# If you use memory cards like film...how do you store  / organize them?



## Ilovemycam (Apr 4, 2013)

If you use memory cards like film...how do you store  / organize them?


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 4, 2013)

Do you mean just filling up a memory card and not deleting the shots after transferring to a computer?  Just keeping it and starting fresh again?  I can't see any good reason to do that.

My wife likes to keep photos on her cards, "So she can show people the shots" when she has her camera with her.  I've tried to explain that she is wasting space and she can show anyone anything she has if she would just put them on her facebook or flickr and use her phone.  It's like talking to a wall.


----------



## bunny99123 (Apr 4, 2013)

Sounds like my Aunt. My job to take her card and have pics printed and clean it off.

Back to your question. I down load mine on my computer to a folder.  Followed by deleting all photos on my card. Then once a day any new files are backed up to an external hard drive. About once a month, I spend a few hours deleting photos I don't want.


----------



## LouR (Apr 4, 2013)

I am one of those rare people who fills the cards and stores them.  
I just write on them with a Sharpie and keep them in plastic containers from Office Depot. Lately it seems they don't come in their own protector.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 4, 2013)

I know a lot of people who do that, and it annoys the **** out of me every time, lol!

I guess it's cheaper than buying DVDs and external drives all the time though - as long as the cards are at least as stable as those, which they probably are.


----------



## LouR (Apr 4, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> I know a lot of people who do that, and it annoys the **** out of me every time, lol!
> 
> I guess it's cheaper than buying DVDs and external drives all the time though - as long as the cards are at least as stable as those, which they probably are.


It has nothing to do with you, so why would it be annoying?
While you're creating folders, transferring the original files and using up storage better served for other things, re-transferring files as different formats to a stack of DVD's, reformatting the cards and hoping you haven't worn'em out yet,  I'm eating cookies and watching Big Bang Theory. Bazinga.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 4, 2013)

LouR said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > I know a lot of people who do that, and it annoys the **** out of me every time, lol!
> ...


That was mostly a joke.

What other things is my storage better served by?  Cookies?

I use a computer for three things (mostly), editing and storing photos, and reading dick jokes.  

Anything else is just a nice bonus, lol.


----------



## LouR (Apr 4, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> LouR said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...


More dick jokes, for starters... can never have enough of those. 
All my externals and my computer are full of edited work, software, crap...If I'm not going to change the raws and want them original as out of the camera, why would I waste time moving them around? Initial edits get saved in their proper folders on the pc as TIFFs, awaiting my extraordinary editing and manipulating skillz. At the end of each year, I move everything to an external and do it all over again.


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 4, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> That was mostly a joke.
> 
> What other things is my storage better served by?  Cookies?
> 
> ...



No midgets in monkey suit porn? 

Weirdo.


----------



## Kolia (Apr 4, 2013)

So, how would you access your pictures if they're scattered on various cards ?  It sounds like way more trouble than even browsing old negatives for a specific picture. 

I try to delete any picture not worth keeping in an album to look at regularly. I have too many boxes of photographs and negatives that I only see when I move.

I feel that if my library isn't easily accessible, it is useless. So everything goes to the PC, online and on various back up.


----------



## MK3Brent (Apr 4, 2013)

My dad does this. 
He's 70 years old, and refuses to learn any other technology other than his point and shoot. 
He stores them in their small SD plastic cases and has a binder of them I think. (Just like someone else said, writes on them with sharpie.)


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 5, 2013)

Kolia said:


> So, how would you access your pictures if they're scattered on various cards ?  It sounds like way more trouble than even browsing old negatives for a specific picture.


Haha - I was doing just that last night.  Luckily I at least knew which box the negatives I was looking for were in.

As long as the cards were well labeled and you had an idea how old the photo you were looking for was, it probably wouldn't be too bad.

My digital files are all sorted by camera then date.  My negatives are sorted by format then date.  I think if I was saving cards, I would write the date of the first and last photo (as well as the first and last file number) on it.  That's what I do with dvds, anyway.


----------



## LouR (Apr 5, 2013)

Kolia said:


> So, how would you access your pictures if they're scattered on various cards ?  It sounds like way more trouble than even browsing old negatives for a specific picture.
> 
> I try to delete any picture not worth keeping in an album to look at regularly. I have too many boxes of photographs and negatives that I only see when I move.
> 
> I feel that if my library isn't easily accessible, it is useless. So everything goes to the PC, online and on various back up.


Only the original raws on are the cards.  Everything else is on my externals and the pc, so if I need the original of something I've already edited and filed, finding it on marked and stored cards is pretty simple.  Anything crappy is not kept-those are deleted off the cards during the initial editing. It's no less accessible than anything else.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 5, 2013)

Since I delete about 70% of what I take (at least), my cards would be mostly empty - or at least 70%+ empty.


