and winter.

      Ferdinand

    23. Re:Geographic redundancy by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1
      And here are some other things I will reply to, since you started this game of replying to comments in other topics. Unlike you, I do not (and will not) make a habit of this, but I'm replying here because I didn't even see this libelous comment until just now, and replies are now locked.

      If Jane/Lonny Eachus really didn't know that he was wrong to claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, then he could easily show that by retracting his claim. But he still hasn't done that, even though he's had months to find the necessary few seconds. Why not, Jane?

      Because to the best of my knowledge (which YOU prompted me to look up, by the way), none of them have. That guy name Manuel you found (I have no idea how) is not a "member", he is listed as a consultant. There's that attempt to insinuate guilt by association again.

      Maybe Jane/Lonny just wrongly thought Latour was some kind of independent expert and didn't realize that (best case scenario) Latour had been brainwashed by the cult led by that psychopathic pedophile with the convicted child rapist member.

      I think Mr. O'Sullivan would be interested to know about your claim that he is a "psychopathic pedophile", and again, you already know that your assertion a "member" of that organization is a "convicted child raper" is false. Even if that Manuel guy had been a member, he isn't a "convicted child raper". And since you saw the charges against him (YOU showed them to me!), you already know that.

      But again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny Eachus was just honestly fooled by that cult as long as he refuses to retract his Slayer claims. Don't you want to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims?

      I have nothing further to say to you about that which I have not already stated repeatedly, to you and to others, and I have no reason to repeat myself yet again. This assertion is completely baseless, and even if it were not, I don't owe you anything.

      So once again you are proven to be lying. "Psychopathic pedophile" is not exactly a friendly phrase, and once again I have to wonder why you're using it, even for someone else, when I have no association with that group, and I personally do not know a single person, either in or out of that group, who has been shown to be a "psychotic pedophile" or "child raper".

      So once again: what is your purpose for posting these proven lies, unless it is to try to defame me or imply guilt by association? You still haven't answered that question.

    24. Re:Geographic redundancy by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You also won't discuss Twitter with anyone on Twitter, remember? You just call it a "debate" and say Twitter isn't suitable. But Slashdot doesn't have Twitter's character limits. So don't all your excuses sound pathetic even to you?

      I discuss lots of things with lots of people on Twitter. I do not, however, discuss them with you. For reasons which should be obvious to anybody.

    25. Re:Geographic redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be obvious even to you that you use Twitter to baselessly accuse NASA, the US NAS, etc. of being liars. But when someone criticizes your incoherent accusations, you claim that you don't "debate" on Twitter. You've done this to many, many people. Not just me. Again, this should be obvious even to you, which is why you're making it so difficult to believe that you're just confused when you accuse NASA of lying.

    26. Re:Geographic redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny Eachus was just honestly fooled by that cult as long as he refuses to retract his Slayer claims. Don't you want to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims?

      ... I have nothing further to say to you about that which I have not already stated repeatedly, to you and to others, and I have no reason to repeat myself yet again. This assertion is completely baseless, and even if it were not, I don't owe you anything. So once again you are proven to be lying. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

      Jane, you owe it to yourself to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims. And don't you think the accusations of lying you're hurling at NASA, CU, the NAS, et al. are undermined when you accuse someone of lying just for noting that you've spent years regurgitating Slayer claims? Aren't you worried that posterity will find out you were actually "repeating yourself" by continuing to double down on your Slayer nonsense even to the bitter end of this comment thread where you were repeatedly and politely asked to give your reply to that physics problem which you insisted you had?

      ... So once again: what is your purpose for posting these proven lies, unless it is to try to defame me or imply guilt by association? You still haven't answered that question. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

      It's so cute how Jane pretends I haven't answered that question. Once again: Jane, you spent years regurgitating Latour's nonsense and loudly insisting he was correct. Don't you remember repeatedly claiming to be happy to admit your mistakes? Once again, I gave you another opportunity to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims. And once again, you've declined...

      Even if Jane/Lonny Eachus thinks his own intellectual integrity is a lost cause, he should at least pretend to show empathy towards others. If only to blend in. He should remember that khallow went Sky Dragon Slayer because of Jane's argument. Since Jane/Lonny later seemed to realize this argument violates "kindergarten-level physics", doesn't Jane have a responsibility to let khallow know that he went Sky Dragon Slayer over a bogus argument that Jane calls "an insult to an adult discussion"?

      Otherwise, how does Jane/Lonny justify promoting this utter bullshit without consequences?

      If Jane/Lonny Eachus really didn't know that he was wrong to claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, then he could easily show that by retracting his claim. But he still hasn't done that, even though he's had months to find the necessary few seconds. Why not, Jane?

      Because to the best of my knowledge (which YOU prompted me to look up, by the way), none of them have. That guy name Manuel you found (I have no idea how) ... [Ja

    27. Re:Geographic redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Even if that Manuel guy had been a member, he isn't a "convicted child raper". And since you saw the charges against him (YOU showed them to me!), you already know that. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

      As usual, the most charitable explanation is that Jane/Lonny keeps defending Oliver K. Manuel because he hasn't actually clicked on the links I've showed him. So before you continue, click here and tell everyone what crime Manuel was convicted of, and how old the victim was.

      Then read the first two paragraphs here and tell everyone how many of his children said he abused them, and at what ages.

      Then read this courageous testimony and tell everyone why Manuel's children finally decided enough was enough. It had to do with a little girl, right? Tell everyone how old she was.

      Again, hopefully Jane just hadn't actually clicked on any of those links before continuing to defend Manuel. Can Jane/Lonny prove that he knows the facts by answering those simple questions? If so, could Jane/Lonny really look all those victims in the eyes and keep defending Manuel?

      I think Mr. O'Sullivan would be interested to know about your claim that he is a "psychopathic pedophile" ... "Psychopathic pedophile" is not exactly a friendly phrase, and once again I have to wonder why you're using it, even for someone else, when I have no association with that group, and I personally do not know a single person, either in or out of that group, who has been shown to be a "psychotic pedophile" or "child raper". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

      Jane, you've already been shown that John O'Sullivan wrote (and illustrated!) a book shamelessly bragging about his erotic obsession with an underage schoolgirl. And yet you still refuse to apologize for helping O'Sullivan blame his victim.

      Jane, read O'Sullivan's own words and then ask yourself if you really want to keep defending this psychopathic pedophile:

      ... on my own particular indiscretion my friend still had a further question for me.
      "Didn't you say you had some theory that a man can't really be a kiddie fiddler if the object of his affections was a female with the fully-ripened body of a woman?"
      Now he was broaching on a facet of this matter I felt peculiarly pertinent to the positing of paedophilia.
      "I did indeed. It's all in the hip-to-waist formula! I have my facts to aid my theoretical arguments, too!"
      I put my case to him thus: a girl becomes a woman from the time the distribution her body fat attains that Darwinian perfection of a waist to hip ratio of 0.7. That is what makes the fertile female human form so unique. He looked somewhat askance at the implausibility of my opening gambit but I continued with my theory.
      "By looking at the female waist to hip ratio, you know when a female is of the right age for reproduction. At that time, and if the mind is mature enough you can argue that you are dealing with a woman and not a child. If nature says she a woman then she is a woman-it's not arbitrary like the age of consent laws that vary so wildly throughout the wor

  2. All Depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your question is going to be answered by people who are biased one way or another. The question you really have to ask is what you are looking at spending. I personally own a Canon Rebel T3i that was bought as a gift and love using it. Others will swear by Nikon, or even Fuji. As to software, the primary that most people use tends to be Adobe Lightroom for editing and organization. For storage, a rotating backup drive stored in a safe deposit box is one of the best choices you can make. Backup your current files to the drive you have at the house, then unplug and move that drive to your box, taking the previous drive out to rinse and repeat. There are online storage options, but there are still massive questions as to who truly owns the data stored in them, you the consumer or the company providing the storage.

  3. Storage: NAS by WoodburyMan · · Score: 2

    For storage, I have a 4 bay WD NAS, DL4100. Populated with 4x4TB drives in RAID5. Store all my photos and video on there. I have a 8TB USB Seagate Archive v2 Drive attached to it that I plug in once in a while to back it up to. The RAID5 helps with hardware failure, but backing up to the USB drive guarantees if it somehow gets deleted I'm good. WD has "recycle bin" like feature, but I never trust it. The WD NAS has DLNA and Media Server capabilities to stream to many TV's that have it built in. Synology also has a few models that are comparable as well. Whatever model you get check storage transfer speeds and get something that can max out giabit, copying a 1080p video file can take a while if it's a long video at slow speeds.

    1. Re:Storage: NAS by WoodburyMan · · Score: 1

      To add to this, the WD NAS allows off site replication with another WD NAS that you setup elsewhere. Copying and transfer files to a new version of a NAS if you replace it later on as well.

  4. Don't overthink it by schnell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I bought a fancy new DSLR camera five years ago when my first child was born. During the first 12 months of the child's life, I'd say I generated close to 15 GB of photos of her - every first burp, every time she went for a walk, etc. was absolutely precious.

    Flash forward a couple years and the DSLR sits on a shelf because I realized that 1.) all the photos I took of her seemed incredibly important at the time but are never looked at any more, 2.) I don't really need 16 megapixels of every moment of her life, and 3.) what's most important to me is always having the camera with me for the truly cute and memorable times I do want to take pictures of her or her little sister.

    So all the photos of my older daughter since age 1 1/2 or so and all the photos since her little sister was born have been taken with a cellphone camera. It's good enough for anything but a portrait/Christmas card staged photo, and it's with me all the time. The only time I wish I still carried the DSLR all the time is when the kids are doing something split-second and the cellphone camera doesn't shoot quickly enough to capture it. Your mileage may vary, but just don't be surprised if whatever awesome setup you invest in becomes less and less used over time...

    --
    "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Don't overthink it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do both. While cell-phone cameras are decent nowadays they just cannot compete with a good DSLR/lens combo. But make sure to keep the DSLR conveniently handy on a shelf in your living room at home. Fetching it is then only a matter of seconds for when your favourite photo subject is doing something cute and/or forbidden you want to record.

      Also, for the DSLR I really recommend a super wide-angle lens, especially if you are planning to take movies with your DSLR. It doesn't matter much outdoors, but indoors you will never end up in a situation where you can't capture all of the action. (Be prepared to move in close to the action though.)

    2. Re:Don't overthink it by fermion · · Score: 2

      My oldest and be preserved photos are slides. They are kept in a plastic viewing apparatus. For important videos I have a 3CCD DV camera. The mini DV tape should last at least 20 years. Printed photos, especially color, will degrade quickly unless they are professionally printed and store adequately. This can be done at home using archival ink and paper. I have a DSLR. I wish I would have just kept the memory cards instead of downloading them to a two hard disks. As luck would have it, the portable hard disk got stolen and the computer with the hard disk crashed shortly after. I have most of the photos, but the memory cards would have been nice. Memory cards are only rated for a few years, though. In any case I don't erase my memory cards. A 64 GB card is cheap, and I just shoot raw until it is full. But really cell phone cameras are to the point where the photos and video match or exceed what we had in point and shoot cameras. All the photos are uploaded to the cloud, and given the low cost of storage I suspect that this will be a solution that will result in long term storage solution for me. This is because I have tried to keep hard disk backup, even tape backups, and it, over the past decade or so, been less reliable that uploading to off site storage.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:Don't overthink it by dkman · · Score: 1

      This is the gist of what I came to say. I have an older Canon camera that takes nice pictures and can do video, but when my daughter was born I looked around for a true video camera and all that jazz. I never truly found anything I was into, but cell phones are smaller, always around, have longer battery life, etc. So you can get a dedicated device if you want, but don't blow the budget on it because it's likely to find a spot on a shelf to live out its days.

      As far as formats I usually just transfer the pics and vids to the computer and leave them in native format. I have Handbrake on their so I can shuffle the format if I desire, but don't usually need to bother.

