On 2 Jan 2006 at 11:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I can't justify spending oodles of money on my photography hobby. I've > already spent way more than I initially planned anyway. > > But data recovery is more possible for a crashed HD than a bum DVD, right?
I think you have to consider the potential volume of loss, these days a catastrophic drive failure could loose you 500GB of data with no chance of recovery whereas at worst you will loose 4.7GB of data per DVD. There is far less to go wrong with a DVD than a drive, a well authored disc should be readable in any DVD compatible player, they are difficult to physically damage and if used for back-up the more paranoid can inexpensively create several copies to distribute around the planet. > Now that I think about it, I don't feel any of these archival methods are > quite satisfactory. It would be nice to have negatives. Maybe someday they > can > come up with a way to make something similar for JPEGS or RAW. Do you seriously think that film is a good image storage method? > I suppose if one is smart one back ups one's back ups every four to six > years. Since forms of media change. Computers will change and HDs and HD > connections will change too. I migrated my library from CD to DVD, I saved storage space and I sent my old media to remote storage. Each time a stable new storage technology which offers significant improvement in data volume and is widely adopted then I'll migrate my data there, all the while my old films will be slowly (hopefully) degrading and fading. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