----------



## Buckster (Apr 5, 2013)

Let's see...  For about the same price, and taking into account the throughput speeds I want, I can get either a 32 GB CF Card or a 1 TB Hard Drive.

Soooooo, the card is more cost-efficient than the hard drive, um... how

Plus, who needs backups, right?  Just keep everything on one device and hope for the best!  That's the way the REAL PROs do it!  :er:

And for the files that get edited / processed on the computer, no folders or organization is used? Assuming that's not true and that they do indeed get made and used (which takes all of what - a freaking 5-10 seconds?), how does the CF card-archiver save time on that aspect again, especially compared to the time it takes marking and organizing and storing the CF cards so they can be dealt with in the future?

To each his own, but that all sounds pretty lame-excuse-bullschitt-stupid to me, like something a total noob or clueless luddite would do - no offense intended to those who choose to, of course.  After all, it's no skin off my nose how they do things.

I just gotta say though (because I'm an opinionated old fart who just says what he thinks, and you're welcome), to me it's like watching someone dig a ditch with a spoon clenched in their teeth while making up reasons why that's better, less effort and less costly than the production methods commonly used by pretty much anyone who's armed with even a minor clue and a freaking shovel.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 5, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> Do you mean just filling up a memory card and not deleting the shots after transferring to a computer?  Just keeping it and starting fresh again?  I can't see any good reason to do that.
> 
> My wife likes to keep photos on her cards, "So she can show people the shots" when she has her camera with her.  I've tried to explain that she is wasting space and she can show anyone anything she has if she would just put them on her facebook or flickr and use her phone.  It's like talking to a wall.



Lol!!! I've talked to people like this and "talking to a wall" is EXACTLY what it's like.

To op... This approach makes neither technical or financial sense.  If there's a good argument for it, I'd love to hear it because I certainly can't think of one.


----------



## LouR (Apr 5, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Let's see...  For about the same price, and taking into account the throughput speeds I want, I can get either a 32 GB CF Card or a 1 TB Hard Drive.
> 
> Soooooo, the card is more cost-efficient than the hard drive, um... how
> 
> ...


Sure, no offense as you insult people you don't know, have no clue how long they've been doing their own business or anything else simply because YOU don't like their methods. You know what you can do with your "opinion".
No one said a thing about not being backed up, no one said a thing about cost and if you can edit down a shoot in 5 seconds, welcome to the forums, Flash...
Actually, as for cost, I have two dead externals filled with images I can't get to-that cost me over $200.  My newest 1 TB cost me $110, I get 4gb cards on sale for $13 or so. 
"To each his own, but"...methinks that first letter of your name is wrong...


----------



## gsgary (Apr 5, 2013)

LouR said:


> I am one of those rare people who fills the cards and stores them.
> I just write on them with a Sharpie and keep them in plastic containers from Office Depot. Lately it seems they don't come in their own protector.



 Why


----------



## LouR (Apr 5, 2013)

gsgary said:


> LouR said:
> 
> 
> > I am one of those rare people who fills the cards and stores them.
> ...


you too.


----------



## Kolia (Apr 5, 2013)

I just looked at the price of SD cards to see if my cost calculation made sense when I selected to store on HDD. 

A 16GB SDHC class 10 card (Sandisk UHS-1) is 23$

That is more than 1$ per GB. I paid 189$ for my 3TB media HDD plus about 200$ for a 3TB external drive for backup. 

A 3TB stack of SD cards would cost over 4,000$...

More than all my photo equipment. It almost covers the price of my PC also !


----------



## Buckster (Apr 5, 2013)

LouR said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see...  For about the same price, and taking into account the throughput speeds I want, I can get either a 32 GB CF Card or a 1 TB Hard Drive.
> ...


Mama always said... Clueless is as clueless does.


----------



## LouR (Apr 5, 2013)

Buckster said:


> LouR said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


Ah, a Mama's boy.
Look, pal, I could not care less how you do your own work, but you are getting on my last nerve with your pompous and ignorant attitude and insults about how I do mine.  Guess Mama failed to tell you how to talk to people.

To the OP:  Depending on what and how you shoot should determine how you store or save work.  I would not recommend keeping every card if you shoot portraits or weddings; dedicate a good hard drive to each.  If you shoot just for fun or, if like me, you do fine art manipulations and rarely shoot 200 pix a day, maybe keeping the cards would do fine.  Ignore these self-important blowhards and do what suits your own situation best.
@ Kolia:  I use 4g or 8g and never pay full price. Someone always has them on sale for less than $15.  Factoring in all the externals I've blown through, not to mention a $400 CPU that failed to reach its destination for repairs, I'm probably still ahead a few bucks and don't have a gazillion DVD's to go through.
I've been doing it this way since UPS lost that CPU and I'm fine with it. I don't come to y'all's house and tell you how to spend. Either answer the boy's questions or find someone else to belittle.


----------



## Kolia (Apr 5, 2013)

The OP asks the community "How do you sort your SD/CF cards for archiving ?"