      --
      I refuse to sign
    4. Re:Don't overthink it by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      My solution: bought a DSLR when my first kid was about to be born, already had a Sony digicam at the time. Eventually upgraded to a DSLR that could do decent video too.

      But you know what? I bought a Nikon waterproof/shockproof CoolPix back in 2011, and have discovered that almost ALL my video is done via that, along with some of the best family photos. For a DSLR to work well, you have to take the time to have the camera on hand, compose the frame, meter the light, etc. I still take it on hikes, and to places where I can use a tripod and get posed shots -- but for anything candid, and for almost all video, the CoolPix comes out. Because it's shock resistant, I can even hand it over to my kids who have shown that when you don't restrict how many photos they take, they can take some amazing shots (this started even at the age of 3).

      This leads to the next bit: take lots of photos, but keep only the ones that tell a story or look great. At the beginning, this will be REALLY difficult to do; but eventually, you'll get so that you can come back from an event with 400 photos and an hour of video, and quickly shrink that down to 10 photos and 5 minutes of video stock (which will then get further trimmed later when you assemble it into an easy to watch montage of 2-5 second clips... right?"

      Then comes storage: I have a mirrored rsyned backup of my computer where all this data ends up (2x5Tb right now), and also 2 1TB portable drives that cycle through a safe deposit box. So far, all my edited down photo and video data fits in 1TB, so this works for me.

      So the TL;DR is:
      1) the best and most memorable shots will come from what you have on you at the time that you aren't afraid of damaging.
      2) Take your photos/video in bursts; take a bunch, keep a little.
      3) Take the time to do events and parts of events with the camera stowed, so that you can actually have fun things to remember as a family (instead of a record of you recording what everyone else is doing). Use the photos and videos as triggers for events, not to document every living minute. Your memories will be much more vivid and interesting than the photos and video, even if they become less accurate with time.

    5. Re:Don't overthink it by Incadenza · · Score: 2

      I guess you more or less summarized my first reaction to the question. A technical question is asked here (how to preserve my pictures), but the the real question is is psychological/sociological one: which pictures should be reserved for the future generations?

      The technical question is really easily solved: use a well catered file format, use back-ups, also off-site. Really nothing new here, that is what you do with all your important data.

      And the answer to the ‘soft’ question is not that hard either. Man is a social animal, so in the end we like to see pictures of people. My kids are old enough to be grounded now, and the pictures they love are the picture that show ‘how cute they were’. They don't give a **** (their words, not mine) about the compression type, white balance, focal distance, graininess or any other technical issue, as long as there's people they know in the picture.

      And don't overdo it, people like to browse through photos, not swim in them. Trying to preserve each and every moment is as silly as making a 1:1 map. And have fun!

    6. Re:Don't overthink it by bedonnant · · Score: 1

      Use a DSLR if you want to take and keep nice pictures. It's what a DSRL is designed for. It might be bulky, but I'd rather carry that and take a beautiful picture, than not and get a flat or blurry picture on my phone. Cellphones can come in handy, but the pictures they take are flat and boring. They're also very slow and suck in low light. They're nice to share pictures quickly with family, but they won't be the pictures you come back to years later... I don't own a mirrorless camera, but maybe it can be a nice middle ground?

      --
      ~~~ Paf. Le chien.
    7. Re:Don't overthink it by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Well, the man already has a Canon Powershot S110. It already takes very nice pictures - even RAW if you want. So a DSLR is way overkill and more importantly, won't be in your pocket when you need it.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    8. Re:Don't overthink it by CptJeanLuc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. Do not overinvest. I purchased USD 4k worth of equipment, which a year later sat mostly in its bag. Rarely bothering to bring it anywhere because who wants an extra bag in addition to all the other baby stuff you are bringing along. I would still have gotten some less expensive but still decent gear, for taking the occasional "extra nice" photo. Not being a pro, the idea of having a great camera around when there is that opportunity for a great show which comes along - in my experience, if you need a minute to get it and set it up, that opportunity is gone - the child is now focused on something completely different. Get a phone with a good camera, and keep it around.

      Don't take tons and tons of pictures, try to take a few good ones, immediately after taking shots delete the ones which do not cut it on the camera, and do some additional filtering afterwards. As I read in an interview with a well known photographer, he thought normal family pictures were on average better with the pre-digital technology, because pictures were expensive, film was limited, and so you had to make more of an effort to compose and time a shot. Now people seem to instead want to take 15 pictures and hope that one of them is good, perhaps without thinking too much about composition. Which generates loads of mediocre pictures. By filling up the harddrive with stuff, the value of the individual pictures are diminished. After the 1 year birthday party, a relative gave us 500 pictures they took with their camera. Seriously, there is nothing going on in a 1 year birthday party which takes 500 pictures to document, unless the parents last names are Kardashian and West.

      Storage on the other hand ... make sure you have multiple copies in different physical locations, and not only that cloud stuff which can go belly up completely outside your control. And make sure there is some incremental technology involved so that some older copies cannot be messed up by some kind of failure, virus or whatever. It does no good to rsync with deletion over your previous backup, just to discover the source folder has been emptied by mistake.

      So don't overinvest in gear, take only a limited set of pictures of actual value, and overinvest in keeping those safe.

      And even more important - make sure to store copies in your analog computer. Yes, experience the moment and save a picture in your brain, which will still be there when you lose all your harddrives. Seriously - I was in the Louvre watching a Japanese tourist enter the room, going up to the painting of Mona Lisa, and leaving again - never once raising his eyes above the display of his video camera. He went to France perhaps the only time in his lifetime, and did not bother to actually look at the world's most famous painting. If things get hectic, forget the camera and use the two lenses next to your nose.

    9. Re:Don't overthink it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that parents take a lot more photos and videos these days, mostly with their phones. This generation is going to be the first that grows up with their early life documented in detail on Facebook. Most of my childhood only exists as a few photos in an album and my memories, but these kids will be able to see it all digitally preserved.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Don't overthink it by Doghouse13 · · Score: 1

      Back them up.

      I have slides that my parents took. Sadly, the colour decayed in many of them, and my mother threw far too many of the "worst" ones out (including ones of several episodes in my life that I'd love to have the record of now). A real shame, as when they came into my possession on her death, and I scanned such as were left so that various branches of the family could have copies, the scanner software was perfectly capable of restoring the colour balance. But the message is still there - slides decay, and they're irreplaceable. Take a backup.

      I keep my important files under single directories on a hard drive on each of my two desktop machines. I back them up regularly with an incremental backup, excluding deletes, to (a) a second hard drive internal to the machine, and (b) an external hard drive. I don't delete images from my cameras until I'm happy that I've backed them up successfully, both internally and externally. I also swap to new directories on the backup drives from time to time and do a new, complete backup, and to new drives every couple of years or so. I check-sample the content of the originals and backups every once in a while. I can't guarantee that I won't lose something important eventually, but in practice I have quite a few copies of just about anything you care to name, and it's going to take something pretty extreme to do it.

    11. Re:Don't overthink it by rendermaniac · · Score: 1

      Definitely agree. An added advantage is that there are many photo backup apps which work great, and often for free. For example Google Photos is great (although kind of scary when you can search within your images without tagging anything). I am not sure what the iPhone options are as I have never owned one, but the camera quality generally seems better (than Samsung anyway) and there are more photo accessories if you are into that. My family photo album is basically Facebook now (great for showing off to grandparents), and backed up to Google Photos.

    12. Re:Don't overthink it by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 2

      i'll go one step further. i faced the same situation a few months ago when my 2nd child was about to be born. I searched and searched and bought a panasonic lx100 camera for one single reason - 4K video. i have nothing to easily play it on (at full resolution) BUT by the time my child is a teenager, 1080p will be a laughable resolution. the camera is "coat/handbag pocketable" and produces OK photos + excellent videos at a reasonable price.

      when i look at VHS videos of my childhood, they suck donkey balls (qualitywise). my dad's childhood 8mm videos look better. that's why i decided to make 4K videos as soon as I could afford it.

    13. Re:Don't overthink it by GerryHattrick · · Score: 2

      Agree - keep all the gigabytes you like, nobody will ever browse them (and they'll be unbrowsable by the Standards 50 years hence). Now and then, or after family etc occasions, curate an 'album' of say 50 printed pages. Plenty of services to bind them nicely, much cheaper than hardware. In 100 years, that's all anyone will remember of you. Just possibly by then an AI system will have your virtual ghost communicating with questioners, but don't bank on it - they might not ask.

    14. Re:Don't overthink it by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      1.) all the photos I took of her seemed incredibly important at the time but are never looked at any more

      Yeah, photos have a weird W-shaped utility; They get shared and looked at a lot when brand new. After 6 months to a year they sit in boxes/drives for years and after about 20 years the utility climbs again until ~150 years later when no living relatives remember the people in the photos. Then after a few more decades they have historical value. Hence the need to plan for long-term storage.

  5. Print a picture about once a season by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stuff happens with technology and our memories are volatile too. Every once a while, print a picture and store it in a way it won't get damaged easily.

    For data storage for family stuff I use unRAID, I find it more resilient when multiple drives fails (can do partial recoveries and file-system level recoveries as well). FlexRAID is another competitor in some of those aspects.

    I can't speak about the cameras themselves, my partner has been more involved with that.

  6. My solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Panasonic dmc-zs50 for the camera with a 64gb high speed card. Does raw capture for post processing and hd quality video capture for all those kid movie moments.

    Picasa for picture organization. Great face recognition. Also have a folder naming convention which helps group the pictures into events.

    Finally, backblaze to save it all.

  7. Storage is not the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Order is...

    Been cleaning up 30 years of digital storages for plex server. Using exiftest and convert to catalog and help sort the information. Been taking a while.

    Issue was cascading file storage as wife's machine as systems moved in multi direction at once:
    CPU: 486dx33 to P5 to K6 to PIII to Q6660
    OSs 3.1 to 95 to 98 to ME to XP to 7 to 8.1 (looking at 10)
    har drives" 10MB, 250MB, multi 2GB SCSI, 33GB SCSI, 500GB PATA, multi 5000 SATA, multi- 1TB. and added SDD (now looking at 1TB SDD for her)
    With each upgrade, a new C:\ was installed and all old data was stored in to C:\OLDMACHINE\C\ D\ E\ .... Then wife was to clean out what she needed and delete the rest *never happened*

    So cleaning up I grap here total drive and placed it on externel to my machine and stated writing bash scripts to claim down thought it all and read it up and out. Found scanning of baby ultra-sounds, old movies made with "eyebal" cramea, tiif files from old scanners. Some of the images have internal dates and times so storing out in corect order is easy. Others (scans mainly) do not have internal dates and times. So order by date is hard.

    Am I worried of losing anything. No, I have 4 copies of every thing on 2 big machines, a NAS and finally backblase. The downside is purely ORDER.

    .

    1. Re: Storage is not the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similar here. I copy photo to my laptop hd + passport USB disk that I can carry, sync ( using beyond compare) to server internal hd, which is backup with crasplan to 2 USB disk in parallel plus offsite to crashplan server.

  8. Image Archiving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umph. Tried to comment using G+ but it vanished. Argh.

    I am a long time photographer. Processed film - if kept away from heat, light, water and physical abuse - has a good shelf life. However, I am currently scanning my old negatives to .PNG format and keeping multiple copies of the files. Using different formats helps improve the chance that at least one of them will be readable in the future.

    A minimum precaution (in addition to standard backups, which I assume you're doing) is to copy important files to a good quality USB hard drive. Keep it in a fireproof, waterproof box when it isn't in use.

    Backup early and backup often!

  9. Do you really need TBs of pictures and video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't you just live life in the moment? Why feel the need to take hundreds of thousands of pictures?
    Back before digital pictures people kept photo albums with maybe a few hundred pictures in spanning the course of several decades, why not do the same?

