cloud storage ?...hope mentioning cloud doesn't scare anybody

[Eric Rose]

I run my own "cloud" servers. One locally and another off site. They are my boxes, managed by me. I store nothing on Apple, Samsung or Google clouds.

 

[jtk]

I run my own "cloud" servers. One locally and another off site. They are my boxes, managed by me. I store nothing on Apple, Samsung or Google clouds.

Great! Can you retrieve everything as quickly, easily and perfectly from one of your boxes as the other? In event of your death can your work be retrieved and printed by someone else? (i.e. have you trained somebody else how to retrieve your work, perhaps put that instruction in your will?).

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is a simple one. I do not put any of my photographs on line and I do not back up any photographs in cloud storage. I will take my chances with the tinder dry climate in the US Southwest, thank you.

 

[blockend]

I think this thread is going really well.

I'm betting on real clouds. Water droplets act as carriers for pixels. Ethernet uses anaesthetic. Hard drives are history.

 

[pdeeh]

I'm betting on real clouds. Water droplets act as carriers for pixels. Ethernet uses anaesthetic. Hard drives are history.

pfft.

dna mate

https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4079

 

[Sirius Glass]

The only clouds that I am interested in are for rain and photographs.

 

[jtk]

This is a simple one. I do not put any of my photographs on line and I do not back up any photographs in cloud storage. I will take my chances with the tinder dry climate in the US Southwest, thank you.

That's entirely reasonable.

I was "taking my chances" for a long time, but eventually realized that I was responsible for much of my family's history (photographers since the 1800s) and for a collection of photos documenting an unknown family's history of exile in China... my personal photo "art" history began to seem relevant ...all of that led me to scanning everything, printing and distributing much of it a long time ago.

It's sad that some folks find scanning and printing beyond their capacity in 2018... odd that they apparently have some level of computer skill, given that they post here and recommend Flickr. Some seem to own a lot of shoe boxes... I dated a girl like that...great cook, but she didn't print.

It's perfectly fine that most make their own decisions about the relative future value of their own work, vs the risk to that work from failing to properly store it...whatever "properly store" means.

 

[Eric Rose]

Great! Can you retrieve everything as quickly, easily and perfectly from one of your boxes as the other? In event of your death can your work be retrieved and printed by someone else? (i.e. have you trained somebody else how to retrieve your work, perhaps put that instruction in your will?).

Yes I can and when I die it will be in my will to take a hammer to the hard drives destroying all the content.

 

[blockend]

I was "taking my chances" for a long time

Until 20 years ago every photograph in the world was taking its chances. Flickr is fine but has changed hands 3 times already. I wouldn't bet on it as an open access resource for future generations, but who knows? Digital media is in its infancy. The best way of anyone's photographs surviving is for them to become famous. That way they're spread in multiple domains and the hands of collectors with a financial investment in their future. Museums have people with PhDs in archiving, we guess. Today's cloud is yesterday's microfiche.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...ballistic missiles, I suppose I should have some really distant offsite backup.

... They'll be too busy catching rats to eat and gathering rags to wear.
...

Once we get to ballistic missiles and catching rats, I don't think any form of archival storage here is going to be important.

This is why I'm scheduling a meeting with Elon Musk about my idea of sending canisters of prints to the Moon and Mars as backup. Initially it's one-way. Retrieval costs extra.

 

[BAC1967]

This is why I'm scheduling a meeting with Elon Musk about my idea of sending canisters of prints to the Moon and Mars as backup. Initially it's one-way. Retrieval costs extra.

Cosmic radiation will destroy them.

 

[Fin]

Surely you don't mean something like a 7-track Univac, 9-track IBM, or DECtape drive? That's really old school. God help you if it's anything from Iomega.

Tape is not good: the magnetization bleeds across the tape windings over the years. After 10-20 years, it's full of errors.

OK, not that old! LTO2, but none of that new fangled t'internet cloud based stuff, so not exactly cutting edge!

Plus, as a sound engineer (live these days, but formerly studio before it all went proper computery) yes, I know all about tape/magnetic degradation!

 

[hoffy]

I gave my 2 cents worth in one post, but TBH, but after having a good read, I think I am done with this thread. Do what ever you feel is right for your solution. If it means burying it in your back yard, that's cool by me. Lots of people have suggested a cloud solution. Lots of people think that they are selling their soul to the devil by using one.

Cloud is part of A solution. It is not the only solution

Bye

 

[TheRook]

This OT fits perfectly with "ethics and philosophy of photography" because so many of us routinely whistle through the graveyard and falsely try to convince others that allegedly "archival" prints can be counted upon for the next generation.

However, there is no guarantee that a cloud storage company will not go out of business at some point. Some already have. One can only hope to get enough advance notice to relocate one's files in time to prevent permanent loss.