Community's reply is "Archiving SD/CF cards is a bad practice for the following reasons..."

No agreeing with someone doesn't mean we don't care or that we don't actually answers his/her question.


----------



## Overread (Apr 5, 2013)

Cut the insults/jabs and general insulting at each other! 
Share your views, explain your reasons and respect the views of others - you don't all have to agree and I'm getting a little sick that every time someone doesn't agree with another's viewpoint it turns into a fight on this forum.




My personal view is that its just not a sane move to shoot photos on a digital camera and keep the photos on the card all the time and buy new cards each time one fills up. Memory card are not cheap and you'll be paying a lot of money to go this way whilst offering yourself no real advantage in other storage methods outside of having some very specific requirements. Simply hooking the camera up to the computer or using a card reader and copying the photos over takes typically about as much time or less than it does to boil a kettle. Letting you save a large sum of money which could go toward better things like new cameras or lenses etc.. 

Here is my personal workflow:

1) Shoot photos - changing cards as needed until the shoot is finished. I don't delete photos in the field and instead simply ensure that I've more cards than I'll typically need on a trip. 

2) Transfer the photos over to the computer, for this I now have a dedicated external harddrive mostly just for photos for this purpose. 

3) I then backup the photos from that harddrive to another harddrive, giving me (at that point in time) 3 copies of each photo.  (I oft save this step till after editing, but honestly it should happen both before and after - after only adding in the edited file versions of course). 

4) I'll then typically start editing the photos and going through the ones I want to keep etc....

5) I'll delete and format the cards only when I next need them (this acts as a temporary backup against a random crash or error on the computer end). 


Personally I can't see a gain to simply keeping cards loaded with photos and I note that most people who have adopted this workflow are simple those who have not yet learned how to use any alternative workflow. Honestly whilst it is their own choice in the matter I feel that one should inform them and at least try to teach them a new approach since the costs for anyone shooting regularly are going to be very high. As stated a few times earlier the cost of memory cards is much higher than that of bigger harddrives. Furthermore as cameras get more and more advanced the MP gets higher and higher and thus the file sizes keep increasing. Once a 521MB card was all you needed, now 8 or even 16GB are pretty common and those once exotic 32GB from a few years ago are now looking pretty practical as options.

Edit you need 
1TB = 1000 GB 
You thus need 125 8GB cards to give you the same storage space as a 1TB harddrive
At $15 per card that's $1875. A VAST amount more than a 1TB harddrive (heck you can get a very good lens or camera body or heck both for that sum of money)


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 5, 2013)

Holy Crap yes.
Overread is so right.

Are you guys so damn insecure that you have to be right and win at everything?
Just post some pictures and shut the hell up.


----------



## CCericola (Apr 5, 2013)

Putting cost aside. Just like a negative, memory cards can deteriorate and go bad. And on top of that technology changes so fast. I have zip drives full of files from college. I had to beg and borrow and steal to find a plug and play zip drive to get all my files and many ended up corrupted. Can you imagine trying to go back to a memory card to get a photo and the whole thing is kaput? Eeek! Even CDs and DVDs can fail, so keeping filled cards for archival purposes is not the best idea. I have film negs from circa WWII that are starting to fade even though they are kept in the dark in a film archive box. 

That said. if you want to keep cards, fine. Just please, please also back them up another way. Or use an offsite backup service like Carbonite. 

I also print 8x10's of everything I want to keep and keep them in archival albums. Technology can fail anytime and I like the fact that no matter what I have a paper copy. Unless my house burns down. Then I'm SOL.


----------



## Overread (Apr 5, 2013)

CCericola said:


> I also print 8x10's of everything I want to keep and keep them in archival albums. Technology can fail anytime and I like the fact that no matter what I have a paper copy. Unless my house burns down. Then I'm SOL.



I have to say that this is a part of the backup process that I think more of us should atop. Prints are something we oft don't do these days and I think its a mistake, not only because prints give a much more tactile and visual product from our labours; but also because of the nature of digital data. Sure a print will never be "as good" as a RAW file in terms of data storage, but if you've got a print you can scan and reprint it or just scan it in; plus you'll have some great prints to show people your photos on something other than a tiny mobile phone view of your photos scrolling past.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

LouR said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > LouR said:
> ...



If you don't have a gazillion 4 or 8GB cards, you wouldn't have a gazillion 4 or 8GB DVDs. 

Kodak 50-Pack DVD Blank Cake Box - Walmart.com

This is 50 8.5GB DVDs for $25. 50 SD cards at $15 is $750. 

I can understand that you don't change the way you do things, but the reason why you are attracting the disagreeing posts, is because you portray your methods as efficient, when
they just are not. You also make it sound like you are saving time by storing the cards, which is just not the case. I don't think you understand how easy and fast it is. 

You put your SD card in the computer, a popup from bridge comes up asking to DL the images. You click yes, type in the name of the folder and click OK. That's it.