    Keep photos and videos of important occasions and events and get rid of the rest. Encode videos to h264, images to jpg if they were taken raw and that shouldn't take up more than a few dozen GB which can easily be backed up to a couple of blurays, an external hd or a large usb stick.

    Personal pictures are meant to jog your memory of an event, not as a means of documenting it. If you want to document your kid's life superglue a gopro to its forehead.

  10. LUMIX, picasa, backblaze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    LUMIX dmc-zs50 as the camera. Fits in a pocket, 30x optical zoom, captures raw, and does nice hd video. Has a standard tripod mount. Put a nice 64gb high speed card in it. Seriously you don't want or need some massive slr or production-ready video cam. Don't be that guy at soccer games and school plays.

    Use a folder structure to group pictures by event. Don't worry about dates-all of that is in pic metadata if you set date/time correctly. Use picasa to organize pictures and do the facial recognize each time you add shots. Star the favorites for later. Add metadata you desire.

    Backblaze to protect all files in the cloud.

    1. Re: LUMIX, picasa, backblaze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for dupe post. First one looked like it failed.

  11. Dupe... (Well it is /.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Dupe... (Well it is /.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how we save this topic for posterity... constantly rewriting the same comments before they rot away.

  12. YouTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The YouTube library will likely be maintained and available for eternity. Make montage videos in the highest resolution available and upload them to YouTube. This could be considered a lower-fidelity emergency backup.

  13. Print by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    Easiest solution is likely to get some of them printed, in a photographer's shop for example.
    If you're taking hundreds of photos, perhaps delete half of them outright and print like a tenth or a twelfth of them. It's dead easy to have multiple prints of a photo too.

    For digital storage, on the hardware side you might have three hard drives. Backup, backup's backup. If one is well off enough I guess it'd be easy to have a 2.5" HDD just for that purpose. Soon they'll be up to 1TB per platter (so, 2TB dual platter drive for instance or a somewhat durable 1TB single platter). 2.5" HDD might go in a tower, a laptop, a USB dock or a plastic case with label (not unlike audio cassette cases)

    1. Re:Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed - prints. Nothing else is guaranteed to be readable generations from now.

    2. Re:Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is going to care generations from now? By definition there are going to many more people spread out over time, all with their own pictures, and the pictures that you take now are going to be lost in the crowd. Put the cameras away and enjoy the moments as they go by.

    3. Re:Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I treasure pictures of my parents in their youth, and of the grandparents I never knew. Someone will care, and old pictures tend to find their way into the hands of the person who does.

    4. Re:Print by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Agreed - prints. Nothing else is guaranteed to be readable generations from now.

      Disagreed. I have copies of all my digital photos, backed up on multiple media, and also stored in the cloud. Paper photos? Most of those got lost years ago. Except for those that were scanned to digital.

  14. statue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people used to build statues for posterity

    though I guess now you could 3D-print one. Maybe make matrioska dolls over time to save space?

  15. Hire a Refugee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grab one out of Hungary and offer them a Q a day to snap a pic at your command. Have him, heck, the his whole remaining family, with cameras at the ready, so you will NEVER MISS THAT SHOT again - DAMN THE TORPEDOES - they don't have to live like a refugee.

  16. Use the one you have... by bswarm · · Score: 1

    For snapahots. It will be easy, convenient, compact. If you want to step up then get a DSLR for higher def photos. As a amateur photographer using Pentax products since 1976, I've collected quite a stash of their cameras and lenses. I now have a Pentax DSLR that has the same lens mount as all those lenses I've collected, some very rare and hard to get, but I always grab my Cannon Powershot for those need it now times.

  17. Growing Up by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    I have an off topic suggestion for you. I saw someone do this years ago and thought it was a great idea. What you do is buy a set of clothes that an average 21 year old would wear. Then, you set the newborn on the clothes. Every year you take the clothes out and do a picture. Up through the time they can actually wear them.

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    1. Re:Growing Up by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      What you do is buy a set of clothes that an average 21 year old would wear. Then, you set the newborn on the clothes. Every year you take the clothes out and do a picture. Up through the time they can actually wear them.

      By which time no 21 year-old would be caught dead wearing that stuff.

      Better to take a picture of them in front of your car every year....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Growing Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if it's a nice suit and dress.

    3. Re:Growing Up by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Actually, 31 years is about how long it takes for fashion trends to come around again. Yes, we're living in the 80's. I really hated re-living '70s fashion, and Vuarnet doesn't appear to have returned, so I'll live with it.

      So buy a set of clothes that an average 21 year old would have worn 10 years ago, and you're all set.

    4. Re:Growing Up by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      I'll take your word for the 31 year period.

      I agree completely that fashion recycles itself, so wearing clothes the father would have worn in high school or college will probably work reasonably well for this purpose....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  18. Cut him a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quit being such an arse.

    This is just nesting behaviour; men do it too.

    CAPTCHA: friendly. (try it!)

  19. Depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depends on what you intend to capture. The issue is that the cutest/funnest/best moments are fleeting. Something small like a cell phone camera is much more convenient when you want to snap a shot quickly, but those cameras have slow focus, slow recovery time and do not handle low-light or motion very well. A DSLR can* be much faster to focus, can* often burst and can* do significantly better with motion and low-light, but they are much more cumbersome and require some planning. You can't just whip one out and expect to capture those unexpected first moments. The larger sensors mean larger and heavier optics.

    However, if I were to recommend anything it would probably be either the Sony a6000 or the smaller Sony a5100. They're both mirrorless compact cameras with e-mount interchangeable lenses. They're insanely fast to focus and can burst shot upwards of 10 FPS. The a5100 is lighter and less expensive but doesn't have an electronic view-finder. There aren't a lot of e-mount lenses on the market unfortunately but you can find adapters to other mounts.

    As for storage, I have a couple of USB drives at different locations plus 1 TB on Google Drive.

    * Can is a huge word here. A DSLR isn't some magic tool that will instantly take amazing photos. A fantastic DSLR won't take much better pictures than a standard P&S if you leave it on auto with the stock lens and don't know what to do with it.

  20. Offsite M-Disc archive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, 1200x800 is "good enough" for anything but portraiture or serious landscape work. The JPG format isn't going away any time soon. And offsite archives in M-Disc (DVDs but etched in stone, literally) will outlast anything but fire or geological disturbance.

    1. Re:Offsite M-Disc archive by Erioll · · Score: 2

      I'll endorse the M-Disc thing. I have one myself, and like it for exactly this type of thing, like my wedding photos. I need to be more paranoid, and get more of my stuff on it, but the really REALLY important stuff is. Link: http://www.mdisc.com/

  21. Redundant, verified backups by trawg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A few years ago I decided the only thing I cared about in my mess of digital stuff was my photo collection so went through the same thing.

    So far what I'm doing is maintaining a bunch of separate backups of my photo collection. I have a "master" copy at home on my desktop PC. I recently put this in a Dropbox folder too, so the local copy is also automagically backed up online (I know Dropbox isn't everyone's cup of tea; I don't like the non-encrypted nature of it but for me it's a good balance of features & services).

    I then have a separate external USB drive that I keep for backups. I have another one of these drives at my parents (that I update when I'm there every few months). I have another one in my office which I update less often.

    BUT, that is only part of it - I've been worried about subtle disk failure screwing up my files. So a while back I wrote some scripts to store hashes of all the files and stuff them into a database. Every few months I run scripts to compare the actual contents of my file stores against "known good" hashes.

    On two occasions I've found a bunch of photos that had been silently corrupted (once on my "master" and once on one of the backups). I almost certainly wouldn't have noticed.

    I've also started to think about using par2 files to add another layer of redundancy; it's kinda trivial to script but it'd add a bit of storage overhead. For now though I'm kinda happy with what I've got - as long as I check the backups every few months against the known good setup, I can be confident in my storage.

    1. Re:Redundant, verified backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in my 70's and have been building a family tree on WikiTree so I've been uploading a lot of family pictures to there. I have prints from old Ansco's to assorted digital media from 3.5 floppies to DVD, prints are easy, just scan them but the real problem is my old 70mm slides that are fading :( I've also inherited old prints from my parents who probably spent a lot at studios but didn't put any info on the back about who the photo is of and when it was taken :( Keep notes!

  22. Something small and handy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a Sony Alpha a6000, anything similar is good.

  23. LTO-6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    LTO-6 tape will give you 15 to 30 years of shelf life storage.

  24. Go lower tech by mjensen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First of all, this question comes up every 4-6 months "How to store data long term?".

    Take the best pictures, get them printed on quality material, and laminate that and make a photo album. It can now easily be shown to anyone who visits and will survive past the lifespan of your children. I have family pictures from 130 years ago in non-digital format.

    1. Re:Go lower tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And make sure the laminate blocks/reflects UV.

    2. Re:Go lower tech by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      First of all, this question comes up every 4-6 months "How to store data long term?".

      Take the best pictures, get them printed on quality material, and laminate that and make a photo album. It can now easily be shown to anyone who visits and will survive past the lifespan of your children. I have family pictures from 130 years ago in non-digital format.

      I went the other way: I have family pictures from 130 years ago in digital format. I've also printed out magazines of photo collections, which are great, as they can be viewed and damaged, and when they're worn out, I can just do another run. It also means I can share these albums with other family members as gifts for relatively little money.

      Oh, and don't laminate your photos -- the acids in the laminating plastic will eat away at the photo. You want archival printing on archival photo paper mounted in an archive album (acid free paper backings) if you're going to go that route.

      Or, you could just keep the files in motion, checksummed, and ensure that you've got lots of copies of the images for years to come. JPEG and TIFF aren't going anywhere any time soon.

    3. Re:Go lower tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, this question comes up every 4-6 months "How to store data long term?". Take the best pictures, get them printed on quality material, and laminate that and make a photo album. It can now easily be shown to anyone who visits and will survive past the lifespan of your children. I have family pictures from 130 years ago in non-digital format.

      Suggesting that a printed archive is the best solution solves a different problem. The original question was:

      What about a plan to store the files you generate? I guess there are important decisions you made about to image quality, file formats, storage type, organizing and labelling software, etc.

      Printed photo albums are fine for a few hundred photos that won't be shared with very many people, and probably won't be shared remotely. Digital technolgies offer at least the possibility of collecting orders of magnitude more photos (and videos) and sharing them with orders of magnitude more people across generations. The best technologies or services available for doing that kind of thing changes frequently, so it might not be unreasonable to revisit the question "every 4-6 months".

    4. Re:Go lower tech by westlake · · Score: 1

      I have family pictures from 130 years ago in non-digital format.

      The geek assumes that his children will know where to find his digital archieves, how to access them and how to read them. That they won't be won't be overwhelmed by the complexity of the systems he has left behind.

  25. Buy a NAS by PedroDeAlvarado · · Score: 1

    I used to be an advanced amateur photographer before I had kids. The kids were born in the days of film photography. I digitized all my film, and I've been storing all of my pictures in a NAS at home, of which I also keep an off-site backup. I don't worry too much about the possible obsolescence of file formats.

  26. Get a good cameraphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem with a good camera is that it is seldom there when you really need it for moments that just happen unexpectedly. Super picture quality isn't as important as having a camera easily and quickly available at the right moments.

    Buy a phone with a good camera, that you then always will have on/near you. Some of them are quite good now (not going to name brands and sidetrack the discussion, search for reviews).

    And set it up with automatic backup to a cloud account. That way your pictures will not only always be backed up, but can be easily viewed from anywhere.

  27. Re:Lighten up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You take yourself too seriously. Why should anyone give a shit what you think?

  28. Bitrot and Ransomware by Zxarr · · Score: 1

    I always wondered about bitrot and lately ransomware encryption.

    I too have a RAID setup for redundancy and backup to an external HDD, all get replaced every few years. But bitrot can set in and ruin pictures and if the worst happens, such as ransomware encrypting your data, everything can be ruined when you backup your data and overwrite the old files with the encrypted ones.

