# Running out of HDD space, what are my options?



## iflynething (Dec 31, 2009)

I have a problem. Currently I am maxed out the 500GB HDD in my laptop. I have it partitioned out and plenty on video/music and on my main boot drive but on pictures, I have a little over 17GB on my pictures partition which includes about 50,000 pictures.

I have a 500GB WD external that I back up everything to and since it didn't have the OS on it, I have moved non needed files from my laptop and kept them on the external HDD and they are deleted off my laptop.

I'm running out of space though and don't know what to do. I just got back from a mission trip where I documented everything that was done and shot 17GB of photos, almost 900 pictures. 

I do not have any pictures that I can delete off the laptop and just keep on the external since I only have 9GB on the external.

I will be making some money on the CD's for the mission trip and some other things so I"m going to get a 2TB external for backing up. The only problem with that is, I like to have everything with me. I never know when I might want to show a particular picture and it not be there because I didn't have room. I started with a 320GB drive on the laptop and that QUICKLY filled up, moved to the 500 internal with the 500GB external, but I don't know what my options are from here.

I would love to upgrade to a full desktop with a terabyte (or 2) inside and have that 2TB external right beside it and just have my laptop for "showing" or just for temporary storage while out shooting, but I can't invest in a desktop right now.

What can I do?

~Michael~


----------



## 1limited92 (Dec 31, 2009)

With External HD's getting as inexpensive as they are now I would just consider buying another one to shuffle around and store some photos on to clear up some room until you can get your LARGE TB hard drives.  Seems to me that would be the quickest and easiest way to go about it.


----------



## mrdemin (Dec 31, 2009)

External harddrives are pretty portable, my 500gb wd passport is pretty small. And since you don't mention music or videos being as important, you can have that on the external hdd. Of course you can run disk cleanup, or defrag, but whats a few gigs going to do for you? nothing.
Unfortunately the biggest notebook hdd I see is 640gb, this doesn't do you much good either. You say you'd like a desktop, but you can't take that around with you, so the stuff you would keep on that you can keep on the external drive instead and just plug it in when you're home.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 31, 2009)

You have two options...

Back up & delete.

Buy a bigger hard drive.


Those are really the only two options I can think of...


----------



## EJKelehan (Dec 31, 2009)

you could buy a 500gb external drive, they are pretty small, and velcro it to the backside of your screen, using a 6"ish cable to connect the computer to the drive, many people do this with there memory card readers...its easily removable, but also right where you need it {link} you could probably do a slightly cleaner installation then the person in the tutorial does, with a shorter cable and such.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 31, 2009)

Do you really need to keep a copy of all your images on your laptop's HD?  It's good that you use an external for backup.  But you could get another one to use as 'storage', keeping the existing one for backup.  

This is where a program like Lightroom is really great.  You can store photos on your external drive, then 'import' them into Lightroom on your laptop.  Once imported, you can still see the images and even work on them in LR, without being tethered to the external drive.  You will need to have the drive connected to 'export' the images though.


----------



## Overread (Dec 31, 2009)

If you are going to start using more external harddrives (which appears to be your only valid move unless you find the funds to upgrade to a large PC or laptop) you have to get an organised sorting system setup early. That will help you avoid confusion later on. 

I would say get a 1Terrabyte or larger external drive and use that to hold all your photos. Then I would backup your keepers to your current external drive and to your PC. That way you are able to keep a storage of your photos in your larger external whilst also keeping your keepers safe in 3 places (your laptop and current 500GB external)


----------



## ScottsdaleImages (Dec 31, 2009)

I agree, add extra external storage! At least 1TB! Move (archive) everything you haven't looked at or touched in the last 2 months to the new drive. Keep your Notebook HD clear for current work and back it up to the 500gb ext. 

BTW, CDW.com has a Lacie 1TB ext HD for $97.99. Great Buy. (That's my day job..lol)


----------



## iflynething (Dec 31, 2009)

1limited92 said:


> With External HD's getting as inexpensive as they are now I would just consider buying another one to shuffle around and store some photos on to clear up some room until you can get your LARGE TB hard drives.  Seems to me that would be the quickest and easiest way to go about it.





ScottsdaleImages said:


> I agree, add extra external storage! At least 1TB! Move (archive) everything you haven't looked at or touched in the last 2 months to the new drive. Keep your Notebook HD clear for current work and back it up to the 500gb ext.
> 
> BTW, CDW.com has a Lacie 1TB ext HD for $97.99. Great Buy. (That's my day job..lol)



That's kinda what I was doing with the 500GB. Since there is no OS on there, I actually HAD the room to store _extra_ photos I wasn't using. Just small folders that I never looked at and never really used. I have about 30,000 dance comepition photos on there that I didn't need on my laptop. There's just there for archival purposes. I freed up ALOT of space, but now I'm down to not alot of room. I might just get the 2TB one (even the 1 would do for now) and continue to put on there the photos I haven't looked at in a couple of months and don't seem myself using in a while, either. That would free up alot of space on the laptop HDD. 