 It's honestly faster than it is to read that sentence.


----------



## LouR (Apr 5, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> LouR said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


A) Don't have Bridge. I initially edit through Sony's Editor.
B) I don't need every image loaded. Going thru the Raws thru the editor the first time allows me to either keep and file or delete.
C) Since they are saved to folders as TIFFs, where I then can pull them into PS and have at it, keeping the Raws separate and on marked cards lets me get back to them as they were taken.  My latest HD is already ready to implode, which means I have to yet again get another one, transfer all the folders and add it to the stack, which is a hell of a lot bigger than a stack of cards.
What is fast for you may not be for anyone else. Just like not everyone makes fried chicken the same way, one way of doing something is not necessarily the only way.
Lastly, no one, whether me or any other person you deem less than intelligent (which I certainly am not), should have to go on a defensive because their methods don't meet another's approval.  The OP asked a legitimate question, I answered and you all think I'm the moron. Seriously?


----------



## Overread (Apr 5, 2013)

You know you can just manually copy RAW files from the card to the computer right - I do it myself, no software I just select, right click copy and right click paste to put them into a folder.  I then make a folder within that one for the "KEEPS" (which are the edited versions). With simple folder management you can easily archive a lot of photos on a single harddrive without much worry. 

And as said the long term costs are significantly less with this approach unless you are shooting very little indeed. If you are then I can somewhat see that you could get away with shooting and not needing new harddrives, however the OP is asking about storage and organising methods which suggests that their data build up is considerable. This is showing that their current method of operation is simply not the most suitable -- partly shown again by the fact that its a very rare approach to the matter. 

That is why you are seeing so many comments against it and why people are not readily providing card organisation suggestions.


----------



## Kolia (Apr 5, 2013)

Why save as TIFF and not simply keep the RAW file ?

Sony PMB isn't a very good utility. I only use it to upload to the PC and sometime to access shoe of the EXIF information or apply some preset styling option. 

Lightroom is better to manage and archive the RAW data. 

I just transferred my 20,000 images library from my old 1TB to the new 3TB. It took an hour or so.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

LouR said:


> A) Don't have Bridge. I initially edit through Sony's Editor.



You don't need Bridge to do it.  



> B) I don't need every image loaded. Going thru the Raws thru the editor the first time allows me to either keep and file or delete.


You don't have to load every single image and can do literally this. 



> C) Since they are saved to folders as TIFFs, where I then can pull them into PS and have at it, keeping the Raws separate and on marked cards lets me get back to them as they were taken.  My latest HD is already ready to implode, which means I have to yet again get another one, transfer all the folders and add it to the stack, which is a hell of a lot bigger than a stack of cards.


Hell of a lot bigger than cards? How big is the case you keep the cards in? I guarantee my external HD is smaller. 



> What is fast for you may not be for anyone else.


No, this isn't a matter of opinion. Faster is faster. More efficient is more efficient. There's nothing about subjectivity here.  



> Just like not everyone makes fried chicken the same way, one way of doing something is not necessarily the only way.


Again, you are trying to incorporate subjectivity into something that has factual basis. Telling someone that you would prefer driving over taking a plane because it's faster "for you" 
doesn't make any sense. I'm not arguing your preference. You prefer to do things that way, and that's great.  



> Lastly, no one, whether me or any other person you deem less than intelligent (which I certainly am not), should have to go on a defensive because their methods don't meet another's approval.  The OP asked a legitimate question, I answered and you all think I'm the moron. Seriously?



I don't believe I ever mentioned anything about your intelligence/intellect nor did I insult you in any fashion.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 5, 2013)

Can everyone just please chill out?


It's a reasonable discussion and people don't need to add emotion by either remarks or interpretation.


On the topic...

DVDs and such aren't always the best archival because they can die over time.  They can delaminate or just stop working:  you can theoretically make this work better by buying "archival quality" media, but there are no guarantees.

What I do (and recommend) is this..,

1. Keep Jpegs of "family photos" always on spinning disk with backups to other hard drives regularly (keep in fire proof safe or at a friends house) and occasionally to DVD.

2. Keep RAWs and Jpegs of critical artwork and portfolio pieces on spinning disk, backed up to at least one other drive and archived to archive quality DVDs.  

3. Take all other files and archive them to DVD, and forget about them.  Remove archived files off of spinning disk after 6 months or so.  (If you don't need them in 6 months odds are you'll never need them). (Archived files go into an ARCHIVED folder for easy identification for culling)

4. Keep all DVDs in fire proof safe. Date and number all DVDs with DVD safe pen.

5. Keep catalog of all DVDs on spinning disk with index of all files so I can search for individual items and pull them off a DVD when needed.

6. In the rare case you lose a single DVD... Oh well.

This process works very well.