    I've been thinking lately of using something like ZFS with versioning. I'm still researching this, but apparently ZFS can help with bitrot if set up correctly, plus with a versioning system any ransomware encryption would just create another version you could roll back to.

    Perhaps I'm being a bit paranoid, but there's nothing wrong with being paranoid about your data... right?

    1. Re: Bitrot and Ransomware by 31415926535897 · · Score: 1

      If you use the right kind of online backup place, ransomeware can't harm you. Some places build in incremental backup or offer it for an additional fee. So even if the virus locks you out, you can still respite from a known good time.

    2. Re:Bitrot and Ransomware by vux984 · · Score: 1

      plus with a versioning system any ransomware encryption would just create another version you could roll back to

      Ok... maybe.

      1) Windows for example, does have versioning, with Shadow copy etc. Cryptolocker defeats it, and wipes out the shadow copies, at least on a local volume. It might save your ass on a network share. I haven't run into that scenario yet.

      2) Restoring 10s of thousands of files in folder structures after they've all been destroyed by cryptolocker, even if you have versioning/retention that wasn't defeated -- make sure you've thought through how you are actually going to do the recovery. Obviously on Linux with ZFS you'll have scripting options at least; but the point remains that its probably going to be more effort than you'd like.

      3) The last cryptolocker infection i dealt with for a user (the one that affected a local system, as well dropbox), cryptolocker deleted the originals, and created new encrypted files. So "versioning" wasn't useful, there were no previous versions. However, in that case, the deleted file retention features (of dropbox in this case) saved the day. (Again if had been a local filesystem, I wouldn't count on cryptolocker not finding a way to mess with it.)

      I expect future cryptolockers to be even more violent... creating new files, spraying garbage into the old, and then deleting them, and then messing with versioning and deletion recovery mechanisms as best it can... creating mountains of extra files, and then deleting those too, etc, etc. So your versioning/retention is full of crap to sort through.

      Far wiser I think, to simply put your backups out of reach.

      My approach is to use backup software that uses an agent to connect to the server. If your computer can't see the backup volume with the backup files, then cryptolocker can't encrypt them. Any number of cloud and local backup solutions work this way.

      Also make sure you have rolling backups so if you backup your cryptolocked files that doesn't completely overwrite your good backups. (Duh! :)

  29. HD and USB drives are so cheap just get several by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    Clone them once in a while so you have the latest data, keep one at work, keep one at home, etc... just encrypt them if you don't want anyone snooping.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  30. The best camera is the one you have with you by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 1

    For family snapshots, you're probably better off with a new phone with a good camera than a dedicated camera like a powershot these days. The image quality is getting surprisingly close, and the availability difference inherent in having your phone's camera in arms reach all day every day will likely lead to capturing more interesting moments. The latest iPhones are a safe bet, and some androids are getting pretty good these days as well, but you'll want to research the exact model you're getting to make sure it's one of the good ones.

    If you're really interested in quality, you can supplement your phone with a DSLR for events when you know you're going to be taking pictures. Or for special events you could rent equipment from your local camera shop, or hire a photographer.

    There are interesting things coming down the pipe in terms of multi-lens and light-field cameras, but if you're thinking in terms of saving things for posterity, you might want to be conservative about that sort of thing until they become a bit more mainstream and standardized. Remember, they had 3D cameras back when you were a kid too, but when's the last time you looked at an old stereo-photo?

    I'd also recommend you read up on shot composition, lighting, depth of field, speed, aperture, etc... And mabe take a photography class. Understanding how to take a good photo makes the difference between boring and beautiful.

    --
    "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
  31. Just get Windows 10. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your family photos will get an automatic backup at Microsoft without you having to do anything. And if you ever forget a password, they got them for you too. If you ever want to retrieve your photos, just contact the NSA.

  32. Fast Lens (1.8 or 1.4) + Offsite Backup by mveloso · · Score: 1

    To capture anything good in low light you need a fast lens. A fast lens is one where the aperture number is small, like 1.8 or 1.4. A fast lens means that you don't have to wait for a flash to warm up and you don't have to carry it around.

    The downside to a large aperture is that focusing will be hard, even with autofocus, and the exposure will get all weird. The exposure will be weird because your focus area is small, but the exposure logic generally is set to measure the entire picture. You don't really care about the rest of the frame because it'll be blurry due to your huge aperture. Also, autofocus will hunt all over the place because the depth-of-field is short.

    So, be sure to set the autofocus on your center point only and exposure should also be spot (right there) until you get used to it.

      Luckily, you'll have time to practice.

    You'll also have to stash all your pictures somewhere. You can use Apple's photos or some other Windows/Linux solution. However, you should also put them offsite. Flickr has like 1TB free, and google pictures (or whatever it's called now) should be the equivalent. Also, your photo library is prone to corruption, so be sure to use Time Machine or the platform equivalent to back up your metadata etc.

    You can capture JPEGs, they're fine. You might want to consider JPEG + RAW or RAW too, since space really isn't an issue these days.

  33. Fast camera + m-disc by f97tosc · · Score: 1

    For camera I would recommend a mid-high end compact. Look for ease of use and fast autofocus, not for megapixels or many features. I would not get a DSLR if you have not had one before.

    For storage there are any number of options but if you are serious about durability get m-disc and recorder; this is a special type of DVD that is predicted to last for a thousand years.

    1. Re:Fast camera + m-disc by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you're serious about durability go for a proprietary format where disc composition is a trade secret created by a company that has only existed for a few years and pinky promises you that the discs last longer than normal ones?

      Better idea: If you're serious about durability then opt for diversity in media, location and provide lots of redundancy and error checking.

  34. Be there for the kid! by trout007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The most important thing is being there in the moment. Cell phones are fine for a couple of pictures or short videos but spend time actually experiencing life, not watching it through a 6" screen.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Be there for the kid! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The most important thing is being there in the moment. Cell phones are fine for a couple of pictures or short videos but spend time actually experiencing life, not watching it through a 6" screen.

      Also, when people look at the photos years later, they will value most the pictures of people going about their routine life. They will have less interest in "posed" photos, and no interest in photos of the parade at Disneyland. About once a month, I will grab a camera and walk around taking pictures of the family preparing dinner, or the kids playing with their friends.

    2. Re:Be there for the kid! by mrzaph0d · · Score: 1

      personally, i have trouble remembering stuff that happened recently, no matter how memorable it may seem at the time. for those moments, i'm glad i took copious amounts of photos. heck, looking back at pictures of when i was a teen, half of them i can't remember the actual event happening. so yeah, take as many photos as you can stand, *then* sit back and enjoy what's happening.

      --
      this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
    3. Re:Be there for the kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have implants for you, so you can see and take pictures it's called google glass er i mean welcome to the borg Resistance Is Futile!

  35. What I do by TREE · · Score: 1

    Several things make this possible, with everything available locally plus redundant offsite backups.

    Get one or a pair of big hard drives. 4 TB drives are cheap. Various tests put 4 TB drives as a class as more reliable than 3 or 5 TB drives. If you get a pair, RAID 1 them, either with software raid or lvm. Put everything on there. I really like lvm, so that when one drive fails, or is close to failing, you can replace it and keep the whole collection intact locally. Hardware RAID is not necessary, and potentially *less* reliable, since its more complex to replace things. Consider making the volume slightly smaller than the drive to allow for slightly differently sized replacements. As newer drives get cheaper, get bigger drives. Every time I've had to replace drives, they've been twice as large, faster, and cheaper than the last time.

    Files are organized by year/month-event. Use whatever format works for you, but definitely have some level of simple organization, ideally using a folder structure so you aren't tied to a particular tool to manage them.

    Keep everything as it comes off the camera. I don't keep RAW files, but you should have room for plenty.

    Use Crashplan for online backup. This is a moderate cost for all the computers in your house, but with unlimited storage. (If you don't have reasonable internet access to do this, you are stuck shuffling tapes or drives offsite, which is a royal pain). If you have friends with similar desires, you can (for free) use the software to back up to each other's computers, but you each need lots of free space.

    Put all the pictures and videos on flickr. Flickr has a 1 TB limit for free. I've got 40,000 pictures and videos on there (almost 10 years worth) and have only gotten up to about 300 GB. Flickr may require some format conversion for video. I recommend getting familiar with ffmpeg and similar command line tools, use the open source flickr library (and language) of your choice, and script the whole thing. Once the pictures and videos are on flickr, put them into albums that mirror your folder structure.

    Flickr also lets you share your photos with exactly who you want to share them with, relatively securely. The downside is that everyone needs to create a flickr (yahoo) account. You can also share by album with a link (slightly less secure). Services with better/more convenient sharing like google are significantly more expensive. But of course, you could keep a rotating set of pictures in google free storage and also keep everything on flickr as a backup.

    If you have an android phone (I assume Iphone is similar) also let it have multiple automatic backups: There are a number of apps that will automatically sync all pictures to their service, including flickr, google photos, and many others. Pick one or two and let them sync everything. Flickr lets them be private by default, but you'll have the backup. Then also use FolderSync to automatically sync them to your computer, where they will also be backed up by Crashplan and be accessible on the computer directly.

    Use any of a hundred tools to view the pictures at home. With a home network and a shared folder, kodi is great for showing them on the TV (pictures and video).

    Good luck, and congrats on the kid!

  36. Asking about capture or storage? by larwe · · Score: 2

    I hope my wife doesn't read your post - I'm 40, and have been telling her for several years now that it is too late, and I am too old, to become a dad. Anyway: It's not clear to me if you're asking the question "what is the best technology I can use to capture the most information about this object" or "what is the best/safest means I can use to store these images, once recorded, so that they have the best chance of surviving many years". On the first question, it absolutely doesn't matter. By the time this creature is old enough to be looking at these images, the technology you used to capture them will be long obsolete regardless of what you use. People our age grew up with scratchy, poorly-exposed 35mm color prints and Super 8 film of ourselves. Our parents grew up with some black and white photos, some color. The thing you have to keep in mind is that unless you happen to be a president, serial killer or rock star, these recordings are of absolutely no documentary interest whatsoever to the world at large and have no intrinsic value. The only purpose they serve is to remind you, and the kid, and potentially a few family members or friends, of the occasion that is being recorded. The quality of the recording is immaterial because it's just a stimulus to unlock a memory cascade in you, the viewer, who was present at the event anyway. And those memories will be much higher quality than any recording you can make. You could create a daguerrotype, use a brownie box camera, or aim a hand-cranked silent movie camera with B&W film and the pleasure you get from watching the result at a later date will be absolutely identical to that you'd receive from a 3D IMAX recording with octophonic sound and Feelarama(tm). TL;DR: don't sweat the tech, because it won't matter. 10 years from now you'll look at whatever you recorded and think "that ancient tech was so quaint", regardless. The second question is more interesting. There is no storage medium of high enough density for your needs that will last "indefinitely", and you also have the fun problem that codecs evolve. You should absolutely not use any file format that doesn't have an open-source decoder (not that there are many of those in common use these days). And as for the physical storage of the bits, you'll have to keep rolling them from media to media. Since most people can't be bothered making offsite backups, etc - I'd advise picking two disparate technologies for your backup strategy, e.g. writable DVDs and hard drives, and refresh them regularly. If you're comfortable with it, paid cloud storage is also an option (again, diversity is your friend - one copy on amazon and one copy on google and you can be fairly sure a single disaster won't wipe out both). Frankly, you probably don't feel this way right now, but if you think back objectively to your own childhood, you'll know that 99% of these irreplaceable memories sit in shoeboxes from the moment shortly after they were developed to the moment they're rummaged through while people are sorting your estate. So, don't over-invest in this.

    1. Re:Asking about capture or storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paragraphs, motherfucker, do you use them?