Thanks for the link on the 1TB one, I think I might more consider the 1TB one. Another possiblity is an internal one (cheaper) and just get a housing for it and Firewire cable for it. 



mrdemin said:


> External harddrives are pretty portable, my 500gb wd passport is pretty small. And since you don't mention music or videos being as important, you can have that on the external hdd. Of course you can run disk cleanup, or defrag, but whats a few gigs going to do for you? nothing.
> Unfortunately the biggest notebook hdd I see is 640gb, this doesn't do you much good either. You say you'd like a desktop, but you can't take that around with you, so the stuff you would keep on that you can keep on the external drive instead and just plug it in when you're home.



I didn't know 640 was the largest. I think on Dell, though, the 500 is a big as you can go. Even if I got a 640, I would still be in the same predicament very soon! I have disk cleaned up, and defraged as much as I could and that cleaned up a good amount of stuff, but not NEAR as much as I really need. 



O|||||||O said:


> You have two options...
> 
> Back up & delete.
> 
> ...



I'm going to do both! Bigger _external_ hard drive and delete off the laptop!



EJKelehan said:


> you could buy a 500gb external drive, they are pretty small, and velcro it to the backside of your screen, using a 6"ish cable to connect the computer to the drive, many people do this with there memory card readers...its easily removable, but also right where you need it {link} you could probably do a slightly cleaner installation then the person in the tutorial does, with a shorter cable and such.



Thats a possibility. The 500GB external I have now, is HUGE! I'm not sure it would stay back there, though. Thanks for the link though 



Big Mike said:


> Do you really need to keep a copy of all your images on your laptop's HD?  It's good that you use an external for backup.  But you could get another one to use as 'storage', keeping the existing one for backup.
> 
> This is where a program like Lightroom is really great.  You can store photos on your external drive, then 'import' them into Lightroom on your laptop.  Once imported, you can still see the images and even work on them in LR, without being tethered to the external drive.  You will need to have the drive connected to 'export' the images though.



Big Mike, thanks. I don't really need a copy of EVERYTHING. I just need more recent ones I guess. As I said above, I have already "archived" (but still readily available) 30,000+ photos to my external, pictures I don't use really anymore and it would be no problem to just plug it up and work if needed. Unfortunatly, I do not have Lightroom. My other photographer friend uses Lightroom and I love the workflow. Need to make a adjustment, it makes like a "shadow" copy which is just going off the original file but doesn't take up anymore space. I know about Lightroom, but is it a separate program I could bu?



Overread said:


> If you are going to start using more external harddrives (which appears to be your only valid move unless you find the funds to upgrade to a large PC or laptop) you have to get an organised sorting system setup early. That will help you avoid confusion later on.
> 
> I would say get a 1Terrabyte or larger external drive and use that to hold all your photos. Then I would backup your keepers to your current external drive and to your PC. That way you are able to keep a storage of your photos in your larger external whilst also keeping your keepers safe in 3 places (your laptop and current 500GB external)



I have an organization system that I understand. I use SyncToy as my backup tool. On my backup, I have "Pictures" which syncs with the "Pictures" folder on my laptop. Then I have "Other Pictures" on the external that the SyncToy doesn't touch. As far as it knows, it's not even there. That way, I have current pictures backed up all the time whenever I run ST, but also those archived photos that are just there.


----------



## icassell (Dec 31, 2009)

Add outboard storage (my vote).  I now have 2 WD 500GB drives and I just bought a 2TB drive (with Raid 1).  My 500GB drives are mirrors of each other, even though they don't have the RAID software.  I just plan on adding drives as needed.  I keep almost nothing on my laptop longer than a week or so anymore (I don't have a separate desktop computer).  Even without my HDD hooked up, I can browse thumbnails of my images to a degree through my LR2 catalog.


----------



## iflynething (Dec 31, 2009)

icassell said:


> Add outboard storage (my vote).  I now have 2 WD 500GB drives and I just bought a 2TB drive (with Raid 1).  My 500GB drives are mirrors of each other, even though they don't have the RAID software.  I just plan on adding drives as needed.  I keep almost nothing on my laptop longer than a week or so anymore (I don't have a separate desktop computer).  Even without my HDD hooked up, I can browse thumbnails of my images to a degree through my LR2 catalog.



I never really fully understood the concept of RAID but I'm sure I could figure it out.

If I only had LR

~Michael~


----------



## icassell (Dec 31, 2009)

You can get LR3 Beta for FREE now ... you will have to pay for it in April when it becomes product, however.  This can give you a chance to try it.

Adobe Labs - Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3

If you are a student or an educator, you can buy LR for $99

As for RAID, I'm no computer geek and there are several RAID options but RAID1 just does a direct mirror of your drive on a second drive -- in case one fails.


