We may have seen more digital enterprises fail than you have Old Gregg.
Or go from being free or very low cost to expensive. Any former PhotoBucket users here?
A couple of my IT friends advise against cloud backup as a primary security backup, for just that reason.
Gee I hope the Webb telescope doesn't fail too soon. We paid about $10 billion for it and ten years of work to get it up there.In my over fifty years of engineering and computer science experience, I have seen many more computer systems failures than human failures. You just hang out with the wrong group of people. That is all there is to it.
Gee I hope the Webb telescope doesn't fail too soon. We paid about $10 billion for it and ten years of work to get it up there.
They didn;t put it in backward. They ground the big glass incorrectly so the telescope was nearsighted or farsighted just like a person. So they calculated what correction glasses it needed and sent it up with an astronaut to install. Of course, with the Webb, it's going to be millions of miles away from earth. So if there's a problem, I don't know how they would fix it. They better get it right and working the first time which is sort of like shooting large format 4x5 film shot for the first time and getting it perfect.At least they did not put in the measurement device backwards like they did on the Hubble.
That's why they don't work for me, Matt. Just for that reason.
That's quite a pessimistic view. All but the final issue in your list are easy to control, and if the shoebox issue happens then the photographer's friends and family either hate him, hate his work, or both.When you die, if your photos are one a cloud service - no one will know about it.
If they are on a removable hard drive - no one will even hook it up.
If they are on a Macbook - no one will have the password.
If they are in a shoebox, someone will find them. Then they'll throw them out.
I've never had a lab scan that was as good as what I could get from my own scanner, even when I was using a 1998 flatbed scanner. Short of a wet mount drum scanner, however, the best negative scans I've seen to date were done with image stitching from digital camera (DSLR or mirrorless) images using a slide copy setup or copy stand and scanning frame; they can pull every possible bit of information out of a negative or slide (with the caveat that the resulting files are enormous).
I still prefer, when possible, to make prints of my favorite images, but one strong advantage of a scanner is it sits on my desk and therefore requires less prep and cleanup time to use than my darkroom. If I only printed, I'd have a huge backlog of negatives, B&W and color, that I'd never seen in positive form. At the very least, low- to medium-resolution scanning (by whatever method, even cell phone) is an excellent way of proofing negatives, and fairly quickly pays for itself compared to getting prints made by the lab if you're sending your film out, not to mention being much faster than even contact sheets.
That's quite a pessimistic view. All but the final issue in your list are easy to control, and if the shoebox issue happens then the photographer's friends and family either hate him, hate his work, or both.
And yet here I was, nodding my head as I read it.It was mostly a joke.
They were financial failures! Businesses that went under, leaving subscribers high and dry.In my over fifty years of engineering and computer science experience, I have seen many more computer systems failures thanhumannegative failures. You just hang out with the wrong group of people. That is all there is to it.
Gotcha.It was mostly a joke.
Gotcha.
Plus, what was considered a BIG scan 20 years ago is now considered a "thumbnail" scan today. having the negative means that you can re-scan it at today's quality standards. and ten years from now you can re-scan it again at tomorrows standards and perhaps format. Way back you got a 640X480 Gif file with 256 colours and you thought it looked great on the computer.Yes, time has shown that properly stored negative can last many decades and are not impacted with computer crashes or operating systems upgrades.
Plus, what was considered a BIG scan 20 years ago is now considered a "thumbnail" scan today. having the negative means that you can re-scan it at today's quality standards. and ten years from now you can re-scan it again at tomorrows standards and perhaps format. Way back you got a 640X480 Gif file with 256 colours and you thought it looked great on the computer.
@Paul Howell keeping the negatives is a good idea, but suggesting that cloud services are less reliable or less durable or less secure than someone's house is just absurd. The probabilities of of mice peeing on your negatives, or house fire/flood/earthquake are all higher than probability of your scans disappearing after clicking "backup to cloud" checkbox in your backup software. The biggest threat to digital assets is human error - forgetting the checkbox, or deleting your data by mistake (humans always manage!)
This topic is something that has been mind boggling as a newbie for a while but film developing shops there's are separate listings in that you can purchase "Developing" which is one price another option is "Scanning". What I don't understand from my limited knowledge is that I know that developing is something you cannot avoid to process film but my question is why are they separated because wouldn't you want to buy them both no matter what because those two procedures are needed to actually SEE your photos? What are the scenarios that would occur to ONLY scan your film or ONLY develop your film. Please educate me.
AWS as a "cloud provider" is very good. A "cloud service" running on AWS is only as good as the people running it, and I have seen some seriously poor process management, and poor data practices. The smaller companies running a "cloud service" on top of someone else's "cloud provider" (such as AWS, Azure, etc.), may not have to worry about hardware or bandwidth, but that doesn't mean their software is reliable.No. Cloud services, as you correctly stated in the more rational part of the comment, is way way more than just "someone else's computer". Cloud storage backup is a carefully designed system (which includes your local storage, by the way) plus operations+maintenance done by professionals, with the goal of minimizing the probability of a data loss, including human errors, to an absolute minimum. And that minimum is vastly lower. Incomparably lower, than safety/security of one's house.
No-- How many? Please give specific numbers.Do you know how many people accidentally destroyed their home-stored negatives just today in the USA? Sorry, those numbers are not in the news.
