| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2012 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 525 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Very interesting Rich, thanks for posting.
It leads me to wonder if we really do NEED to keep 15 Terrabytes (times three?) of images in constantly accessible storage. Much of it could reasonably be archived and probably never looked at again except perhaps on rare occasions.
It would take a very long time to review that many photographs, let alone do anything meaningful with them. There must be a HUGE amount of repetition in the archive.
I went through my collection last year and reduced it from 36,000 images to 12,000 images. I could probably halve that again without disposing of anything I would regret loosing.
When it comes down to it there are probably only a few hundred I would actually treasure.
In my opinion many of us make a rod for our own back.
As time goes by and file sizes steadily increase, the storage issue is going to get much harder to solve. So far most of us only have around ten years worth of digital images and the early ones are tiny. This to a large extent can be eased by not keeping 15 or 20 versions of the same image. The best 1, 2 or 3 should be chosen and the rest discarded.
I agree Robert. I'm actually thinking about online storage as backup for myself, but only for a very much trimmed down set of photos. I think I might have some free capacity available with my recent Adobe Cloud subscription, but I am also considering paid drop box or Amazon S3. Currently I have most of my photos on at least two drives, one is raid mirrored and the other(s) are various hard drives I sporadically backup onto, but it is hardly a structured approach and they all live in our house, so one fire and they're all gone. The only set I have properly backed up are our wedding photos, I have a full set in Dropbox.