----------



## iflynething (Dec 31, 2009)

icassell said:


> You can get LR3 Beta for FREE now ... you will have to pay for it in April when it becomes product, however.  This can give you a chance to try it.
> 
> Adobe Labs - Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3
> 
> ...



I will have to download it, thanks.

$100 isn't bad. I'll have to get it once it's actually out.

Is RAID any different than using a backup software? Seems to me it's doing the exact same thing

~Michael~


----------



## icassell (Dec 31, 2009)

iflynething said:


> Is RAID any different than using a backup software? Seems to me it's doing the exact same thing
> 
> ~Michael~



RAID1 is transparent.  You don't do anything and it automatically saves your data in two places simultaneously.

This is the one I bought:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000VPKRKW/ref=oss_T15_product


----------



## usayit (Dec 31, 2009)

iflynething said:


> Is RAID any different than using a backup software? Seems to me it's doing the exact same thing




Two completely different things.  RAID is for high availability and Backups are for recoverability.  You really should have both but I highly recommend placing a preference on implementing backups first.  Being able to recover your data even at the expense of waiting for them to be restored is very important.

This question comes up all the time and almost always gets answered incorrectly.  RAID is not a replacement for backups.  The least complex setup that I can think of would involve two mirrored drives with a copy on a third external drive (which can be stored at a physically different location).  

* If a single drive in the mirror dies... no worry.. replace it and re-establish the mirror as soon as possible
* Any snafu on the users part can be easily restored from the third disk backup.
* House burns down, you have a third disk as backup
* Any corruption that can occur (and replicated within the mirror) can be recovered from the third disk backup.


----------



## iflynething (Dec 31, 2009)

icassell said:


> iflynething said:
> 
> 
> > Is RAID any different than using a backup software? Seems to me it's doing the exact same thing
> ...



Now that's a really nice set up. If I were to get a 2TB external, it would be $189 for the Western Digital. $240 for the RAID isn't all that bad and with free shipping 



usayit said:


> iflynething said:
> 
> 
> > Is RAID any different than using a backup software? Seems to me it's doing the exact same thing
> ...



What do you mean by high availability? I believe that RAIDs are working with the network and you are available to access them anywhere?

~Michael~


----------



## icassell (Dec 31, 2009)

OK, now I'm confused.  What do you mean that RAID is not a replacement for backups?  I figured a RAID1 would be exactly that.  Do I have to go back to the drawing board?


----------



## usayit (Dec 31, 2009)

> What do you mean by high availability? I believe that RAIDs are working with the network and you are available to access them anywhere?



Sorry... I should have defined.  

High availability means that a hard drive failure would not interrupt in any way your access to your data.  If your RAID 1 set breaks, you can still access your data and continue working without interruption just as long as the remaining disk remains in operation until you rebuild the mirror with a new disk.  Recoverability (also referred to as data protection) is your ability to recover files if they are lost or corrupted. 


RAID does not protect your from data corruption, destroyed location, and user snafu.



[edit]
Ahha.. 
Journalspace makes the case for backing up - European Journalism Centre


For anyone making a career in IT generally its easy to explain the differences.  They see the need for restores quite frequently.. often without the users even knowing that something went wrong.  The fact that it happens and goes unnoticed makes it difficult to understand to the general public.  Kinda like explaining life insurance to a teenager who lives in a life with the notion that they'll live forever.  The journalspace snafu was one of the few documented cases that hit the internet and opened many eyes.  (it just took me a while to remember)  I've made a career out of disaster recovery and data protection.   Unfortunately, folks in my field of expertise are brought into the picture after something really bad has already happened.  Fortunately for most of us, its required by law for most financial and health institutions to not only backup but prove it works.


----------



## grafxman (Dec 31, 2009)

I didn't see this mentioned anywhere but maybe I missed it. I use an esata 2 port express card. I connected 2 esata 1 TB external drives to it. Other external drives such as the commonly available USB drives are pretty slow by comparison. An esata drive is just about as fast as your internal drive. I also have 3 external USB drives and their slowness is quite noticeable compared to the esata drives. I use one esata drive for nearly all my applications and they run just as fast as they did on my internal drive. Of course you have to have a card port to plug the esata card into.


----------



## Live_free (Dec 31, 2009)

My laptops HDD is only 120g I just have an Airport Extreme N Time capsule. That is 2tb which is wireless HDD I store all my pictures on it.


----------



## iflynething (Jan 1, 2010)

Live_free said:


> My laptops HDD is only 120g I just have an Airport Extreme N Time capsule. That is 2tb which is wireless HDD I store all my pictures on it.



That time capsule with Mac's are pretty cool. Being wireless and all

~Michael~


----------



## Joves (Jan 1, 2010)

Well you could just get a 1tb drive to replace your current. I think the Barracudas are like around $120 total at BestBuy now. I use my external strictly for photos and it is 500gigs and, I keep that in my fireproof safe. Which are also inexpensive if you consider what they save if you have a fire.


