# Preferred photo storage/backup method?



## DaveAndHolly219 (Apr 12, 2017)

How do you guys prefer to store/back up your photo library?  I'm currently storing my photos (RAW files and finished JPEGs) on a 2TB drive in my PC and then backing everything up to Google Drive.  I’m currently paying $1.99/mo for the 100GB option but that 100GB will certainly be used up sooner than later which will require me to bump up to the $9.99/mo 1TB option.  This is working fine for me, but I wanted to see what everyone else is doing to see if there may be a better way.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 12, 2017)

I use an external 3TB drive to back things up.  These are around $180 each or so?
I also work on an external 3TB drive

I really do not want all my work on the Cloud, as a backup or not.


----------



## DaveAndHolly219 (Apr 12, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> I really do not want all my work on the Cloud, as a backup or not.



Why not? Fear of hacking/theft? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 12, 2017)

Nobody ever said "I wish I hadn't done all that redundant backing up" after a major computer failure. When I was in business I also learned the importance of "alternating" your backup. My total data requirements have gone down but my methods haven't changed. I have 2 external hard drives sized to match my computer. Backups are done weekly. Week 1 - Drive 1 gets the backup, and goes in a fireproof safe, Drive 2 goes in my briefcase. Week 2- Drive 2 gets the backup, and goes in the safe. Drive 1 goes in the briefcase. This process is repeated until I travel, in which case the last one in the briefcase goes with me.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 12, 2017)

DaveAndHolly219 said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > I really do not want all my work on the Cloud, as a backup or not.
> ...



That plus there are times, when I'm in an area without access to internet.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 12, 2017)

DaveAndHolly219 said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > I really do not want all my work on the Cloud, as a backup or not.
> ...


That too.  But if you've ever had extended periods of no internet access at home due to this or that problems ... then you'd understand.

I put a lot of aircraft, sky/space photos out there but rarely put portraiture / kids sports stuff.  So I err on the side of privacy.  There have been instances where that was a good thing.

Some people work on the cloud.  I don't have a large internet connection.  And sending stuff to/from the cloud takes time.   Copying to a local harddisk takes a lot less time.  Plus as mentioned above multiple backups are a peace of mind.  I already get a lot of errors uploading batch to Flickr.  I'd hate to have a backup with errors in it.

I recall years ago when online businesses would go out of business and purge all their (your) data.  I don't think it's like that nowadays but I err on the side of caution for anything like that.  I still remember when Hotmail would purge your email if you weren't online within a 20 or 30 day period.  I went on vacation once and didn't have internet access. Lost all my email content.  And other companies server problems, etc. ending in loss of data.


----------



## Designer (Apr 12, 2017)

https://petapixel.com/2016/08/10/building-comprehensive-photo-storage-backup-system/

Complete Workflow, Storage & BackUp for Photography + Video | Chase Jarvis Photography

http://scottkelby.com/my-photo-back-up-strategy/


----------



## Hermes1 (Apr 12, 2017)

I back up to 3-external hard drives.  I would not use the Cloud for those photos I value and/or need access too, or for that matter any data and documents I value.


----------



## BrentC (Apr 12, 2017)

I have a NAS with 6TB and RAID 5 (4 2TB drives) for backing up all my photos, videos and important documentation.   This way even if a drive fails I am safe.  I highly recommend NAS storage.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 12, 2017)

BrentC said:


> I highly recommend NAS storage.



And what do you do in case of fire, or natural disaster??? Is your backup still safe?


----------



## DaveAndHolly219 (Apr 12, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> BrentC said:
> 
> 
> > I highly recommend NAS storage.
> ...



This sort of thing is exactly why I lean toward cloud storage. I will be investing in an external HDD though to add another level of redundancy to my storage. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BrentC (Apr 12, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> BrentC said:
> 
> 
> > I highly recommend NAS storage.
> ...



There are plenty of fireproof and waterproof  NAS boxes you can get such as this one:

ioSafe Products 216nas Overview

But a NAS is just a backup I have copies on external drives and laptop.  I wouldn't keep just one copy of important data.


----------



## Dave442 (Apr 12, 2017)

To the Cloud I backup my processed images in jpeg format. My regular backup is very similar to Smoke665 with two drives that I switch between backing up to, those backup the computer plus the external drive that only has image files.

Then I have a second external drive that is the same as the one with the image files and that receives a copy of the images each time new images are imported from the cameras. That drive also receives a backup of my LightRoom Catalog. This second drive stays behind when I travel. While traveling I make the second copy of new images to USB drives. 