 

[blockend]

However, there is no guarantee that a cloud storage company will not go out of business at some point. Some already have. One can only hope to get enough advance notice to relocate one's files in time to prevent permanent loss.

My first ring binder of negatives is over 40 years old. My sister has the family's shoe boxes going back over a hundred. When people mention photo storage I assume we're talking about those sort of timeframes. I have absolutely no idea what digital storage media will be around in 40 years, much less a century.

In the short term a hosting site like Flickr seems to be secure. Google and Apple clouds will avert immediate disasters. 3 hard drives in different locations is the usual advice for domestic storage. In 40 years I assume accessing those drives will be a specialist business, and retrieval of their contents an expensive matter if the original owner hasn't updated storage media in the meantime. Even if a Google type company were philanthropic enough to preserve all images in their vaults in 40 years, and Google hadn't fragmented into a myriad of smaller units under commercial or political pressure, their subsequent ownership would be unknown. It's impossible to know any of these things.

Photography has moved from a small number of images to a large one. From custodianship of financially or sentimentally valuable items, to disposable ones made by the million. We're in uncharted waters.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

1. There is a long legal User Agreement that comes along with any cloud storage. I am sure, that lawyers have made certain the companies have no obligations of any value and that all risk is on the user. But, I could be wrong.

2. Getting way up to the 50,000 foot view, it's not even clear there will be enough energy to RUN the internet in another 20 years.

 

[Saganich]

Ha, I was thinking the same thing about the energy and resources needed to keep these services viable. One would predict rising costs over time in a stable world. I was considering using a low cost cloud thing to eliminate one domestic side back-up. Makes some sense to keep independent HD's off-site and on terra firma.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

From the End User Agreement at DROPBOX

QUOTE'
You're free to stop using our Services at any time. We also reserve the right to suspend or end the Services at any time at our discretion and without notice. For example, we may suspend or terminate your use of the Services if you're not complying with these Terms, or use the Services in a manner that would cause us legal liability, disrupt the Services or disrupt others' use of the Services. Except for Paid Accounts, we reserve the right to terminate and delete your account if you haven't accessed our Services for 12 consecutive months. We'll of course provide you with notice via the email address associated with your account before we do so.
END QUOTE

The second sentence says it all.

 

[mshchem]

What filter should I use for the cloud?

You beat me to it. K2 medium yellow is the obvious choice , but for such a fearful apocalyptic topic, I would think 25A Red would be best

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Cloud storage seems considerably more risky than local storage. I assumed the only logical reason for cloud was "access from anywhere and any device."

 

[mshchem]

Cloud storage seems considerably more risky than local storage. I assumed the only logical reason for cloud was "access from anywhere and any device."

The only reason for the cloud is to make a crap load of money. Get you tied up with something. Eventually you give up trying to escape and pay "protection money" to save your documents. Google and Facebook will take over someday and we won't even know what happened. Local bank box, if you fear EMP wrap it up in Aluminum foil ( I where an Aluminum foil hat to keep my Samsung TV from reading my thoughts ). Floods, Global warming, that concerns me.
I backup my computer every few months.
Of course I'm speaking from a total amateur view. If I was a commercial photographer it would be a different story. I believe in decentralized power, I would backup nightly, put it in a fire resistant safe, where it was high and dry.

 

[cramej]

You're not telling us where cloud storage takes place. A binary digital source requires binary digital storage. Cloud is a euphemism for a non-local storage system. It doesn't involve water vapour at any point.

Ah,but it does if the energy used to power the data center is generated with steam turbines.

Cloud storage seems considerably more risky than local storage. I assumed the only logical reason for cloud was "access from anywhere and any device."

Cloud storage is - when considering the possibility of data loss - much less risky than local storage. The data is stored in massive RAID arrays that are constantly being repaired and updated. Those companies invest more money than some state government budgets to ensure the systems are protected and reliable.

Cloud storage should be one method of 3 used for a comprehensive backup plan. One local, one disconnected copy stored offsite and one 'networked' or cloud offsite. The local and cloud can be incremental backups and the disconnected copy can be a complete backup on some regular interval.

Someone mentioned Backblaze earlier - very good option for automated incremental backups. They are pioneers in high density storage and regularly publish hard drive reliability reports based on the thousands of drives they use. You can even get plans for their modules and build your own Backblaze-type system.

I use OneDrive and since I have an Office 365 subscription, I get 1TB of storage. Also highly recommended.


There are risks with any storage system. One just needs to accept, mitigate, avoid or reduce those risks.

 

[blockend]

The only reason for the cloud is to make a crap load of money

Yes, paranoia sells. The financial services industry grows rich on fear via the insurance racket. If you can convince everyone their photographs are at risk, you can make a killing. it's banking with people's memories as the currency.