----------



## iflynething (Jan 1, 2010)

That's very true. A 1TB would be alot cheaper too...as you said $120

~Michael~


----------



## RONDAL (Jan 2, 2010)

for those running multiple external HD's, regardless of the size, picking up a DROBO may save you a lot of headaches.

I LOVE mine and can't get enough of it.  So easy to use, and full redundancy.

Data Robotics, Inc.


----------



## Vicelord John (Jan 2, 2010)

I just picked up a Western Digital 1TB My Book for $129 at Best Buy.

It works well.


----------



## usayit (Jan 2, 2010)

1 TB Seagate internal drive -> $89
Micro Center - Barracuda 1TB 7,200RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive

Hard drive dock with both USB and eSATA interfaces -> $49.99
Micro Center - 2.5"/3.5" SATA to USB/eSATA Combo Dock Station with All-in-One Card Reader

Even better.. buy two hard drives and keep one of the copies of all your data at work/another house/friends/etc..  

You'll never have to worry about yet another power brick to plug in.. another power cable to manage.. and internal hard drives are cheaper.  Need more archival storage or another backup to add to a rotation, just buy another internal hard drive (or pulls from used computers)  Just drop in and access data. 

Just keep the packaging to store the drive in when you are done.  Its about the same price as the previous post of Best Buy...


----------



## iflynething (Jan 2, 2010)

That's a pretty neat storage dock. I didn't know those were even made.

~Michael~


----------



## r9jackson (Jan 2, 2010)

All of you are giving some very good ideas.  One option I am looking at and have had the opportunity to test at work is the Drobo.  It's a little more expensive, but gives you a lot more RAID protected storage for a little more money.  You can start small with two drives and grow it to 4,5 or 8 (depending on the model).  Very cool technology.  

I did a mini-review on my photography blog.  Check it out at:
The Amazing Drobo
I think it has some links to the manufacturer in the article.  I bought mine for work from Amazon.


----------



## usayit (Jan 2, 2010)

iflynething said:


> That's a pretty neat storage dock. I didn't know those were even made.



There quite a few to choose from now a days.  The one linked was just done on a quick search for those on a budget and to show a fair comparison between retail vendors (as opposed to online).  

I currently have this and it hasn't had any problems:

Thermaltakeusa*Â»*Storage*Â»*Docking Station

and one from here (firewire port was a requirement):

Voyager by NewerTech- Hard Drive Dock for 3.5" and 2.5" SATA Devices provides high-performance and flexibility
(off course they'll work on windows machines too)



...


If its between these two choices

1) RAID 1 with spares for backups
2) Extra cost of fancy RAID units like the DROBO with no backups.

You are better off with #1.


----------



## iflynething (Jan 5, 2010)

The Drobo, while very nice, is out of my price range right now.

I was looking at Best Buy and saw some 1.5TB drives. I don't know the difference between the Essnetial and Home Edition. I think there is even a World edition but the price is so great, what would be best?

The 500GB I have now is the essential? There was also a hard drive enclosure for $60 that seemed really nice. I could get an internal desktop drive, like a $250 2TB and then use that once I am able to move to a desktop then get another drive as the backup to that.

~Michael~


----------



## twb (Jan 22, 2010)

Try a simpletech external hard drive. Can't beat the combo of quality and price. You could also look into online storage (e.g. mozy.com).


----------



## iflynething (Jan 22, 2010)

Funny you mention SimpleTech, twb, I have only bought one and it crapped out on me. Windows didn't want to recognize it anymore. All USB drivers uninstalled and re-installed and no luck. I'm out $120 on a 320GB drive. I'll probably stick with Western Digital

~Michael~


----------



## vuxon (Jan 30, 2010)

Actually, there's a thrid option.

I'm sure not all of your photos are best of the best, right? And those that are absolutely excellent, you keep in RAW format stored at 5 different web sites, each on a different continent, right? (because one never knows where the meteor may hit)

The rest can be a bit squeezed with IrfanView. Or with this little proggie, if you keep your photos in subfolders (and who doesn't):

Photo Vacuum Packer - Home Page


----------



## kareninphotography (Feb 2, 2010)

I would recommend a network enclosure and then buy a cheap internal hard drive (1TB or higher)...
I love the idea of network enclosures because you can access them from anywhere,


----------



## iflynething (Feb 2, 2010)

kareninphotography said:


> I would recommend a network enclosure and then buy a cheap internal hard drive (1TB or higher)...
> I love the idea of network enclosures because you can access them from anywhere,



I wanted to do that. Enclosures are super cheap and the internals are so much cheaper than externals, obviously.

