|
The fact is that digital formats make it so much easier to
keep multiple copies that the responsible thing seems to be to keep the extra
versions. When it's as simple as issuing a copy all command and then going
home or to sleep why wouldn't you do it? You can't duplicate a facility or
a negative with anything near that level of ease, so it's really part of a new
paradigm. It's a form of insurance.
Elliot B
From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of lea murphy Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:34 AM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: reality check I'm just throwing this out there to spark a bit of
discussion while I archive some files.
I am dumping 500 gigs of images from hard drive 'a' to
hard drive 'b'. Hard drive 'a' will then be erased and used for more files. Hard
drive 'b' will be cataloged and stored. These are client files and this will be
my only archive of these files.
I used to burn them to dvd but I had two discs fail so
gave up that method as a way of archiving.
So my comment is this: I used to think it was
absolutely necessary to keep two and sometimes three copies of client files on
various hard drives but it occured to me that when I was shooting film I didn't
run around making copy negs of those images just to have a backup.
Why do we drive ourselves nuts having multiple copies
of digital files?
I know hard drives fail. I also know darkrooms flood
and houses burn.
What do you guys think of this? One copy and take our
chances...just like in the old days with film.
Lea lea murphy
www.leamurphy.com
www.whinydogpress.com
blog: web.mac.com/leamurphy
|