I've been an IT Admin for the past 30 years, first doing Windows desktop deployment, then Novell servers, then Windows servers, and now Unix/Linux servers, currently managing about 2-300 web / file / database servers and research workstations. My primary focus is automation, configuration management, and network security. My opinions are sometimes controversial, but they are based on a very long, successful career.I happen to know way more about cloud services than photography, because it's a much bigger hobby of mine and also a career. I struggle to take any computer-related opinions posted here seriously.
An iOS bug led to data that people thought was being backed up to the cloud being instead deleted without being recoverable. Another, earlier bug, led to iCloud documents being deleted-- again, without being recoverable. AWS is a major provider of cloud services, and when they went down in December, there were major application outages across the internet. Sorry-- My stuff is mission critical, and we can't afford "the cloud" being unavailable-- if our EMR system goes down, people could quite literally die. Code42 provides "CrashPlan", a cloud backup service-- why you think it has nothing to do with computers, I truly do not know. People who were relying on crashplan for backing up their home data to the cloud were left hanging, and needing a new service, because of a management decision.What does iOS have to do with anything? And why AWS network outage has anything to do with data loss? Not even bothering with irrelevant Code42 randomness as it's not even computer related.
We are better at handling data loss than we used to be. Still not perfect. Cloud services are easier to maintain for the average company, because the cloud providers do all the heavy lifting-- but that's still not a magic solution. There can still be problems, there can still be human error. I hear people regularly talking about how "the cloud" solves all the problems-- it doesn't. It just moves the problems to someone else's desk.But... the fact that computers can fail is absolutely and utterly irrelevant. Because we know how to design around those.
Or one admin failing to re-enable a job, or a process running incorrectly, or your one-click software gets confused, and instructs the cloud to erase all 6 of your cloud-based copies. Not impossible, and has happened before, and will happen again.Just get your digitized data to a PC+NAS+S3 (consumerised one-click option) and your images will be a thousand times safer vs stored in your house. That's 7 copies across 4 locations. To lose your images, your house with both the computer and the NAS need to burn down on the same day as AWS goes out of business and losing 3 data centers to floods and fires, again ALL ON THE SAME DAY.
Again-- you're assuming that the applications on the virtual servers being run on AWS (which has already shown it can be fallible) are run with the same level of care and caution as the AWS host servers. You're also assuming that financial risk leads to responsible behavior-- we learned that wasn't true in 2001 and 2008.Another way to think about it is this: an AWS failure will result in a trillion+ dollars worth of losses across numerous organizations. It is safe to assume that they have spent appropriate resources and hired brainy people to prevent that from happening. It would be foolish to assume that a physical copy stored in a house is more secure than that.
If you want to save some of them, take the best and make a photo album like in the old days. People will pick up an album and look through it and save it if they feel they want to.One thing, though, on a serious note. I doubt photos will mean as much to people in the near future as they have to people in the near past. It's far too difficult to wade through ten thousand of your own photos - let alone someone else's. So, I would anticipate very few people will "take over" maintaining someone's posthumous digital photo archive. People are far less likely to discard a shoebox of photos than wipe a laptop and sell it.
Gregg: What is this?You are contradicting yourself. No. Cloud services, as you correctly stated in the more rational part of the comment, is way way more than just "someone else's computer". Cloud storage backup is a carefully designed system (which includes your local storage, by the way) plus operations+maintenance done by professionals, with the goal of minimizing the probability of a data loss, including human errors, to an absolute minimum. And that minimum is vastly lower. Incomparably lower, than safety/security of one's house.
Do you know how many people accidentally destroyed their home-stored negatives just today in the USA? Sorry, those numbers are not in the news.
I happen to know way more about cloud services than photography, because it's a much bigger hobby of mine and also a career. I struggle to take any computer-related opinions posted here seriously. Your comment barely makes any sense. What does iOS have to do with anything? And why AWS network outage has anything to do with data loss? Not even bothering with irrelevant Code42 randomness as it's not even computer related. You are just enumerating irrelevant computer-related bugs for no reason. Of course computers have bugs. Memory flips bits, packets get lost, HDD sectors fail and SSD controllers flip to read-only mode. Oh! And ransomware attacks! Let's bring in those too. But... the fact that computers can fail is absolutely and utterly irrelevant. Because we know how to design around those.
It is taught in schools and used everywhere, in finance, government, defense, manufacturing, etc. The same technology that keeps your IRA balance, your credit history and social security contributions is also available for your negatives. We have products in place that account for failures and they're wrapped in extremely user friendly interfaces these days. But we don't have anything with similar guarantees against physical destruction of negatives by accident or natural disaster.
Just get your digitized data to a PC+NAS+S3 (consumerised one-click option) and your images will be a thousand times safer vs stored in your house. That's 7 copies across 4 locations. To lose your images, your house with both the computer and the NAS need to burn down on the same day as AWS goes out of business and losing 3 data centers to floods and fires, again ALL ON THE SAME DAY.
Another way to think about it is this: an AWS failure will result in a trillion+ dollars worth of losses across numerous organizations. It is safe to assume that they have spent appropriate resources and hired brainy people to prevent that from happening. It would be foolish to assume that a physical copy stored in a house is more secure than that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?