The only thing is, I don't have a wireless network, so the network enclosure would do me no good

~Michael~


----------



## Rennie (Feb 13, 2010)

Hey dude just get rid off your all these backup program & try magic backup.Few days ago i was also backing up all of my data to my external hard drive at the end of every day,so I started using the Acronis True Image Home software to do so. I made the first backup yesterday, which understandably took a long time. But now I'm running the first daily backup, as a test, and it says it'll take 4 hours to finish!.So due to all these difficulties i quit  Acronis & now i am using Magic Backup online service & really it's great .Magic Backup is so easy to use, and so reliable.  Unlike other backup products that perform "scheduled" backups during the middle of the night, Magic Backup is always on the lookout for new or changed files that need to be backed up.  The minute you're done editing a document, (well, 10 minutes after actually), Magic Backup will silently prepare and transfer a secure copy of that file to your private location on our servers.  You never have to worry about complicated configuration settings, marking files for backup, changing backup tapes, burning backup CDs .


----------



## usayit (Feb 13, 2010)

spammer...  sheesh


----------



## Romphotog (Feb 13, 2010)

a 1T external HDD goes for $99 at B&H and J&R.  I would suggest not using max res, but going lower by 2 stops.  If your camera has max 12mp, go down to 8mp, and use normal or economy quality.  I use 4mp economy just to shoot quick in burst mode.  I get 750kb instead of 2.5mb using 6mp fine.  My 4gb card didnt fill up on a 5 day Vegas trip.  
Using max res: 2.5mb x 100 = 250mb.  That's 400 pics/1gb.  400x4=1600 pics!  That's 320 shots/day for 5 days!


----------



## usayit (Feb 13, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> a 1T external HDD goes for $99 at B&H and J&R.  I would suggest not using max res, but going lower by 2 stops.  If your camera has max 12mp, go down to 8mp, and use normal or economy quality.  I use 4mp economy just to shoot quick in burst mode.  I get 750kb instead of 2.5mb using 6mp fine.  My 4gb card didnt fill up on a 5 day Vegas trip.
> Using max res: 2.5mb x 100 = 250mb.  That's 400 pics/1gb.  400x4=1600 pics!  That's 320 shots/day for 5 days!



Sacrificing the quality or capability of your camera for the sake of saving space?  I wouldn't recommend that at all...   Doesn't make sense at any level.


----------



## iflynething (Feb 13, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> a 1T external HDD goes for $99 at B&H and J&R.  I would suggest not using max res, but going lower by 2 stops.  If your camera has max 12mp, go down to 8mp, and use normal or economy quality.  I use 4mp economy just to shoot quick in burst mode.  I get 750kb instead of 2.5mb using 6mp fine.  My 4gb card didnt fill up on a 5 day Vegas trip.
> Using max res: 2.5mb x 100 = 250mb.  That's 400 pics/1gb.  400x4=1600 pics!  That's 320 shots/day for 5 days!



That's not going to happen. The ONLY time I reduce image quality is dance compeititons to make them easier to burn straight to CD without image resize. Never will this happen otherwise. RAW 12 mp no compreeion 14 bit. 



usayit said:


> Romphotog said:
> 
> 
> > a 1T external HDD goes for $99 at B&H and J&R.  I would suggest not using max res, but going lower by 2 stops.  If your camera has max 12mp, go down to 8mp, and use normal or economy quality.  I use 4mp economy just to shoot quick in burst mode.  I get 750kb instead of 2.5mb using 6mp fine.  My 4gb card didnt fill up on a 5 day Vegas trip.
> ...



+1



~Michael~


----------



## matfoster (Feb 13, 2010)

IMO, Rennie's post isn't spam. spam is unsolicited, indiscriminate, bulk advertising. his response is none of those and pertinent to the thread (even if he works for MB...or is a bot, lol)


----------



## iflynething (Feb 13, 2010)

matfoster said:


> IMO, Rennie's post isn't spam. spam is unsolicited, indiscriminate, bulk advertising. his response is none of those and pertinent to the thread (even if he works for MB...or is a bot, lol)



Oh no, of course not!

~Michael~


----------



## Romphotog (Feb 14, 2010)

iflynething said:


> RAW 12 mp no compreeion 14 bit.
> 
> ~Michael~


 
If you are using RAW you must be a pro, a paid photog who makes mucho $$$ from his shots.  If you make posters, large prints, etc. you might feel reducing MPs sacrifices quality.  However, that is not so as a 35mm ISO100 negative, or slide film, compared to digital is 96mp.  And I am sure digital won't ever go up to 96mp.  
How many digital cameras have full frame or APS size sensors?   
Thus, using digital vs. film reduces quality as is anyway. 
However, using an SLR (which have bigger sensors than P&S) set to 8mp or even 6mp is enough for most jobs.  My bro's wedding was shot using an SLR 6mp jpg fine and the prints were just fine.


----------



## iflynething (Feb 15, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> iflynething said:
> 
> 
> > RAW 12 mp no compreeion 14 bit.
> ...