I would never trust just one external drive for the backup.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 12, 2017)

Pairs of external 4TB drives; formerly used matched pairs of DVDs discs of the .NEFS. The DVD discs have become cumbersome as I moved from 2.7 to 6MP to 12Mp and then to 24MP captures...a 4.5 gigabyte DVD disc is fine for exported JPEGs from a shoot or two, but for raw, unprocessed NEFs, it's become too small at today's capture sizes. I back my iPhone images up to the Cloud, and periodically burn them to the drives.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 12, 2017)

External hard drive for digital photos, and prints of significant images. And the media cards the photos are on. Film negatives, and CDs of scans of the negs, and prints (4x6s and enlargements of anything significant). Scanned copies of alt. process images, digitally made prints of significant ones, and same thing, digital copies of those on hard drive. 

Too many online companies have suddenly gone out of business and as someone said, not sure if that happens so much now but seems like if a venture isn't profitable a company may just dump it and site users' photos with little notice.


----------



## BrentC (Apr 12, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Pairs of external 4TB drives; formerly used matched pairs of DVDs discs of the .NEFS. The DVD discs have become cumbersome as I moved from 2.7 to 6MP to 12Mp and then to 24MP captures...a 4.5 gigabyte DVD disc is fine for exported JPEGs from a shoot or two, but for raw, unprocessed NEFs, it's become too small at today's capture sizes. I back my iPhone images up to the Cloud, and periodically burn them to the drives.



I would not trust to DVD's.   Life expectancy is about 20-25 years and can be damaged with heat, scratches, etc.

People should spend a bit of money and get proper storage with RAID.   Todays USB keys and memory cards are great secondary backup solutions.   Keep the RAID storage and backup memory cards in separate locations.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 12, 2017)

I have a much higher opinion of CD and DVD media than 20 to 25 years...especially in dark storage on spindles. I think it's safer than huge archives on spinning hard drives where one failure can mean tens of thousands of lost images; I feel like DVD's offer fewer eggs to all be broken in one basket, so to speak. But hard drives make access and searching much,much easier.


----------



## BrentC (Apr 12, 2017)

Derrel said:


> I have a much higher opinion of CD and DVD media than 20 to 25 years...especially in dark storage on spindles. I think it's safer than huge archives on spinning hard drives where one failure can mean tens of thousands of lost images; I feel like DVD's offer fewer eggs to all be broken in one basket, so to speak. But hard drives make access and searching much,much easier.



That is why you use RAID storage.  A disk can fail without losing data.  I also have a hot spare so if a disk does fail it will automatically bring the spare online.  Just replace as needed.

I am a systems administrator and deal with storage all the time.   I have horror stories of users who used DVD's as backup.   Proper storage of DVD's does help though.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 12, 2017)

BrentC said:


> There are plenty of fireproof and waterproof NAS boxes you can get such as this one:



So the $100,0000 question - Do you currently have your drives in a fireproof/waterproof storage box??? Even then I can tell you from experience on the scene of many house/business fires, tornadoes, floods, etc. that it is highly likely that even my big, heavy safe, is questionable as to keeping the contents safe. That's why there is always a drive in the briefcase along with other important papers that I can grab in hurry as I head out the door.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 12, 2017)

Derrel said:


> I have a much higher opinion of CD and DVD media than 20 to 25 years...especially in dark storage on spindles.



That's the theoretical lifespan. Depending on things like you mentioned, in reality they could be half that. M-disc's  or the (so called 1000 year disc) can supposedly last because of the process used to actually record the data. The reality though is they've only been around about 8 years, so it's to soon to really tell.


----------



## BrentC (Apr 12, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> BrentC said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of fireproof and waterproof NAS boxes you can get such as this one:
> ...



No I don't, my choice on how much I need to protect the data.   But very important data are also backed up on memory cards and put in a safety deposit box.   Here is what I do:

1.   Laptop and external drives contains most of my data except very import sensitive data that I don't want to get stolen.

2. Cloud storage.  Only used for non-sensitive data.  Basically I only use it to put up photos that I like to access from anywhere and to post on forums, anything I don't care if it gets hacked.   I do not rely on this as a backup and would never ever put sensitive data in the cloud.

3.  NAS RAID for all my data.    This assures me that baring a huge disaster that my data is reliably stored and won't lose anything do to hardware failure.   I can also access my NAS through the internet but make sure you have the proper security setup.  Encryption on the most sensitive data.

4.  Memory cards in a safety deposit box.   This is a copy of all my data that is highly sensitive and of utmost importance.  This data also resides on my NAS.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 12, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> BrentC said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of fireproof and waterproof NAS boxes you can get such as this one:
> ...


So what happens if the cloud storage site has a fire, hit by a tornado, a flood.  Same difference.  The cloud is a fools paradise in my opinion.  Too many things could happen, even simple things like they go out of business.  