    2. Re:Asking about capture or storage? by larwe · · Score: 2

      You know, I'd fucking love to. I have no fucking idea how the fucking fuck to fucking insert them on fucking slashdot. Carriage returns aren't fucking honored. Fucking HTML tags appear verbatim without any fucking parsing. If this fucking posting system wasn't fucked up/undocumented/whatever, my posts would be divided into fucking paragraphs. Fuck? Fuck. Fuck!

    3. Re:Asking about capture or storage? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      IMO, this post was FULL of truth and reality!

      I will say though, as someone who is really growing tired of constantly paying for subscription based services that keep chipping away at my income month after month -- I'm not so thrilled about "cloud storage/backup" solutions.

      I know some people hate Apple and Macs but I can definitely see one reason they're a popular computer choice with people into photography. The fact that Mac OS X does backups automatically with "Time Machine" and any external USB hard drive you attach and designate for it means "no brainer" backups of all of your data (photos!) you download into the machine. And the included "Photos" application is a perfectly good app at getting the content off your camera and into the Mac, as well as giving you a digital photo album to view everything and organize it in one place. All the basic editing capabilities are right there in it too.

      With this setup, I've been happily keeping and displaying my photo collection of our kids, our vacation trips, items I photographed to put up for sale and more. It's been shuffled from Mac to Mac as I upgraded machines over the years - but that process is pretty painless too with Apple's "migration wizard" tool. No lost photos since 2002 or so, here. A couple of Time Machine backup hard drives failed over the years but so what? As long as you don't have the horrible luck of the Mac AND the Time Machine drive dying at the same time -- you're still fine. Just buy a new drive and let it do a full backup again. Any important photos can always be burnt to DVD media or copied to a separate USB hard drive that's kept in a safe deposit box or other safe location, for even more security against data loss, if you feel it's warranted.

    4. Re:Asking about capture or storage? by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Choose the fucking "Plain Old Text" posting option.

      Then carriage returns are honored

      And you can still use a few HTML tags. (b, i, p, br, a, ol, ul, li, dl, dt, dd, em, strong, tt, blockquote, div, ecode, quote)

    5. Re:Asking about capture or storage? by larwe · · Score: 1

      Fucking bizarre. I see that option inside the popup when I click the gear icon next to "Post Anonymously" but I can't actually save anything in that dialog; I can only close it.

    6. Re:Asking about capture or storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had another kid in our mid to late 40s (one is older) and no, you aren't too old--in fact, it's great when you are older for a certain type of person. Kind of keeps you younger in a lot of ways. But it's a total YMMV situation, obviously.

    7. Re:Asking about capture or storage? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      My son came two days before I turned 43. I bought a video camera and later a DSLR as my G10 P&S wasn't cutting it. Then iPhone photos improved. I haven't captured anything with the camcorder in several years, I break out the DSLR infrequently because of the weight and the degree to which it hampers me chasing after my rugrat. I do get awesome shots of him when I can get him to look at me. I've come to realize that he'll never value any of the images; they're for my wife, me, and our relatives. Who will care increasingly less as he gets older. When my wife and I die, nobody will give a shit about any of it. Photos aren't valued by families like they used to, now that everyone can take them with their phone. Quality, sharpness, color, DoF all don't compare, but the convenience of *always* having a Facebook-quality camera with you is invaluable. If capturing truly high-quality photos is important to you, if photography and processing themselves appeal as a hobby, then there's value in real photo gear.
      For casual daily look-at-my-cute-kid posts to Facebook, a decent phone cam is fine.
      The P&S gap between the two is pretty much gone unless someone values the inexpensive pseudo-macro experience of a small-sensor P&S.
      For storing data, it comes down to two things:
      1) Realize that the more you keep, the less likely you'll ever view any again. Even with collections and metadata in Lightroom, tens of thousands of photos become a haystack and your catalog becomes write-only. If you take hundreds of shots each month, plan for several hours to cull 98+%. This cuts your storage needs dramatically, but in 2015 storage on this scale is cheap, even with raw files (*) $150 gets you all you'll ever need.
      2) Back up remotely and automatically. Dick around with cron jobs and syncing to your dad's DSL-sporting 80386 box if you don't value work, sleep, and family time. If you do, pay CrashPlan (or Backblaze if you must) what's really a reasonable fee, and have it back up the whole collection incrementally and automatically.
      Last month the disk with my media files on it stopped spinning up. Oh Noes! It took two weeks, but I got it all back from Crashplan.
      * not RAW, it's not acronym. Uppercase it and I'll have to slap you, explain why "resolution" doesn't mean what you think it means, then slap you again.

  37. Metadata by ka9dgx · · Score: 2

    With old time photos, you could write all the names of people (and descriptions) on the back... please be sure to add metadata to the jpeg files, so that 50 years from now your grandkids will know who is who.

    1. Re:Metadata by nategasser · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, that's an excellent idea that you don't hear very often. On the other hand, I assume that when I'm gone and my kids are looking at pictures, whatever device they're using will basically have facial recognition of, you know, everyone who ever lived.

    2. Re:Metadata by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

      If you take the time to put the data in the pictures, it'll be there in the future. You can use Google's Picasa 3 to do facial recognition on your own stuff, in a private manner... it gets damned good over time... (It picks out the faces, you tag some, and then it starts making suggestions to speed things along considerably)

      There are ways to then put those tags into the image, but they do take time to run. I expect this stuff to get better over time. I've run it against all my digital photos, and will keep doing so as I add more.

  38. Do nothing. It's done already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need no backup. All you picture already are stored at NSA servers. Getting access permission is another story though. But you asked for *storage* only, right?

  39. Re: Print - exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See with prints, you must edit them for a photo album.

    You don't have to worry about drives and keeping them going or a cloud business going bust and you having to scramble to download everything.

    A couple if photos at any age is more than enough. And in a couple of generations, no one is going to give a shit.

  40. picture frames! by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

    Being a father of two and started to use digital cameras in last century, I collected sizable archive. It's too easy to take them and costly to process them. After each session (vacation, getway, event) I quickly sit down and process them using Picassa. Delete ones that are grosly bad, let my wife have a pass too, then adjust the rest. Last step is to download them to my picture frames which I build from old laptops. This is where the fun is as my fam constantly sees the pictures and we often stop and marvel and refresh our memories. Actually I am thinking about buying a ~40" tv and rebuilding it into a monster picture frame with DLNA.

    And backup on several USB external drives, kept in different locations so I do not loose them to fire or theft. When I run out of space on older drives, get a new one but keep the old.

    --
    4wdloop
  41. I archive large numbers of photos in RAW by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    RAW format is bulky, so I store each terabyte of new images on a 1TB external drive, and maintain a continuous cloud secondary backup to the CrashPlan subscription service. Because I only have one or two of the external drives (I have a whole drawerful of them by now) connected at one time, I keep everything organized in Adobe Lightroom 6. It's the only photo editor/organizer I know of that keeps track of external disks that are not mounted.

  42. Cheap disk & public cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am on my way to have 100 hours of video and I have several thousand pictures and I made a very similar question. My solution;
    - an external hard disk at home (60 euros, 2 TiB)
    - Amazon cloud drive (75 euros per year, no space limit)
    I synchronized them at first, and now I synchronize them once in a while with new material. I informed several people about the existence of these copies.
    Main problem: the application of Amazon for tablets/smartphones is too slow and mixes photos with other jpg files from other directories I own. (I'm considering iCloud to see pictures on mobile devices, but it's much more expensive)

    PS-> Please note that having several disks is not a good solution as a thief could leave you empty handed. Putting them in different houses makes synchronization difficult and risky (when you bring them together). A personal cloud is possibly not as safe as Amazon cloud drive, and besides, the upload speed is typically low.

  43. if you are serious, take a class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A short photography or film class will teach you how to improve your images. I've learned quite a few things making a few documentary shorts: The two best ways to improve your images are adding light and stability. If nothing else, turn on the lights even during the day. Better, have an on-camera light or something bigger on a stand. Get a tripod, and when shooting "free," use a monopod AND strap. If you are going to buy a new camera, look for something with good low-light performance. Shoot video in progressive (24p, 30p, 60p) mode.

    In terms of storage, the most important part is offsite backup. Remember that the RAID in your NAS is NOT a backup. Keep a spinning disk hard drive backup of your RAW files at a family member's place.

  44. It mostly matters to you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My grandmother died recently, almost 100 years old. My grandfather 20 years ago.
    They loved making 8mm movies, today. He spent a lot of time doing special effects on his movies. Also filming my mother and later on me and the rest of family.

    So when we had to empty the apartment, a few things occurred to me. First of all, most of their films were important to them, not to me. Looking through it all took weeks. We sorted it and divided the films among us according to who was mostly on them. I would like them all to be transferred to a digital media but that is just too expensive so most of them will perish. We are getting the ones that are most relevant to us, transferred to digital media, 720p/1080p.

    So this is what I do.
    1) I have all my pictures and video on my NAS boks
    2) I have a offline backup of my most important stuff on a 4TB drive(about 2TB data on it) on a shelf with a note on it, explaining which format it is in, partitions etc, and that it contains my pictures and video.
    3) I have a "off-site" cloud backup of this 2 TB. You can use Backblaze, Crashplan or whatever.
    4) Passwords to the cloud backup are stored in a document along with a description of what it it on the account where all my legal papers are sent to.

    Now, the storage method will change, the offsite backup are likely to change over the years, so you have to update it from time to time.
    I have arranged all pictures and video so I can easily find them myself so others should be able to go through them fast. But like with my grandmother, I realize that most of what I have saved, are mosty important to me. There might be some family that would like to salvage 10 percent of those pictures.

    As to which format, I must admit that it is a combination of .jpeg, .raw. .mkv(h.264), and whatever my camcorder outputs. But I am thinking that it might be easier in the future to salvage digital media than analog, as long as the integrity of the data is good. How to prevent bit-rot is the thing I haven't cracked.

  45. RAID is not backup. by ZorkZero · · Score: 2

    Repeat after me until it sinks in. RAID is not backup.

    RAID is not backup.

    If you want to keep your pictures, make multiple copies and keep one in a different location. Tape has a 30-year shelf-life and no logic board or mechanical parts to fail, and there will always be services available to restore them. Tape drives are unfortunately prohibitively expensive.

    Find a way. But remember. RAID is not backup.

    1. Re:RAID is not backup. by thogard · · Score: 2

      Alos remember that the RAID controller in the NAS might be the only thing that will ever be able to read the drives so if lightning takes out the NAS, so long all the data even if the drives don't get zapped.

      RAID also doesn't quite ccope with the problem that on large sotrage systems, the MTBF means that something is always broken and undetected and it is only going to get worse.

  46. M-DISC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC

  47. Local NAS + Cloud storage + RAW format by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RAW is really huge on disk, but you'll never regret being able to fix that low-exposure shot of the first birthday candle in the dark! Light room works pretty well on local NAS. If you'll be mounting it over WiFi, invest in a really good router. Quality matters when you're wondering why your throughput just fell off a cliff.

  48. Local NAS + Cloud storage + RAW format by Sheepless · · Score: 1

    RAW is really huge on disk, but you'll never regret being able to fix that low-exposure shot of the first birthday candle in the dark! Light room works pretty well on local NAS. If you'll be mounting it over WiFi, invest in a really good router. Quality matters when you're wondering why your throughput just fell off a cliff.

    --
    Social media and technology thoughts: http://jasonkinner.wordpress.com
  49. Archive is not Backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Backup is the process whereby you make several copies of the "Great American Novel" while you are writing it. You backup everything on a regular basis, auto save in your word processor, frequent system backups. I read of a writer whose backup process included printing pages. He kept them on his desk for a week, then on the floor next to his desk, then in a box down the hall, then by the back door, until they finally went into the trash can on pickup day. He conceded that he some time went into the trash can, looking for some pages.