No, I don't sacrifice lost data to save room. It's not about MP to me. It's about a RAW image that captures 14 bits of data. It's about a RAW file that has 68,719,476,736 colors in 12 bit or 4,398,046,511,104 in 14 bit vs the 16,777,216 of color per channel for a JPEG.

I shoot RAW for flexibility, not because I am a pro

~Michael~

~Michael~


----------



## usayit (Feb 15, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> If you are using RAW you must be a pro, a paid photog who makes mucho $$$ from his shots.  If you make posters, large prints, etc. you might feel reducing MPs sacrifices quality.  However, that is not so as a 35mm ISO100 negative, or slide film, compared to digital is 96mp.  And I am sure digital won't ever go up to 96mp.  Thus, using digital vs. film reduces quality as is anyway.



Huh?  Don't quite understand this part.  Purposely degrading a digital negative is ok because it isn't as good as a 35mm negative?   I think you are there is a lack of understanding between the pros and cons of RAW versus reduced JPG files...  there is a lot more going on than simply file size.  Disk space is already cheap and getting cheaper each year..  You can always buy more space.  It is certainly less valuable than the photos stored.

You only get to make that choice once..   Once the file has been reduced the data is gone and can never be recovered.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 16, 2010)

iflynething said:


> The Drobo, while very nice, is out of my price range right now.
> 
> I was looking at Best Buy and saw some 1.5TB drives. I don't know the difference between the Essnetial and Home Edition. I think there is even a World edition but the price is so great, what would be best?
> 
> ...


 
I have the slightly older version of this:
Newegg.com - HP MediaSmart EX490, Windows Home Server w&#47; Intel Celeron 2.2 Ghz 2GB DDR2 1TB HDD installed &#40;three open bay&#41;, 4 USB &#38; 1 eSATA expansion ports , Mac Compatible - Server Systems

It's the one of the best things I've ever spent money one. Do some research on Windows Home Server and you'll see why.


----------



## adamcoupe (Feb 16, 2010)

Hi

With 1TB external drives at less than £90 then just keep adding them to your system after implementing some sort of priorisation system.  Also backup key work to DVD - never trust HD's completely! 

Adam
Commercial Photography - Portfolio - Adam Coupe Photography


----------



## Romphotog (Feb 16, 2010)

usayit said:


> Huh? Don't quite understand this part. Purposely degrading a digital negative is ok because it isn't as good as a 35mm negative?


 
You misunderstood me.  I was pointing out that 35mm, slide film, and medium format or full format film has much higher res and MPs than digital, about 96mp.  Again, how many APS size sensors or full format digital cameras are there?  Ever heard of crop factor?

Now suppose you shot a wedding using a DSLR 10 years ago.  What was the highest res?  3mps?  Were you happy using it?  Thus, that's what you are stuck with.  You cant re-shoot the wedding even if you have a 12mp DSLR now.  Going down to 6mp from 12mp max simply goes down to the max of 5 years ago, no big deal.
5-10years from now we'll be up to 24mps.  So whatever is highest res now is a joke in a few years.  Only film res is constant.



> You only get to make that choice once.. Once the file has been reduced the data is gone and can never be recovered.


 
I agree.  And once a wedding is shot using 3mp, 6mp, or 12mp it can never be redone even if MPs go up.  Thus, the MP argument is a moot point.
BTW, isnt RAW proprietary and you need special software to process it?
jpg is far easier to work with.


----------



## usayit (Feb 16, 2010)

no I didn't misunderstand....  

I fail to see why anyone would arguing that a loosing data/quality in an image file has anything to do with the existence of film or past lower resolution cameras.  That failed argument could be used to question any technological advancement...

By the way... I still shoot film... so I understand the film versus digital debate but it has zero to do with this discussion of saving space.  

AND NO..  RAW is far more easier and less limiting than JPG which you fail to understand.


----------



## Paparoksguitar (Feb 16, 2010)

usayit said:


> Romphotog said:
> 
> 
> > If you are using RAW you must be a pro, a paid photog who makes mucho $$$ from his shots.  If you make posters, large prints, etc. you might feel reducing MPs sacrifices quality.  However, that is not so as a 35mm ISO100 negative, or slide film, compared to digital is 96mp.  And I am sure digital won't ever go up to 96mp.  Thus, using digital vs. film reduces quality as is anyway.
> ...



I agree. Always shoot raw. its just easier.

I invested in a 120 gig portable hard drive. Plug it into the USB and best part about it is i can backup all my preferences and my favorite photos on there if anything should happen to my computer.

I will say it wasn't too expensive. Certainly more expensive that just sifting through old photos an deleting them, but definitly under 100 dollars and its so much less of a hassle. I am in love with mine.


----------



## iflynething (Feb 16, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? Don't quite understand this part. Purposely degrading a digital negative is ok because it isn't as good as a 35mm negative?
> ...



Would you buy a Ford Pinto if you had the money for a Lamborghini?