If you want true secure off site storage you invest in true multi site, redundant backup, disaster proof backup solutions.  The same ones that the financial institutions and big businesses use since they can't afford to have a data loss event.


----------



## DaveAndHolly219 (Apr 12, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > BrentC said:
> ...



Google isn't going out of business. Lol 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BrentC (Apr 12, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > BrentC said:
> ...



Companies that deal  in cloud storage have multiple storage sites and redundancies.   Them losing data is not an issue.  The issue is hacking.  No company no matter how big or who they are can get hacked.  Look at Yahoo many years ago and never mind all the companies that get hacked but never make it to the public's ears.   Cloud storage is not bad if used correctly but I would never put anything that you wouldn't want stolen on there.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 12, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> So what happens if the cloud storage site has a fire, hit by a tornado, a flood



The "cloud" isn't a physical location, in the sense we know it. It resides in that magical, mysterious place where it never storms and all is well everyday. At least that's how Thomas Edison explained it to me when I asked Google.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 12, 2017)

BrentC said:


> No I don't, my choice on how much I need to protect the data.



So basically you are one lightning strike away from losing most of you data. Not sure why as an individual you'd actually need a storage array anyhow. Most people including professional photographers  could operate with a much simpler setup as long as they maintained the data base and moved old images to an archive solution.


----------



## BrentC (Apr 12, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> BrentC said:
> 
> 
> > No I don't, my choice on how much I need to protect the data.
> ...



I have a UPS, lightning can strike as much as it wants.   And as I stated earlier I don't keep all my eggs in one basket.   Also this is not just to store photos but I store all data on my NAS.   With using a NAS, which by the way can be used on the cheap and doesn't need to be expensive, is for reliability.    Get an old PC, put linux on it with free RAID and plop in some disks, a $500 solution if you don't want to spend money on a commercial NAS.   Can't get any simpler than that.  Even the commercial NAS's   can be setup and running in a few minutes.  Hell most PC's you by these days has RAID  built-in that you can enable if you have more thean one drive.  The NAS becomes your archive and you won't have to worry about losing it if any of the hardware fails.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 12, 2017)

@BrentC even simpler is to buy a docking Station for an internal hard drive (less than $50) then buy sata drives  (less than than $75 for 2 TB), or SSD for a few dollars more.


----------



## BrentC (Apr 12, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @BrentC even simpler is to buy a docking Station for an internal hard drive (less than $50) then buy sata drives  (less than than $75 for 2 TB), or SSD for a few dollars more.




Once again it comes down to reliability, redundancy and accessability.   Drives can fail and you will need to replace the data from other sources which is a pain in the ass.  With a RAID there is no need to worry about that.  Also I run everything from my NAS.  I stream my blu-ray movies, view my pictures and store my documents.   My laptop, my wifes, our phones and all other devices including TV and media devices access my NAS.   Also all our devices automatically back-up to the NAS.   No need to plug in an external drive or anything removable media.  Access anytime anywhere.  

Lightroom automatically backs yup the catalog and everything I import there as well.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 12, 2017)

DaveAndHolly219 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > smoke665 said:
> ...


E.F. Hutton? General Foods? RCA? A&P? PaineWebber? Enron? Pan Am? Standard Oil? Arthur Andersen? TWA?  

Westinghouse now in Bankruptcy. 

Anyone and everyone can go out of business at any time.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 12, 2017)

BrentC said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > smoke665 said:
> ...


Not true.  They may have multiple servers but many do not maintain multiple sites.   Them losing data IS an issue.  You talk about hacking.  99,9999999% of the junk on cloud storage isn't worth a plug nickle to a hacker.   But the insertion of one small piece of malicious script that then is backed to the various backup servers is all it takes.   At a specific time or on a specific command ALL of the servers get erased.  DATA GONE!


----------



## BrentC (Apr 12, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> BrentC said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...



Any professional cloud service does.   Google has 12 data centres alone in the US never mind across the world.   Any of these data centres can blow up and they would not lose data.  And yes they keep archives as well.   If anything malicious deletes data they can recover from other sites or archives.   This goes the same with Microsoft cloud services and other major cloud services.

Huge companies spend millions of dollars to have there data stored in the cloud so you better believe they have redundancies, backups and security.

I don't think you fully understand how big these cloud services are and what kind of data is stored in them.    They are not just used for storing photos.   Major companies have there sensitive data in the cloud.   

You have a serious lack of understanding how these services work if you think its that easy to wipe it out to wipe the whole thing out.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 12, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:
			
		

> Westinghouse now in Bankruptcy.
> 
> Anyone and everyone can go out of business at any time.