    When the "Great American Novel" was finished and awarded the Nobel Prize, it is time for Archive. In Archive, the novel is moved offline, copied onto storage media. This storage media can be anything you like. In Archive, it is read only! Early space flights were so important, the telemetry data was copied in four different formats, none of which can be read now. So be prepared to make new copies of Archive data every five years, reading it with the creating system and writing it with a newer system. You can make the novel online, however, it is not backedup nor is it modifiable.

    Pictures are just the same. The orginial photo is sent to the Archive. Ones you want to display or modify, get copied from the Archive to a file that is Backedup. And, if it an award winner, it gets another entry in the Archive.

    And RAID is a backup, more hardware than others. If the choice for the Backup media is one disk or two disks, I'm a two disk man all the way.

  50. Re:Fast Lens (1.8 or 1.4) + Offsite Backup by multimediavt · · Score: 1

    I don't know what photography class you took, but the aperture number of a lens has nothing to do with speed. It has to do with how far the lens iris will open relative to the size of the lens (it's a ratio; e.g., 1.8:1 or 1.4:1) and therefore how much light the lens can get to the sensor; the lower the number the closer to 1:1 you get and the more light you get. Aperture also controls the depth of field for a shot with a larger aperture decreasing depth of field and a smaller one increasing it. This affects what will be in focus in a shot as well as the amount of light and by extension how long of an exposure to use. If you want things farther and closer to you to be in focus you narrow the aperture (higher number) and increase exposure time. If you want only a single thing or group of things to be in focus in a shot you open the aperture and decrease exposure time. The "speed" of a camera comes from its shutter, and unless you're going for a slow motion video camera, pretty much all SLR and mirrorless cameras have similar shutter speeds from bulb (open until you close it) to 1/3200 or 1/4000 of a second. The shutter is part of the camera body, not the lens. Matrix metering is for novices and spot metering is for more advanced photographers that are going for a specific look or effect. Then there's ISO settings that will transpose a lot of the aperture and shutter settings based on what that is set to, as ISO controls the sensitivity of the sensor in modern cameras. It used to be a somewhat fixed aspect of the film being used that could be pushed a few notches one way or another depending on the quality or formulation of the film. If you don't know what you're doing, just use the Program (P) mode on the camera until you take a course. Your local YMCA or other continuing ed organization should have one if you can't find good online resources and experiment on your own.

  51. Storage by tbarnett67 · · Score: 1

    Storage - you just need an external HD - a few TB Backup - find a willing friend/relative and use BitTorrent Sync for your photo/video folders.

  52. Focus on being in their lives, not documenting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm 56, nerd, used to love photography, darn near did it for a living. Took tons of pics, tons of videos. Probably 200 8mm carts in the drawers, many gigs of pics. We seldom look at any of it, our memories still work. Kids are grown. Other than taking pics at special events where we were by definition in the audience, we spent more time doing stuff with the kids than taking pics of them. Get a camera small enough to carry, these days odds are it's your cell phone. Back it up with a compact camera with a good range zoom for the special events and vacations. Sure... cell phones are great. Until you are saying "look at the cute little dots in the surf. Wish I had a real zoom that day!" Make folders for your pics, ruthlessly dump the blurred and missed shots, then mirror the entire bunch or bulk copy it to a backup device. Doesn't much matter if you use external USB, a remote storage facility, local NAS. Get as simple or as fancy as you want. Use drag and drop, rsync, or whatever backup software you like. Having it backed up is all that matters, heck I just do a copy of my large folders to NAS and head to bed. I don't care if it takes a couple hours, I'm asleep. Don't overthink it or make every breath some photo event. Just makes the kids self conscious and they will wish you would chill and let things be. Have fun. Kids are only little, cute, and completely lovable for a fairly brief period. They may still be great people as they grow, but the super cute period is sort of brief. Don't miss it. I watch some of our videos and I wish I'd been in the action with the kids, not standing back with a camcorder. We all would have had a lot more fun.

  53. For storage I would think of nothing less than... by X86BSD · · Score: 1

    ZFS. ZFS in some form. FreeNAS with ZFS, FreeBSD with ZFS. Don't run anything else. Checksumming, self healing, stable, future proof. Don't risk bitrot or corruption or data loss. Just do it. As far as metadata, thats a bitch. Ive yet to find an open metadata format that is widely supported, and will be around in 50 years. Im hoping someone here chimes in with a good metadata solution! Ive yet to find one I love.

  54. A Lot Of Questions by multimediavt · · Score: 2

    I'm in my early 40's and I will become a dad in less than a month. Until now I've been quite happy with a Canon Powershot S110 for taking pictures and video, but now I'm thinking in longer terms. If some of you have already thought or done something about this, what did you consider when buying photo/video equipment? What about a plan to store the files you generate? I guess there are important decisions you made about to image quality, file formats, storage type, organizing and labelling software, etc. I'm also wondering if there are any other technologies (stereoscopic cameras?) that I haven't thought about and may be interesting to look at.

    Wow, there are a lot of questions in there that require a lot of detailed and somewhat subjective answers. I've been doing photography since I was seven years old when I got my first real 35mm range finder camera, and have done my own developing and printing, and moved to digital photography very early on in its evolution and still use it today. Let me see if I can give you some quick answers that you can go do more detailed research on yourself.

    1. Cameras with interchangeable lenses are the best buy if this is something you're going to get serious about. If not, stick to what you have or get some simple point-and-shoot with a good sensor and a decent zoom lens (with its optical zoom properties taking priority over digital zoom). I'd recommend something with at least 16 MP or higher so anything can be blown up to an 11"x17" size and not look too grainy. B&H Photo is a good place to get gear and get reviews by photographers and not just the average Joe.
    2. Store the photos on a hard drive, preferably an array of at least RAID 1 so if one drive fails you don't lose everything. Others have pretty much answered this above. Long term you need to look at either redundancy of the array or tape. Yep tape. Costly, but if it's that important tape is still the best medium for long term storage integrity.
    3. ALWAYS shoot at the highest quality setting (image size) for the camera you are using. Again, if quality is important file size is not an issue with today's storage costs.
    4. Format will depend on the camera, but most will be at least JPEG format. Again, ALWAYS use the highest quality setting! Buy a bigger card for the camera. I can shoot all day with a 32 GB card with my 24 megapixel DSLR. I've taken well over 1000 pictures in a day and had no problem storing them util I got back to my laptop.
    5. If the camera supports RAW, USE IT! You can use it in conjunction with JPEG (the RAW+JPEG setting). Why? It's a lot easier to adjust image color, saturation, exposure, etc. after the fact in an image editing app (that also supports RAW, very important) with a RAW format image. Again, this gets important if you want to print the images or ever want to do any pro photography.
    6. Organizing and labeling? I can tell you from experience that if you're not doing photography for money that whole business gets tedious very quickly, and you'll not do it for long nor consistently. I use well labelled file folders and then label the best photos with tags or keywords in the file properties. I use a Mac so that stuff is there, Windows also supports file attributes you can use to add keywords, etc. Yes, I still do this for my very large projects with thousands of raw photos. I'll just mark the ones I've enhanced or otherwise like and just sort based on the tag or keyword and they float to the top. Modern OSes and filesystems are pretty good for this anymore without the need for some sort of specific software like Apple's Photos.

    Your last question about novelty photography will get one comment from me: Stay away! Sure 3D images are cool, but the added expense of a camera capable of doing that sort of thing is not worth it once the novelty wears off. It's like the organizing and labeling stuff, really.

    Ok, go forth and buy a new camera if you need to. There are several nice point and shoot cameras in the 16 MP

    1. Re:A Lot Of Questions by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      If the camera supports RAW, USE IT! You can use it in conjunction with JPEG (the RAW+JPEG setting). Why? It's a lot easier to adjust image color, saturation, exposure, etc. after the fact in an image editing app (that also supports RAW, very important) with a RAW format image. Again, this gets important if you want to print the images or ever want to do any pro photography.

      Another great reason is that you can go back to them many years later and "re-develop" them using improved RAW processing technologies, and by applying what you've learned since.

      I've gone back to my 6 or 7 year old photos a few times and turned some "ok" photos into really nice portraits that way.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    2. Re:A Lot Of Questions by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Raw is still a word, not an acronym. Stop shouting at us.

    3. Re:A Lot Of Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some 3D "lens in a body cap" devices out there that turn any major brand camera into a 3D camera for around $100 USD. I've not used them, but have had my eye on one particular brand for a while. It isn't like the old days of Kodak side-by-side or Viewmaster cameras. That said, as a photographer myself, I want to see what the 3D body cap does when fit to the end of a small extension tube or bellows; the use of a fixed-f, fixed-focus lens doesn't make me think snapshots or portraits.

      posted as AC because my phone forgot my password, and my online KeePass database got messed up.

  55. I'm taking a "museum" approach to family archiving by C0L0PH0N · · Score: 1

    I am an old retired computer guy with a dozen Rubbermaid tubs of old photos, documents and film/video inherited from my parents that go back generations and are priceless to my family. My goal is to have a method of preserving both physical and digital resources in such a way that they are accessible in 50 years. I have photos that are over 100 years old, so that is a reasonable goal.

    After months of research, I have become most impressed by a "museum" approach. That means, cataloging the media resources with a defined vocabulary--I chose the Dublin Core (www.dublincore.org). It means developing a way to link the physical media to any digitized versions, by assigning a numbering system ("accessioning" in museum-speak). And the most important thing I learned was to plan to save a text file with each digitized item, that describes it and contains the stories about it. For example, a photo titled, "Grandma Kayaking the Missouri River.JPG" would have stored with it a file named "Grandma Kayaking the Missouri River.TXT". The reason for this is profound! The associated text file is MOST likely to survive 50 years. No matter how software changes, text files are likely to be readable in 50 years.

    The plan would be to open and resave all the media, say every 10 years, and update as needed. For example, JPG files might need to be updated to JPG2000, etc, etc, as new software is developed. A slightly sophisticated wrinkle is to actually store the text in XML or HTML format. So instead of having a line in the text file that says, "Title: Grandma kayaking the Missouri River", it might read Grandma kayaking the Missouri River. The advantage of this is that it makes all the text files "machine readable".

    If this level of approach is interesting to you, then the best site discussing these issues I have found BY FAR is "http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/index.htm". This amazing site contains basically a 250 book on the subject that is amazing. It isn't immediately apparent how extensive this site is, but it is just wonderful. There is vanishingly little else of this quality out there, I've spent months looking. The Library of Congress has a "Personal Archiving" program, but it basically says just "scan well, organize folders well and backup well". That is good advice, but doesn't touch the bigger issues. For small museums there are cool sites like "www.omeka.org". I adore the "ATOM" project ("https://www.artefactual.com/services/atom-2/", but it is just over my head in sophistication. Here is a website that discusses 29 "free and open source" solutions to digital archiving: "http://www.ethnosproject.org/digital-curation-digital-asset-management-community-archiving-systems/". I have gone through and examined each of them, but they are just a bit over my head. I have found several projects in Australia to be very interesting, but again, not an exact fit for us "family archivists".

    I have finally decided to "roll my own" program. I am building a Microsoft Access database that will catalog my media resources, and which will then automatically generate my "text" file for each resource, putting the text file in the proper folder, and containing the correct XML depiction of my Dublin Core description of my photos, videos, documents, etc, including the locations of both the physical and digital media. I have made arrangements with some computer science folks in my family in the next generation (nephews), to "inherit" my "family museum" effort, and to carry it on to the next generation. My whole point with the "museum" approach is that it creates an intelligible system that can be left to the next generation! If my Microsoft Access program gets lost over the years, it won't matter, because all the database information about the digital media will be stored in those amazingly simple TEXT files!!! Good luck in your efforts.

  56. 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know everyone hates 3D but that's because there is no good way of viewing it at present. But that's information you should be keeping for when there is a better technology. As other posters have said, you don't need crazy-high reolutions. Get a decent 3d camera.