No, well I wouldn't. My point is that is then and this is now. 12 MP is plenty enough but why shoot with _less_ quality of an image just to save space. Just because you have the _capability_ to shoot lower resolution because that's what is_ was_ doesn't mean you should. Plus, if you are shooting professionally, you're not going to shoot JPEG to "save space"

There is no arguing that.

~Michael~


----------



## Darkhunter139 (Feb 16, 2010)

I dont see why you would not shoot at max res...storage is so cheap now. You can get 1TB hard drives for under $100.  I am planning on getting an external hard drive soon to backup my photos.


----------



## usayit (Feb 17, 2010)

I guess what Romphotog is trying to say is that lower than camera max resolution and jpeg is good enough therefore save the disk space.  What is wrong with that statement is that lower resolution/jpeg isn't good enough for most people here.  Especially when most of us have an investment in equipment and want to squeeze every little bit out of the equipment. 

I divide my photos into two groups; snapshots of me just having fun and photos that I am dedicate attention to.  The fun snaps are saved as JPEG at the highest quality for prosperity.  The rest make it into the archive at their MAX.  Anything less is like enlarging a 35mm negative frame to a 4x6 and throwing away the negative itself.  This is all done in post and saving disk space has nothing to do with it.  

Never the less... the camera is glued at full resolution / raw.  There is absolutely no reason not too start with the best image file possible at the beginning of your workflow.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 17, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> You misunderstood me. I was pointing out that 35mm, slide film, and medium format or full format film has much higher res and MPs than digital, about 96mp. Again, how many APS size sensors or full format digital cameras are there? Ever heard of crop factor?


 
What does crop factor have to do with the number of pixels? It's just the size of pixels in comparison with other formats that it really affects when looking at number of pixels per sensor.

And 96mp? That seems like a _very_ generous number. I think the FBI concluded that 35mm film is about equal to a 16mp image.

SWGIT Guidelines for Field Applications of Imaging Technologies in the Criminal Justice System


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 17, 2010)

Darkhunter139 said:


> I dont see why you would not shoot at max res...storage is so cheap now. You can get 1TB hard drives for under $100. I am planning on getting an external hard drive soon to backup my photos.


 
I shot a concert about two weeks ago. I had almost 20GB of images. That was roughly 650 images. Given, most of them are going down the toilet as there were strobes and strobes can really play hell with timing, but how many people own a camera where 20GB of space gets you only 650 images? I know on my 8mp 30D when I put a clean 8GB card in it shows 999 in the image counter and not 250 like on my new snapshotter.


----------



## Romphotog (Feb 21, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> And 96mp? That seems like a _very_ generous number. I think the FBI concluded that 35mm film is about equal to a 16mp image.


 
I wouldnt give a goat's excrement for what the FBI concluded... much less in 2001.
Back in 2001 16mp might've been a fantastically futuristic number.  There even wasnt a 16mp camera back then.  Even today, how many P&S are 16mp, DSLRs are up to what? So comparing a res of a 35mm film to what they imagined would be is loco and silly.  35mm film is 96mp if all other factors are the same.  Res of film does not increase, it is constant.
BTW, what can you do with a 24mp camera that you cant with a 12mp one?

Did you know that in 1975 a 10mb hard disk drive was considered so large that it was a fantasy.  At P.C.Richards I was told that computer RAM wouldnt go up to 128mb for many years... that was in 1995.  And the HDD was 850mb.  Just because I _could_ get a 500gb HDD today, does not mean I should stuff it up with pics, MP3, AVIs, etc.


----------



## iflynething (Feb 21, 2010)

Darkhunter139 said:


> I dont see why you would not shoot at max res...storage is so cheap now. You can get 1TB hard drives for under $100.  I am planning on getting an external hard drive soon to backup my photos.




Get it now! Well I am going to have to eat my words since I still have yet to get mine!


usayit said:


> I guess what Romphotog is trying to say is that lower than camera max resolution and jpeg is good enough therefore save the disk space.  What is wrong with that statement is that lower resolution/jpeg isn't good enough for most people here.  Especially when most of us have an investment in equipment and want to squeeze every little bit out of the equipment.
> 
> I divide my photos into two groups; snapshots of me just having fun and photos that I am dedicate attention to.  The fun snaps are saved as JPEG at the highest quality for prosperity.  The rest make it into the archive at their MAX.  Anything less is like enlarging a 35mm negative frame to a 4x6 and throwing away the negative itself.  This is all done in post and saving disk space has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Never the less... the camera is glued at full resolution / raw.  There is absolutely no reason not too start with the best image file possible at the beginning of your workflow.



I wish I could do that. The way I sort my pictures, they're just in categories. There are no just snapshots. I have family/friends and subcategories  under that, trips, etc, but they all go under pictures and I don't discriminate on snapshots and definite keepers.