Seriously the use of the cards is financially impractical.  For the $1800 you're going to spend you could buy a VERY robust storage array on the order of probably 20-30Tb and solve both your storage AND redundancy concerns.


----------



## LouR (Apr 5, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> LouR said:
> 
> 
> > A) Don't have Bridge. I initially edit through Sony's Editor.
> ...


You did not (another one, however, did), but are implying that my "methods" are somehow inferior, yet I don't do two steps you do-I don't download before editing and I don't reformat after.
All images are opened and edited in Sony's Image Converter directly from the medium and then saved on my desktop as TIFFs (which the converter does, I don't even have to scroll for a format). It's during this time I delete the unwanteds.  Card goes back into the camera. Done.
I fail to see how first downloading (whether selected images or an entire card) saves time, unless the computer itself is lightning fast. Reminds me of my former boss who actually purchased a software to copy and paste files folder to folder until he was made aware that drag and drop was a little easier and he didn't have to open software to do it.  I see what I have before any downloading is necessary.
I don't reformat and reuse the cards as if new. Once full, they get marked and put away.  As for where they are, they are in little drawers atop file boxes.  Those are infinitely smaller than any HD except maybe flash drives.  Once or twice a year, those folders containing the TIFFs and their manipulated counterparts then get backed up again on an HD.  
The only real difference is that my cards are my initial raw "backup".  I don't need extra USB's, I don't need more HD's taking up room and they're handy. Maybe at some point I can even reformat a few for reuse, but it's how I do it. It's quick enough and I haven't lost a single file in 6 years, unlike the thousands I've lost before that with crashed hard drives and the lost cpu.
It's all very very subjective, so again, please do not imply your way is the correct way. It is correct for you and maybe because someone else told you to do it that way and you know of no other. That does not make it the only way and does not mean everyone must follow suit.
The only issue I foresee coming is that the A77 takes the smaller SDs and I can't write that tiny :scratch:


----------



## LouR (Apr 5, 2013)

Kolia said:


> Why save as TIFF and not simply keep the RAW file ?
> 
> Sony PMB isn't a very good utility. I only use it to upload to the PC and sometime to access shoe of the EXIF information or apply some preset styling option.
> 
> ...


They are TIFFs because you can't manipulate raw files in filtering software.  I'm sure you knew that. Again, I have the raw files-right where I left them.
I do not have nor want LR. Tried it in Beta a decade ago, wasn't really impressed and never saw the need to try it again.
Don't  know what Sony PMB is or what you mean by it.  I have Sony Image  Converter SR, which mimics the camera's settings, except ISO, so the raw  files can be "fixed", ie:  noise, wb, sharpening, Ev, etc. Converter does not save changes as raw.
Good for you


----------



## LouR (Apr 5, 2013)

Overread said:


> You know you can just manually copy RAW files from the card to the computer right - I do it myself, no software I just select, right click copy and right click paste to put them into a folder.  I then make a folder within that one for the "KEEPS" (which are the edited versions). With simple folder management you can easily archive a lot of photos on a single harddrive without much worry.
> 
> And as said the long term costs are significantly less with this approach unless you are shooting very little indeed. If you are then I can somewhat see that you could get away with shooting and not needing new harddrives, however the OP is asking about storage and organising methods which suggests that their data build up is considerable. This is showing that their current method of operation is simply not the most suitable -- partly shown again by the fact that its a very rare approach to the matter.
> 
> That is why you are seeing so many comments against it and why people are not readily providing card organisation suggestions.


I am quite aware on how to save files, thanks.
Rare does not make it wrong.


----------



## Overread (Apr 5, 2013)

Rare does not make it wrong, but it can potentially mean that you're spending a lot of money on a way of working that, with a few modifications, could easily cost you far less and still provide you with the same amount of data protection whilst also being far easier to organise (which is why its used far more than your own method). 


In a separate but linked matter try Lightroom again - its first release didn't impress me all that much either, but its gained a lot of functionality over the last few years. Now it can even do selective area editing whilst still being non-destructive editing to the original files. It can do a lot more than in the past. You can get a 30day free trial off the Adobe website of the full product - just download it and try it out (if you want to keep it you just pay to get an access code and you can keep going without any additional downloading).


----------



## manaheim (Apr 5, 2013)

LouR... frankly I think your attitude is fairly poor here.  People are offering advice and you're mostly being defensive and responding with snark.  I have little doubt some of that is in response to snark sent your way in the first place, but if you're not going to do anything but snip at people I would suggest you just say "I'm doing it my way and that's all there is to it" and bow out of the conversation.  You're not adding anything to this.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

LouR said:


> You did not (another one, however, did), but are implying that my "methods" are somehow inferior, yet I don't do two steps you do-I don't download before editing and I don't reformat after.


Your methods are inferior. It's no implication. However, telling you that is not a personal attack.   