    Alternatively (this is what I still do) just take two photos a few inches apart. When we take photos we often take more than one anyway so just make a point of taking two. Line up on the first, shoot, then just shuffle a few inches to the side and take another with the camera still pointing at same location. Not so good for people shots though :-)

    It's amazing how much more you see in 3d photos. Great for posterity shots. Any 3d tv will give you an idea of how much they reveal... for when a good viewing technology comes along.

    1. Re:3D by multimediavt · · Score: 1

      I know everyone hates 3D but that's because there is no good way of viewing it at present. But that's information you should be keeping for when there is a better technology. As other posters have said, you don't need crazy-high reolutions. Get a decent 3d camera.

      Alternatively (this is what I still do) just take two photos a few inches apart. When we take photos we often take more than one anyway so just make a point of taking two. Line up on the first, shoot, then just shuffle a few inches to the side and take another with the camera still pointing at same location. Not so good for people shots though :-)

      It's amazing how much more you see in 3d photos. Great for posterity shots. Any 3d tv will give you an idea of how much they reveal... for when a good viewing technology comes along.

      First of all, no. You don't know what you're talking about. Second, have you ever tried to take "two photos a few inches apart" of a baby or any other moving object? Yeah, it doesn't work. Third, 3D imagery has a purpose and if you don't have a specific purpose for it, don't bother. It's novelty not worth the expense, which unless you go el-cheapo add-on for a DSLR it's ridiculously expensive for anything of quality; something even near to a simple point-and-shoot quality. Most that have two lenses and two sensors shoot at 10 MP or less. Plus, you can't just look at those images nor print them. People still print pictures for their walls and as gifts.

    2. Re:3D by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Here is what looks like a stereo viewer for printed 3D photos, to show you there are ways to look at the pictures. It dates back to.. 160-year-old.
      https://www.pinterest.com/pin/...

      In high school they made us look at a molecule (complex protein or hormone) with a small metal apparatus on a stand, just like looking into a Nintendo Virtual Boy but unpowered and much smaller. It was cool : you sort of saw the site where some other protein would get, with more clarity and sense of what's going on.
      I'm not sure how that's useful for pictures of people and family though.

  57. Archive for preserving personal digital objects by pcjunky · · Score: 1
  58. CD good for 1000 years? by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    When I bought a BlueRay drive it came with a sample CD m@disk that's made to last a 1000 years.

    I've never used it, it's more of a conversation piece as they are spendy and lack storage space (4.7Gigs).

    Yet tossed out as an option with foreseeable future technological problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:CD good for 1000 years? by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      I've never used it, it's more of a conversation piece as they are spendy and lack storage space (4.7Gigs).

      I'm a purist, all my work is saved as .TIF's.

  59. But shut the camera off once in awhile! by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    It seems that a lot of people in the western world are voluntarily (and involuntarily) spending more and more of their lives under the unforgiving gaze of cameras, each with a keen and heartless memory. People, particularly kids, can now grow up having seen their own birth (and some, their own conception), and every goofy, funny, embarrassing, or horrifying moment from then to the present day, all in HD quality, stored on media that may outlast their own lives. Some of it may haunt them later in life it it falls into the wrong hands.

    Keep in mind that some shit your kids will do, because they are immature, will be..immature. Everybody has something that they regret doing from their childhood, and they perhaps don't want it trotted out on the media player every Christmas. They may not even want to know a copy of it exists anywhere. Some things are best left forgotten.

    So please, every once in a while or oftener, shut the fucking camera off and form your own memories, vague and emotionally tinted as they may be, and allow certain stupid things to be forgotten. Otherwise, don't be surprised when your teenage kid, fed up with having every awkward growing moment committed to posterity, snaps and decides to hack your media bunker and destroy it, and then burns the house down for good measure.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:But shut the camera off once in awhile! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Practicing your technique for yelling "you kids, get off my lawn!" yet? 'cause you sure to seem to have that 'grumpy old man' thing coming along...

  60. cloud and local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use three separate cloud accounts, sync them one-way w/ no deletions (fail in one won't affect others) with Cloud HQ. Keep 2 portable 1TB HD's for local copies. Works fine as long as below 1TB total, too expensive for me if I get beyond that. Looked at Glacier, but fiddle with files too much for that.

  61. N individual hard drives, copy every 2-3 years by billstewart · · Score: 2

    You need simplicity, reliability, format independence, and no particular speed or latency. Don't do RAID or NAS for backups.

    Sure, NAS and RAID and the like are great for online reliability, and for your current copies, but for backups, you want something that you can plug in 5 years from now, be sure it'll work, and don't care if it's a bit slow. So buy a few individual drives with the most portable formats available (seems to be 2TB with USB2 and eSATA for now), and every couple of years, copy to new media, which will cost you half as much for twice the capacity and maybe use some format that doesn't exist yet.

    File formats are anybody's guess - you probably should keep the data in the original format, but also, as new formats come out, consider translating some of the old ones into new formats, e.g. JPEG->PNG, or OlderMovieFormat->NewerMovieFormat, and keep the translation programs on the same disk.

    File namingAgain, simplicity's good, but you're also doing this for people in the future, including yourself. I tend to have directories by year, and subdirectories by what category of picture it was (this trip, cats, etc.), and never get around to keeping simple text files of what most of the pictures in the batch are about, but you should totally be doing that. And that's static text files, not some DBMS that won't be supported next decade. (So CSV files or tab-separated text from 1978 still work fine, but Lotus123 spreadsheets or mid-90s Excel binaries or Office365 cloud-stuff may not be readable .)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:N individual hard drives, copy every 2-3 years by alvarogmj · · Score: 1

      Regarding file formats: I may be mistaken, but most of the issues I see are with old formats from the pre-internet era and more primitive/obscure OSes. Sure, we all have read stories of old disks which are now unreadable because the hardware doesn't exist anymore, but that is *hardware*. For files, I see VLC can open nearly every video and audio format in existence, and certainly any photo viewer worth using can open more image formats than what I have seen.

      Most of us know what we have in our hard drives. I know I only have a couple word documents that may not be supported in the future, all the rest are open formats, not tied to a single software suite. So, as long as the internet exists, I'll be able to download some linux distro like Slackware (I mention it because it includes everything I may need to open my files in a single dvd, no online repositories needed) and use whatever software comes with it to open my files. I actually keep an ISO handy, so as long as VirtualBox exists I can load the ISO there and have a "2015-compatible" SO for as long as I may want to. Damn, if tomorrow we all leave x86 to some other thing and VirtualBox dissapears, I'll probably be able to open a VM and run VB on it :)

      Cloud stuff is probably a huge headache waiting to happen. I'd make sure I have a copy of anything stored in the cloud, and in a format I can open locally. Still, if tomorrow MS dissapears, I'm 99% sure we will have a chance to download Office 365 files in an open format before the shutdown

  62. Trusted Cloud Back Services, like MegaUpload by billstewart · · Score: 2

    You should totally be using them, instead of keeping your copies at home, because it's much more reliable, they've got better hardware, geographic redundancy, paid staffs, and nothing can go w(#($!_*$@#RR

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  63. Re:Fast Lens (1.8 or 1.4) + Offsite Backup by Pulzar · · Score: 1

    I don't know what photography class you took, but the aperture number of a lens has nothing to do with speed.

    It is very common, at least in North America, and in North American English, to call a lens with a large aperture "fast". Since, as you said, large aperture allows more light in, so it takes less time to expose the sensor/film, therefore the lens is "fast".

    Googling "fast lens" will come up with many examples such as this one: http://digital-photography-school.com/what-is-a-fast-lens/

    Maybe you're from another part of the world that doesn't use this expression?

    --
    Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  64. We are the first people. by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

    Hundreds (if not thousands) of years from now, others will look on us as the "first people". This is the beginning of time that is documented digitally. Be proud, we are the first people.

  65. The camera you have with you is the best one ... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Truthfully, cellphone cameras wind up the most useful tool simply because you're most likely to be carrying one with you, whenever opportunity strikes to take a worthwhile photo.

    IMO though, this is also why the "point and shoot" camera category is dying a slow death. If you care about your photos to the point you demand better quality than you're getting from a cellphone, you may as well invest a bit more and go with a digital SLR with interchangeable lenses. Then you have a camera worthy of investing some real time learning to use and master, and it might really take you to a place where photography becomes a new hobby for you. Whether you go with a nice point and shoot or an SLR, you're still talking about a single purpose device you have to make a special effort to carry with you and maintain (battery kept charged up, memory card ready to use with it, etc.). Why not make it a device that's as flexible as possible for the one task it's designed for?

    I've owned several of Canon's Digital Rebel series of cameras over the years. (My most recent one was a T2i which I held onto until just a month or two ago. The later revisions like T3i and T4i just didn't add enough value to be worth an upgrade from it -- so got a lot of life about of that one. Frankly, a T2i is *still* an excellent choice if you're looking for a good used digital SLR on a tight budget. The lenses it uses will work with the latest Rebel cameras OR the mid-range Canon D series SLRs like the 7D or 70D.)

    Now, I've stepped up to the 70D myself. The camera has better low light photo capabilities than anything I used previously, and definitely has a heavier, more weather-resistant case design to it. More control dials and buttons for features you'd have to navigate on-screen menus to change on a Rebel camera, too. But in a nutshell? It probably makes the most sense if you already KNOW you're going to stick with photography as a true hobby/pastime. One of the digital Rebels is probably a better starting point into the digital SLR genre if you're coming from only using a cellphone camera and/or other point and shoot.

  66. Canon Powershot S110! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So happy with my $110 purchase!

  67. M-DISC and a media-grade fire resistant safe by XNormal · · Score: 1

    Even a single copy on M-DISC in a media-grade fire resistant safe is more likely to survive the next 35 years intact and readable than the alternatives. Cloud, hard disk arrays, tapes, whatever. The total maintenance cost over this time is dramatically lower than the alternatives, too (virtually zero).

    And I would not worry about availability of readers in 35 years. I don't see passive physical media completely going away. Passive media carrier that does not include electronics. There will always be a niche for that. The drives you will buy in 30 years are likely accept the same 12cm disc form we have been using for the last 35 years and be backward compatible with CD, DVD, Blu-ray, Violet-ray, UV-ray, Gen1 holographic, Gen2 quantum, Gen4 quarkstore and Gen4 planckstore disks :-)

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  68. Print things by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1
    Print things, on photosensitive paper for two reasons:

    1) photosensitive paper, i.e. the same paper that was used to print 1980's analog photos, has proven to be very durable. Don't use inkjets etc, which may fade over time (or they may not -I prefer to not take the risk).

    2) a HD full of photos is good for indexing and searching, but I rarely browse these picture. The ones I have printed in a small album lying around are browsed regularly, either by meself or visitors.

  69. ? Why. Don't. People. Think. Audio. ? by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    I'll raise you a single mustard-colored Polaroid photograph.
    Add several hundred process film prints, and a few surviving rolls of negatives.
    Add several hundred thousand digital camera shots with shutterbug duplication (ie busy! no time to sort!)
    Add a thousand crappy cellphone videos with pixel faces, square teeth and indecipherable audio.
    Add some better video from digital cameras, better picture but crappy builtin mic. Finger noise louder than voices.

    Now we're talking, an old video camera with bulky accessories like a real rubber mounted windscreen'd mic.
    It was a wedding present and we have great wedding videos, but it never was convenient enough to carry around.
    Now it's broken and those cartridge tapes are sitting in the closet waiting to be send to some A-D service some day.

    So as the kids are growing up, what we mostly have is crappy stuff from aforementioned low end digital devices.

    It is nice to know what people looked like in a moment in time.
    It's kind of ok to capture lots of video footage, but there is this strained relationship between people and the camera.
    The person behind the camera (it usually comes down to one) becomes the 'missing person' in the family archives.
    Video gets taken of special moments and trips, but not often enough to provide real continuity.