Heard on NPR (radio, for you that don't know) that Toshiba is having HUGE financial losses, in large part due to its ownership of Westinghouse....


----------



## table1349 (Apr 12, 2017)

BrentC said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > BrentC said:
> ...



You have a serious lack of understanding of how those services work compared to truely secure data storage & recovery services.  You have no understanding how companies like Acronis, Iron Mountain, Sungard or UniTrends work vs the typical Cloud services.  They are in a whole different league than you are used to thinking about or using.  

As for cyber attacks, you truly have a lack of understanding of how really good hackers operate or what they can do.   Ask the Las Vegas Sands Corp for starters.  Or ask Iran about the Stuxnet Worm.  They know the power of a simple, quite, undetectable 500kb worm that infiltrated numerous highly secure interconnected systems as well as several highly secure air-gapped systems.  That little bit of work destroyed millions upon millions of dollars worth of hardware.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 12, 2017)

Derrel said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep.  The nuclear energy industry is in serious trouble as well.   Westinghouse is the leading designer of nuclear reactors for most of the world.


----------



## BrentC (Apr 12, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> BrentC said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...



I don't know why I am bothering with this but what the hell.  First of all I have 26 years as an IT professional working with everything from servers, storage, networking, os's, etc so I believe I have some knowledge.

Now tell me when I was comparing cloud services with storage companies?   I never even brought them up.  Have you read my earlier posts?

First on cloud services I said this.

"Cloud storage. Only used for non-sensitive data. Basically I only use it to put up photos that I like to access from anywhere and to post on forums, anything I don't care if it gets hacked. I do not rely on this as a backup and would never ever put sensitive data in the cloud."

and

"Them losing data is not an issue.  The issue is hacking.  No company no matter how big or who they are can get hacked.  Look at Yahoo many years ago and never mind all the companies that get hacked but never make it to the public's ears.   Cloud storage is not bad if used correctly but I would never put anything that you wouldn't want stolen on there."

I never advocated Cloud as storage.

Also my post you are quoting was an answer to this:

"So what happens if the cloud storage site has a fire, hit by a tornado, a flood."
and
"Not true.  They may have multiple servers but many do not maintain multiple sites.   Them losing data IS an issue."
and
"99,9999999% of the junk on cloud storage isn't worth a plug nickle to a hacker."

This is absolutely wrong and I corrected you.

"But the insertion of one small piece of malicious script that then is backed to the various backup servers is all it takes.   At a specific time or on a specific command ALL of the servers get erased.  DATA GONE!'

Extremely unlikely.   Isolating the networks the backup servers are in, archiving offline and other security measures.   Even where I work every 30 days an backup archive gets sent offsite.


And lastly since you brought it up, companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon with their cloud services are at the top with storage and security.   They buy companies like Acronis and Iron Mountain so they have the in house technology.   Coca-cola uses Googles Cloud services for content, storage and archiving.   You bet they are going to have the best security and storage possible.   

So you bring up Storage service companies that we weren't talking about and then go on about Sand corps getting hacked.  Sand Corps computer security was a joke as they finally had to admit.   The hackers brute forced a password through there website and put in malware to capture login and password credentials.  At some point some idiot Systems Engineer logged in through the site with credentials that had access to basically everything.   Crappy security and a complete idiot of a Systems Engineer, who should never ever work in the industry again, were the reason for the successful hack.  

All we were talking about was where you backup your photos and personal data.


----------



## tecboy (Apr 12, 2017)

Just upload your jpegs to Flickr and Facebook.  They are pretty secured.


----------



## BrentC (Apr 12, 2017)

tecboy said:


> Just upload your jpegs to Flickr and Facebook.  They are pretty secured.



Well Yahoo owns Flickr and there was a massive hack at Yahoo 5 years ago were millions of accounts were compromised so probably not the best statement to make.


----------



## johnlarsen (Apr 13, 2017)

I have everything in internal drive in pc. These are used for editing. 
Besides this I have a backup harddrive which I monthly update. This is kept where I work. 
During the past year I have together with friends had a 5 x MS Office 365 including 1 Terabyte cloud, plus skype, MS office etc. For around 75 usd/year each of us have above facilities. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 13, 2017)

Since it's been a bit since the OP has weighed in, I'm sure he's surmised by now that asking about personal preference on storage is like asking which camera is better. .........


----------



## DaveAndHolly219 (Apr 13, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Since it's been a bit since the OP has weighed in, I'm sure he's surmised by now that asking about personal preference on storage is like asking which camera is better. .........



I've been following along. Certainly didn't expect things to get so heated! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