Village Idiot said:


> Darkhunter139 said:
> 
> 
> > I dont see why you would not shoot at max res...storage is so cheap now. You can get 1TB hard drives for under $100. I am planning on getting an external hard drive soon to backup my photos.
> ...



Well most people don't but you get what you pay for, image quality.



Romphotog said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > And 96mp? That seems like a _very_ generous number. I think the FBI concluded that 35mm film is about equal to a 16mp image.
> ...



That's a very interesting number. I was reading in a magazine about older thing, cameras and such and about the 32mb card. That would cover 1, maybe 2 of todays RAW files!

~Michael~


----------



## Romphotog (Feb 23, 2010)

Could some explain to me if you could get a 24mp camera in 5 years what can you do with it that you cannot with today's 8, 10, 12mps?
Will sensor size also increase?  Will all SLRs be full frame?  
Likewise, if HDD will be 10TB, will you stuff them up with 50mb RAW shots instead of 2mb jpegs?


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 23, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > And 96mp? That seems like a _very_ generous number. I think the FBI concluded that 35mm film is about equal to a 16mp image.
> ...


 
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_megapixels_would_it_take_to_equal_a_35mm_film_maximum_quality
http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html
http://technicalconclusions.wordpress.com/2007/01/05/photography-digital-vs-film/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography

Most every answer I find says about 20MP.



Romphotog said:


> BTW, what can you do with a 24mp camera that you cant with a 12mp one?
> 
> Did you know that in 1975 a 10mb hard disk drive was considered so large that it was a fantasy. At P.C.Richards I was told that computer RAM wouldnt go up to 128mb for many years... that was in 1995. And the HDD was 850mb. Just because I _could_ get a 500gb HDD today, does not mean I should stuff it up with pics, MP3, AVIs, etc.


 
Print larger, clearer prints. Plus a larger sized file printed at a small size will show less apparent noise. Downsizing a digital photo also inceases apparent sharpness. Would you rather enlarge a file so that the details become fuzzier? Plus I can crop a good deal and not worry about having a digital file that's too small. I shot a portrait orientation photo and cropped it to landscape and still have a file that's about 3,500 pixels on the long side.

I have a server that after my 3rd HDD arrives, will have 2.75TB of total space. It also provides redudancy and backups. The space will eventually get used. What's the point in having a smaller drive where you have to constantly hunt for space?


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 23, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> Could some explain to me if you could get a 24mp camera in 5 years what can you do with it that you cannot with today's 8, 10, 12mps?
> Will sensor size also increase? Will all SLRs be full frame?
> Likewise, if HDD will be 10TB, will you stuff them up with 50mb RAW shots instead of 2mb jpegs?


 
You can get a 24mp camera now. I have a 21. There's also 50mp cameras.


----------



## iflynething (Feb 23, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> Could some explain to me if you could get a 24mp camera in 5 years what can you do with it that you cannot with today's 8, 10, 12mps?
> Will sensor size also increase?  Will all SLRs be full frame?
> Likewise, if HDD will be 10TB, will you stuff them up with 50mb RAW shots instead of 2mb jpegs?



Yes Yes and Yes

~Michael~


----------



## Joves (Feb 24, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> Could some explain to me if you could get a 24mp camera in 5 years what can you do with it that you cannot with today's 8, 10, 12mps?
> Will sensor size also increase? Will all SLRs be full frame?
> Likewise, if HDD will be 10TB, will you stuff them up with 50mb RAW shots instead of 2mb jpegs?


 
Well for one greater resolutions for printing. Yes I will stuff a 10 Tb with the largest file. Fact is I will most likely have 2- 10Tb drives and one external that size, that would have nothing but photos on it. Right now my backup external is 500gigs for photos only and, my System backup, both of which are stored in a fireproof safe. Then there is my online storage as well. 
  In 35 format maybe. In Medium and Large yes and, that 96MP may not be that far off in the future. Fact is it will most likely be greater.
  No not all SLRs will be Full Frame. While the costs of producing the wafers may drop, using the smaller sensor size will still give the companies the most profit per unit so cropped units will remain. Also they are the favorite of most wild life shooters. Cropped sensors will get better High ISOs if anything.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Feb 24, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> Could some explain to me if you could get a 24mp camera in 5 years what can you do with it that you cannot with today's 8, 10, 12mps?


 
Well for one, when my fashion clients ask can we crop in on that and still put it in the book or bilboard, I can say yes.



Romphotog said:


> Will sensor size also increase? Will all SLRs be full frame?


 
I don't think all will be, but there will be many more on the market, but crop frames will be in the consumer market for a while yet.



Romphotog said:


> Likewise, if HDD will be 10TB, will you stuff them up with 50mb RAW shots instead of 2mb jpegs?


 
Yes, it gives me the ability to pull the most detail out and are better for manipulation than JPG. As well I would have 4 or 5 10TB Drives as I have 5X1TB drives now.


----------