    In order to capture the essence of LIFE and PEOPLE, you need to capture their casual voices. With 'invisible to the subject' continuous recorded high quality sound. Engage them in conversation. Steer the conversation. Document your kids' intellect from their first spoken word, the voices of great-grandparents telling stories of the Depression, capture a day in the life of someone, a family evening at dinner with the clink of silverware, war stories or limericks or the songs adults remember being sung to them as children. Visit Grandma at the old folks' home and have her describe the neighborhood you grew up in, the best times in her marriage, her proudest moments. Let the audio device sit in your daughter's pocket as she plays her instrument in the concert band to capture meaningful sound you can sync over that yucky muddle from your video camera.

    It is tragic beyond words that the capability of recording whole hours and even days of high quality just-sound has now been available to us for almost two decades now, due to flash memory, lithium batteries and (if it's a priority to you, it certainly wasn't to the manufacturer) a decent external microphone, the ability to store/replicate incredible amounts of audio onto cheap media... and yet.

    People are still dabbling with jittery occasional video, striving for that Hollywood perfection, when with just-audio they could for far less effort and expense allow future generations to 'know' the people of today. And as we reach old age, have the ability to sit back and listen to these voices, real conversations. Someone could even write a book, a real one with lots of words and all.

    In the 1950s audiophiles discovered high fidelity sound. They moved magnetic tape across heads at 7-1/2" per second and filled the shelves with 30 minute tapes. Some time around 15 years ago it became possible for a pocket device to store sound with even greater fidelity in the pocket. Now for the price of your average video-enabled digital camera, you can set yourself up with the equivalent of DAT tape audio mastering unit of 20 years ago and a couple of microphones that capture sound with sufficient fidelity that you can not only apply (amazing!) digital noise filters to it... your own child's or grandmother's voice will be clear as day.

    Something to listen to as you hold that single mustard-colored Polaroid photo in your hand. Because your audio fit easily on CDs and DVDs you tossed into the closet, but you decided to store all your video in the Cloud and the Cloud went bankrupt rather suddenly one day.

    DISCLAIMER: This cautionary rant is as much to myself as to everyone else. If only I

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  70. NAS to off-site servers and USB drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a lot of the previous posters I also use a NAS, and a backup routine that is executed in the background.

    I have a NAS in my home, running 4 drives in RAID-6 and EXT4. All of my digital work resides on this server.
    Every night the entire server is backed up using rsync with --archive, set up with SSH-keys, to two identical off-site servers with 4 drives in RAID-6, located in two different countries. Once BTRFS is a bit better, I will start using this.

    To satisfy my own personal paranoia, I also have an external USB drive located at work that I bring home every first day of the month and run the same rsync command. The problem with such drives is that you have to handle them very carefully.

    So far, so good. Running for the fourth year now with the off-site servers, no mishaps, only peace of mind.

  71. Non-public Flickr? Google Drive? Dropbox? by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    And before someone dings me for suggesting cloud services..yadda yadda privacy/NSA/Whatever:

    1. Easy Button Easy. No need to maintain your own NAS, and Yahoo/Google/whatever handles the redundancy.

    2. You can use them in addition to local backups on USB storage/NAS

    2. If you really worried about privacy, tar/zip/stuffit/rar up your folders and gnupg encrypt them.

  72. Organization for life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start your organization NOW!

    YYYY/MM/Event/ - for the directories.

    Never trust metadata for this. Over the years you will swap programs at least once every 5 yrs and each will have a different way to organize. ALWAYS USE that directory structure. Nothing is as important as the date a photo was taken. Nothing. It doesn't need to be the exact date unless you are on a trip and moving from place to place daily.

    Put the location/subject into the filename. I retain sequence numbers to ensure no files get clobbered accidentally in a directory. Using a sequence also means the timeline is maintained. 001-Three_days_in_Florence.jpg is helpful, but not as good as 001-Florence-Uffizi_Entrance.jpg and 002-Florence-Uffizi_Entrance.jpg

    Of course, a rating system included inside the file metadata is a big help. No reason to spend any time with low quality photos. I use a scale of 0-5, where 5 is best. 0=delete. I rarely look at 1-3 rated photos, but if I'm trying to relive an experience, having all of them helps.

    Cameras - smartphone cameras suck. A friend and I travel the world together. On our last trip, he only brought a smartphone with a 13mpix camera. His shots were never as nice as mine with a $120 Canon PnS with a 4x optical zoom. He's a better photographer than I am too. I think a nicer camera is just more to lug around and really not needed anymore.

    After that, follow normal backup techniques where the more important a file is, the more backup copies you have in diverse locations.

    Something I wish we did with our kids was monthly photographs. 12 photos a year, taken on the 1st of the month - always. Wouldn't that be a nice present later? Plus these days it is a safety thing. Most should be taken with the same background as reference.

  73. Get a good camera and lens and learn how to use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very happy that I dropped 1k on a good DSLR (canon 60d) and some good lenses for lowlight indoors (love my sigma 30mm and 50mm) within a month or so of my boy's arrival. The change from my (otherwise decent) lumix camera is striking. Along the way I added a telephoto zoom (now that he's mobile outside). Of the approximately 20K pics I've taken over 4 years about 100 of them are stunning. (Mostly my strategy was take tons of pics and 1 in 5 catches a decent expression etc. Posing a 0-4 year old is not easy to do. So mostly just hold the button down and then weed out the failures). And over the years my understanding of the camera and photography has improved and I can plan more of my shots.

    So many pics early on are at home or of "events" (first.....) that carrying a dslr and lenses was not much of a hassle--supplement with a decent cell phone and you're covered.

    I might go with mirrorless if I were buying today, though, for easy of carrying, but the lenses would be the same (fast 30-50 mm for indoors and kit zoom). Oh and if you go with flash get one that you can bounce off walls and disable the built in.

    On storage my strategy has been redundancy and cloud storage for the best shots (picasa albums each year and each special trip).

  74. Re:Fast Lens (1.8 or 1.4) + Offsite Backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fail it.

  75. Hardcopy by Ulric · · Score: 1

    For still images, there is no more robust way of preserving them than prints. Anything that requires ongoing maintenance is unlikely to survive even a century.

  76. The bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no technologies that can store any digital media for much longer than 10-15 years at best. Most retain data reliably for far shorter. This is the curse of digital. Old school analog photography, when properly stored lasts for 100 years or more.

    (I'm intimately involved in HDD and SSD technology reliability)

  77. Mdisk - advertised to last 100 years by camg188 · · Score: 1

    MDisk is DVD technology that is supposed to last for 100 years. The drives cost the same as a regular DVD drive. The disks are expensive, though.

    1. Re:Mdisk - advertised to last 100 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the hardware to read them on might disappear in a decade...

    2. Re:Mdisk - advertised to last 100 years by bscott · · Score: 1

      MO-DISC (or Milleniata) discs are what I use for offline storage. They're not THAT expensive - I only do a backup onto them once per year (Time Machine to an onsite server for everyday), and so far my wife's annual output of photos and video can be coaxed to fit onto a box of 10 DVDs, for roughly $35-40ish

      I put 'em in a fire-resistant waterproof portable safe hidden elsewhere on the property, and consider myself safe from lightning/flood, theft and a few similar gotchas. I originally had a plan to put a wee server in at a friend's house several km away, and do reciprocal backups that way. But it's only recently that the bandwidth for that has been affordable (in Australia) and the above solution makes me feel safe enough that I haven't gotten around to it.

      I don't need them to last 100 years, I just don't want to be surprised by bad DVD+R dye or whatever in 3-5 years as has been the case with other types of burned discs. I've never been able to get a straight answer on how long burned DVDs can be expected to last, but the MO-Disc people claim 1,000 years and I'll be happy with 2% of that.

      If DVD readers go away in a decade, they won't go away WITHOUT WARNING - I'll have time to move data onto holographic crystals or whatever replaces them. After all, we can still buy floppy drives and VHS tape decks and vinyl record turntables... Plus I can also put everything we've done onto a 500GB drive and toss that into the fire safe, while I'm at it.

      I've been doing this for a few years now and so far all the earlier stuff remains readable when I pull 'em out every first-week-of-January...

      --
      Perfectly Normal Industries
  78. First: gestation is 9 months by guruevi · · Score: 1

    Becoming a dad usually takes about 9 months.

    Once you have a good camera and setup hold onto it because you probably won't be able to afford a new one for the next decade and a half.

    If you do have the money, invest it in a professional once in a while. Spend some good time with your kids instead of managing their pictures, technology will come that sorts it out for you, iPhoto is great for that or anything that sorts pictures based on GPS data. Just save it at least twice at home and twice off-site such as at a hard drive at your job and an online site or so. Sync everything once in a while.

    Specifically, get a mobile phone with a decent camera system (iPhone is great) that syncs because you're not going to want to take the camera bag with two kids, a stroller, snacks, breast milk, a pack-n-play and the dog.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  79. pissing into the wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this a textbook example of pissing into the wind?

  80. Posterity by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Posterity is a nosy bastard. Don't tell me you haven't noticed.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  81. labeling by jpkeating3 · · Score: 1
    No one seems to have addressed labeling yet. My parents and I have been digitizing and organizing family photos, and finding a good way to add captions was my biggest problem. If you want your photos to outlive you, you need them to have captions that tell other people who, when, what and where.

    The best introduction to storing and labeling photos that I can find is at http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/.

    format and quality: Keep the original. Any common format will be convertible, if necessary, for decades. For this reason, I don't see prints as necessary.

    storage type: Redundant. I'm using multiple backup external hard disks, plus multiple DVDs, plus Google Drive when all culling, naming and captioning are done. (Google Drive is easier to organize than Google Photos, and you can put videos, photos and notes in one place. Don't be fooled by the apparent ability to make or change captions -- that all gets lost if you download the photo.)

    For backups, I use Grsync on Windows and rsync scripts on Linux (Grsync also available).

    organizing: Name by date (2015.08.23-name). I've organized by decade, with subfolders for major events and culled photos.

    labeling: XnView (http://www.xnview.com/) is best and easiest, plus free, plus runs on Windows, Linux and Macs. XnView can do almost anything. Breezebrowser (paid) and Irfanview (free) are also good and have specific strong points.

    In XnView's settings, choose to write to XMP; that way, you'll get captions in both IPTC-IIM and XMP formats, the two major systems now in use (AP and some other wire services also use both). Windows and Mac file browsers can also show these (and possibly something in Linux that I don't use.) You can also make batch captions for photos from one event, then fill in photo-specific details individually. You can make keywords too, though I haven't bothered.

    I wanted images of photos with the captions underneath for family viewing on a TV. Nothing can do this. I ended up using Breezebrowser with slideshows set to display captions under the photos in white text on a black background, in the custom form @IPTC_caption@\n[@file@]\n . . . This shows the caption, the file name on a separate line, and a meaningless last line of dots because my TV kept cutting off the bottom line. For each slideshow image, I took a screenshot, pasted that into another program and saved it to another folder, naming each originalname-scr. Now we have a set of the originals and a duplicate screenshot set with the captions visible.

    Breezebrowser can also export all captions to a text file. I use the custom format @file@\n @IPTC_caption@\n

  82. Late late by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    ...late to the party. But here's what I'd do today: Keep the S110. There's not much out there that does what it does as well while being tough and fast (to power on and shoot). Get a compact inexpensive SD-card based video camera with a reputation for reliability and durability (Canon R300 etc). Carry the pocket camera. Use the videocam when conveniently accessible or when you know to take it along. Storage, I still haven't figured out. I have a lot of analog Hi8 tapes which I'm slowly getting on DVD. I'm doing this for backup and convenient viewing. Although the tapes will deteriorate, they'll very likely outlast DVDs burned today and will deteriorate mostly gracefully (except for flaking, which so far occurs on only the lower quality blanks I used), so I will be keeping them. Copy the media on hard drives to an external every once in a while and store it in someone else's house that's kept at reasonably temperature and humidity.