> While you're creating folders, transferring the original files and using up storage better served for other things, re-transferring files as different formats to a stack of DVD's, reformatting the cards and hoping you haven't worn'em out yet, I'm eating cookies and watching Big Bang Theory. Bazinga.



and



> I use 4g or 8g and never pay full price. Someone always has them on sale for less than $15. Factoring in all the externals I've blown through, not to mention a $400 CPU that failed to reach its destination for repairs, I'm probably still ahead a few bucks and don't have a gazillion DVD's to go through.



Which is an implication that your method is faster, efficient, cost effective, saves space, and you wouldn't go through a "gazillion" DVDs. When all of that isn't the case.    



> All images are opened and edited in Sony's Image Converter directly from the medium and then saved on my desktop as TIFFs (which the converter does, I don't even have to scroll for a format). It's during this time I delete the unwanteds.  Card goes back into the camera. Done.



Which is the same as bridge. You don't have to download the files immediately, but you said you do it with TIFFs anyway. 




> I fail to see how first downloading (whether selected images or an entire card) saves time, unless the computer itself is lightning fast. Reminds me of my former boss who actually purchased a software to copy and paste files folder to folder until he was made aware that drag and drop was a little easier and he didn't have to open software to do it.  I see what I have before any downloading is necessary.


You can drag and drop. It's the same thing. Bridge is the faster version of dragging and dropping. 



> I don't reformat and reuse the cards as if new. Once full, they get marked and put away.  As for where they are, they are in little drawers atop file boxes.  Those are infinitely smaller than any HD except maybe flash drives.


My external HD is 1TB, and has a smaller footprint than my smartphone. It's extremely small. It's the smallest thing on my desk. It's smaller than my mouse albeit  slightly wider.  



> Once or twice a year, those folders containing the TIFFs and their manipulated counterparts then get backed up again on an HD.


Why not just duplicate the RAW files? Why convert to TIFF in the first place? 



> The only real difference is that my cards are my initial raw "backup".  I don't need extra USB's, I don't need more HD's taking up room and they're handy. Maybe at some point I can even reformat a few for reuse, but it's how I do it. It's quick enough and I haven't lost a single file in 6 years, unlike the thousands I've lost before that with crashed hard drives and the lost cpu.


That's not the real difference. The real difference is price, accessibility, management/organization and time.
If the loss of data is a concern, online backup services are dirt cheap. Unlimited backup for $5 a month.  



> It's all very very subjective, so again, please do not imply your way is the correct way. It is correct for you and maybe because someone else told you to do it that way and you know of no other. That does not make it the only way and does not mean everyone must follow suit.



Again. It's not subjective. Not in the least bit. 

Your way is by all means slower, costly and inefficient. You can say all day that your way "works for you", but that's because you don't know the difference. You're being met with resistance by all because it's
not a matter of preference. It really is a matter of right and wrong. If you want to keep the files on your card, by all means, I'm not going to try to stop you, but you have it in your head that it's a different method,
not an inferior method, when in reality it is.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 5, 2013)

Oh by the way, my drives are setup in a mirror so i won't lose them from a drive failure.

The fact is you just can't blame loss on bad planning or inappropriate level of protection for critical resources.  ESP when you are spending SO much money on the cards. You can build a very robust solution with that money.  

And worrying about the size of a couple hard disks is a little silly unless you live in a shoebox.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

manaheim said:


> And worrying about the size of a couple hard disks is a little silly unless you live in a shoebox.



:lmao: Yep... you got me to literally LOL.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 5, 2013)

manaheim said:


> The fact is you just can't blame loss on bad planning or inappropriate level of protection for critical resources.



Of course you can!  I think probably every data loss I've ever had was a result of bad planning and/or inappropriate protection level.


----------



## LouR (Apr 5, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> LouR said:
> 
> 
> > You did not (another one, however, did), but are implying that my "methods" are somehow inferior, yet I don't do two steps you do-I don't download before editing and I don't reformat after.
> ...


Constructive criticism? hardly. As I've said before, it's fast for me because I'm not downloading anything and waiting on that only to have to go back and edit.



> While you're creating folders, transferring the original files and using up storage better served for other things, re-transferring files as different formats to a stack of DVD's, reformatting the cards and hoping you haven't worn'em out yet, I'm eating cookies and watching Big Bang Theory. Bazinga.



and




Ballistics said:


> Which is an implication that your method is faster, efficient, cost effective, saves space, and you wouldn't go through a "gazillion" DVDs. When all of that isn't the case.


Shall I repeat myself? It is for me. You do portraits, etc., which is high volume. I do not.





Ballistics said:


> Which is the same as bridge. You don't have to download the files immediately, but you said you do it with TIFFs anyway.


Never said I do that.  I said once opened and edited, they are saved as TIFFs.  Nothing gets downloaded.




Ballistics said:


> You can drag and drop. It's the same thing. Bridge is the faster version of dragging and dropping.


