Digital BW, The Print

At 3:26 AM -0500 8/14/07, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:

>"Total detestation."

Don't you just detest devastation ?

Thankfully, mine wasn't the only late-night misspelling. Hopefully 
the meaning carried through.

At 3:14 PM +0200 8/14/07, Frederic Combaneyre wrote:

>One of the best and cheapest solution is to have two backup hard drive :
>one at your office with daily or weekly incremental update, and another
>one on another location.

Yes!

But make sure that they are compatible with current connections and 
specifications.

Nothing is more useless than a hard drive that cannot be connected to 
your computer because it's connection or specification is too old. 
(That was from personal experience!)

>and your hard drives are used and so tested every week so you're sure
>they are still running well.

You are right in using this approach. Just don't get lazy about the 
changing connection standards...

>I don't trust CDs or DVDs.

I don't either, but multiple copies, often refreshed, are my best 
hedge as far as I can determine: The technologies are currently 
supported, they require no specific connection other than the reader 
(which, by definition, is currently supported) and, with multiple 
copies, I've done my best.

>how many of you guys verify all his CDs after burning

Always. No exceptions.

At 3:04 PM +0000 8/14/07, Mark Rogers wrote:

>That is why you have to have at least two copies, in independent
>locations on media that is replaced every few years.

Yes!

That is the cornerstone of any backup strategy -- Multiple copies in 
multiple locations, religiously refreshed.

It would, however, be prudent to monitor any off-site locations 
constantly, so they don't slip between your fingers.

That is one of the aspects of on-line backups that really worries me: 
They can blink out in a heart-beat.

At 9:15 AM -0700 8/14/07, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

>  > From: Mark Rogers
>>
>  > If buglers steal your PC
>
>That's an insult to trumpet players everywhere.

You're right. Everyone knows that tuba players and trombonists are 
the scariest guys in the pit :-;

At 4:26 PM +0000 8/14/07, Vinyl Graphics of Taft wrote:

>I also take all my prized CR2 photos and convert to Adobe DNG files,
>then archive them on Gold DVD's. I bought a cheap ($500) gun safe with
>a one hour burn limit to store all my important items in the shop. If
>it catches fire, my data will still be OK, as the safe is fire-proof
>and water tight.

Our safes are rated for scorch/burn on paper. I hate to think what 
those temperatures would do to gelatin negatives (an old example of 
which I once, sadly, melted with 80 degree water).

I don't know what CD/DVDs are good to, but I doubt it's in the 
paper-flammable range.

At 8:16 PM +0000 8/14/07, sinar001 wrote:

>don't get lulled into thinking that just because a drive isn't on all
>the time, doesn't mean it won't fail!

Definitely.

Turning drives on and off stresses them. Letting them cool promotes 
thermal stiction.

I always keep my drives on whenever possible. When I've had to turn 
them off I've almost always had failures.


Anyone who has followed my message this far deserves an apology, 
since I've not expressed one of my primary reasons for disliking, 
perhaps even despising, on-line storage:

I think that on-line storage is an almost certain conduit to 
releasing the photographs of those who rely on it into the wild.

"User Agreement" ??

Does anyone really think that their lawyers are bigger than theirs?


Whatever...

I'm sitting here with my CD/DVD burners, some redundant hard disks, 
and a place off-site to store my copies...


For what little _that's_ worth to posterity...  :-)


-=-Dennis











































.