Again, never said anything one way or another about it. And are you a Bridge salesman?  What works for you on your system, etc., may not work for me for any particular reason.  Maybe it will, why change what works. Because you say so?




Ballistics said:


> My external HD is 1TB, and has a smaller footprint than my smartphone. It's extremely small. It's the smallest thing on my desk. It's smaller than my mouse albeit  slightly wider.


Good for you.  Mine is not and I don't have room for multi-hds on a desk that already has a printer, monitor, several checkbooks and myriad other things.




Ballistics said:


> Why not just duplicate the RAW files? Why convert to TIFF in the first place?


I answered this already. Because raw (no need to be all caps) can not be manipulated in various filtering software. I work the TIFFs, save the raws.  Do you print and sell your raws?



> The only real difference is that my cards are my initial raw "backup".  I don't need extra USB's, I don't need more HD's taking up room and they're handy. Maybe at some point I can even reformat a few for reuse, but it's how I do it. It's quick enough and I haven't lost a single file in 6 years, unlike the thousands I've lost before that with crashed hard drives and the lost cpu.





Ballistics said:


> That's not the real difference. The real difference is price, accessibility, management/organization and time.
> If the loss of data is a concern, online backup services are dirt cheap. Unlimited backup for $5 a month.


Accessibility is no different-they're right in front of me or where I put past ones.  Time?  I'm not downloading on this 5 year old Dell or reformatting cards before using them.  You have no idea how my workflow goes because you have your own and probably is the only way you know. Working in someone else's studio for 5 years, I know their workflow (similar to yours but on a very large scale) and something always got f*ked up if for no other reason than two many pairs of hands on the same files.
Again, you have no idea what I do, how I do it or why, you just think your way is the only way. It is not.



> It's all very very subjective, so again, please do not imply your way is the correct way. It is correct for you and maybe because someone else told you to do it that way and you know of no other. That does not make it the only way and does not mean everyone must follow suit.





Ballistics said:


> Again. It's not subjective. Not in the least bit.
> 
> Your way is by all means slower, costly and inefficient. You can say all day that your way "works for you", but that's because you don't know the difference. You're being met with resistance by all because it's
> not a matter of preference. It really is a matter of right and wrong. If you want to keep the files on your card, by all means, I'm not going to try to stop you, but you have it in your head that it's a different method,
> not an inferior method, when in reality it is.


To you.  What is right for you is fine by me, so stop trying to convert someone who doesn't need it. 
When you tell someone else that what they are doing is wrong simply because YOU don't like it, that IS an insult.  How often do you go into someone else's house and tell them they cleaned it wrong?  Bet you wouldn't. Same damned thing.


----------



## LouR (Apr 5, 2013)

This getting nowhere.
Close the thread or something.  Some people just like beating others over the head until they "come around".


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

LouR said:


> This getting nowhere.
> Close the thread or something.  Some people just like beating others over the head until they "come around".



It's getting nowhere, because you don't listen. No one's trying to change your mind. You do what you gotta do,
but it is inefficient. We're telling you that, because others will come in here and see this thread, and they will know why
using SD cards as your form of backup is a bad idea. 


And by the way, saving TIFFs onto your desktop IS downloading, and this isn't your house.


----------



## SCraig (Apr 5, 2013)

1.  Come home and copy everything I shot into a temporary working directory on my computer.

2.  Copy everything from the temporary working directory into two archive directories, one on each drive in my computer.  The archive directory has subdirectories for each year, and in there DVD-sized directories containing my RAW files.

3.  When a directory has about 4.2gb in it it gets written to (2) DVD's.  One stays home, the other goes to my office.

4.  Index the images in PicaJet FX which allows me to browse every digital photograph I've ever taken.

5.  Nothing EVER gets deleted unless from the archive directories unless it is absolute total garbage or unless I fill up a disk drive.  When I fill a disk I'll delete some of the older stuff since I do have two backup copies on DVD.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 5, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is you just can't blame loss on bad planning or inappropriate level of protection for critical resources.
> ...



You know that made perfect sense when I wrote it... 

I think you know what I mean though.

The problem here isn't the hard drive... it's not keeping in mind the limitations and liabilities of any chosen technology and compensating appropriately.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 5, 2013)

This is a lot like the people who scream, "WHY play *vinyl records*? Why buy vinyl records!? Just convert your ENTIRE collection to .MP3 or .ACC and then give the vinyl to Goodwill! You're an idiot to own 458 vinyl LP's--put ALL of the music into .MP3's! Doah! *Vinyl records are for IDIOTS*!!!! Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a year. Jesus!"


----------



## manaheim (Apr 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> This is a lot like the people who scream, "WHY play *vinyl records*? Why buy vinyl records!? Just convert your ENTIRE collection to .MP3 or .ACC and then give the vinyl to Goodwill! You're an idiot to own 458 vinyl LP's--put ALL of the music into .MP3's! Doah! *Vinyl records are for IDIOTS*!!!! Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a year. Jesus!"



Ummm... it is? Are you arguing for the use of memory cards over hard drives? I'm confused.

I don't see the relation at all... regardless of what your position on it is.

I mean the mp3 vs vinyl thing is all about dynamic range and quality and such, which doesn't really play in here at all.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> This is a lot like the people who scream, "WHY play *vinyl records*? Why buy vinyl records!? Just convert your ENTIRE collection to .MP3 or .ACC and then give the vinyl to Goodwill! You're an idiot to own 458 vinyl LP's--put ALL of the music into .MP3's! Doah! *Vinyl records are for IDIOTS*!!!! Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a year. Jesus!"




Not really. We're talking about workflows and efficiency. Vinyl records analogy would be better suited for the film vs digital argument.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 5, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > This is a lot like the people who scream, "WHY play *vinyl records*? Why buy vinyl records!? Just convert your ENTIRE collection to .MP3 or .ACC and then give the vinyl to Goodwill! You're an idiot to own 458 vinyl LP's--put ALL of the music into .MP3's! Doah! *Vinyl records are for IDIOTS*!!!! Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a year. Jesus!"
> ...



Right.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



You beat me to the punch lol.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 5, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



If you read Derrel's post, he _is_ talking about workflow/efficiency - not quality (where the vinyl argument would be used in the digital/film debate)...


...the way I'm reading it anyway.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Kind of... but again, not really. The reason why I say that is because our initial argument is about efficiency, where as the vinyl argument brings in quality.



> _WHY play _*vinyl records? Why buy vinyl records!?*



This is the questions asked in the beginning, and the answer has nothing to do with being more efficient, but because the quality is different.

He then talks about the time consumed accessing your records vs digital files... where as in the case of occupational workflow makes a difference(Radio, DJ) but if you are just listening to music, then preference prevails.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 5, 2013)

Whatever the case, can we close the thread now?  The whole thing has become very stupid.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 5, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> This is the questions asked in the beginning, and the answer has nothing to do with being more efficient ...



Oh, but it does.  "Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you  can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a  year. Jesus!"

(Not "more efficient", but it is dealing with efficiency.)


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 5, 2013)

I took his post as satire.  In that light, it makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 5, 2013)

Did the original question ever get answered?  

Put them in a shoe box organized by date.

Ok, you can close it now.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > This is the questions asked in the beginning, and the answer has nothing to do with being more efficient ...
> ...



I know, I said that, but it's still different.

I asked why she converted from RAW to TIFF... that's got nothing in common with Vinyl vs MP3 in this case. People buy vinyl because it sounds different, converting from Raw to Tiff holds no weight in any category.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 5, 2013)

You know, when cassettes got popular they really we're kind of step backwards with all that fast forwarding business.  LPs and 8 tracks you could skip right to the magic.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 5, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> Did the original question ever get answered?
> 
> Put them in a shoe box organized by date.
> 
> Ok, you can close it now.



Actually, I've had a moment of enlightenment.

My idea of hard drives is madness.

What everyone should do from now on is this...

1. Drive 16 miles to Best Buy in your car, consuming 2 gallons of gas.
2. Buy card at Best Buy for 16x price you would pay on Newegg.  Only buy one!
3. Take pictures.
4. Go home.
5. Run program that takes image file and prints it to your color laserjet... as 1s and 0s.  Not an image, just the binary representation of same.
6. Store each image in a file box.
7. Fill your basement with file boxes.
8. Smash card repeatedly with a hammer when images have been transferred.
9. Microwave the card.
10. Buy a new hammer.
11. Kick the cat.
12. Punch yourself in the face.
13. Buy new face.
14. Repeat.


----------



## Kolia (Apr 5, 2013)

LouR said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> > Why save as TIFF and not simply keep the RAW file ?
> ...



You really need to check out LR and get updated to the current software's capabilities. Sony Image Converter doesn't measure up to LR.

PMB should have been included with your Sony camera's startup bundle.


----------



## TruckerDave (Apr 5, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Actually, I've had a moment of enlightenment.
> 
> My idea of hard drives is madness.
> 
> ...



Actually #14 is "get into useless argument on internet forum" and 15. Is "repeat" 


It always amazes me how fast a simple question devolves into a pi**ing match on these threads.


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 6, 2013)

manaheim said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > Did the original question ever get answered?
> ...



I generated this up in an excel document as a checklist for future workflow. Thank you.


----------



## AndrewofAdelaide (Apr 6, 2013)

so what are you saying!


----------



## AndrewofAdelaide (Apr 6, 2013)

i think it is personal and depends on the type of photographer you are and the type of photography that you do. for me, i'm still figuring it out. sometimes i jst want to keep it all on the SD cards, but really-- you'd need a contact sheet for it. so i store all my images (and media) on an external HD.


----------



## Overread (Apr 6, 2013)

And I think its time to close this as we are getting rather confused with analogies it seems


----------

