If you use memory cards like film...how do you store / organize them?

[SCraig]

1. Come home and copy everything I shot into a temporary working directory on my computer.

2. Copy everything from the temporary working directory into two archive directories, one on each drive in my computer. The archive directory has subdirectories for each year, and in there DVD-sized directories containing my RAW files.

3. When a directory has about 4.2gb in it it gets written to (2) DVD's. One stays home, the other goes to my office.

4. Index the images in PicaJet FX which allows me to browse every digital photograph I've ever taken.

5. Nothing EVER gets deleted unless from the archive directories unless it is absolute total garbage or unless I fill up a disk drive. When I fill a disk I'll delete some of the older stuff since I do have two backup copies on DVD.

 

[manaheim]

The fact is you just can't blame loss on bad planning or inappropriate level of protection for critical resources.

Of course you can! I think probably every data loss I've ever had was a result of bad planning and/or inappropriate protection level.

You know that made perfect sense when I wrote it...

I think you know what I mean though.

The problem here isn't the hard drive... it's not keeping in mind the limitations and liabilities of any chosen technology and compensating appropriately.

 

[Derrel]

This is a lot like the people who scream, "WHY play vinyl records? Why buy vinyl records!? Just convert your ENTIRE collection to .MP3 or .ACC and then give the vinyl to Goodwill! You're an idiot to own 458 vinyl LP's--put ALL of the music into .MP3's! Doah! Vinyl records are for IDIOTS!!!! Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a year. Jesus!"

 

[manaheim]

This is a lot like the people who scream, "WHY play vinyl records? Why buy vinyl records!? Just convert your ENTIRE collection to .MP3 or .ACC and then give the vinyl to Goodwill! You're an idiot to own 458 vinyl LP's--put ALL of the music into .MP3's! Doah! Vinyl records are for IDIOTS!!!! Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a year. Jesus!"

Ummm... it is? Are you arguing for the use of memory cards over hard drives? I'm confused.

I don't see the relation at all... regardless of what your position on it is.

I mean the mp3 vs vinyl thing is all about dynamic range and quality and such, which doesn't really play in here at all.

 

[Ballistics]

This is a lot like the people who scream, "WHY play vinyl records? Why buy vinyl records!? Just convert your ENTIRE collection to .MP3 or .ACC and then give the vinyl to Goodwill! You're an idiot to own 458 vinyl LP's--put ALL of the music into .MP3's! Doah! Vinyl records are for IDIOTS!!!! Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a year. Jesus!"

Not really. We're talking about workflows and efficiency. Vinyl records analogy would be better suited for the film vs digital argument.

 

[manaheim]

This is a lot like the people who scream, "WHY play vinyl records? Why buy vinyl records!? Just convert your ENTIRE collection to .MP3 or .ACC and then give the vinyl to Goodwill! You're an idiot to own 458 vinyl LP's--put ALL of the music into .MP3's! Doah! Vinyl records are for IDIOTS!!!! Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a year. Jesus!"

Not really. We're talking about workflows and efficiency. Vinyl records analogy would be better suited for the film vs digital argument.

Right.

 

[Ballistics]

This is a lot like the people who scream, "WHY play vinyl records? Why buy vinyl records!? Just convert your ENTIRE collection to .MP3 or .ACC and then give the vinyl to Goodwill! You're an idiot to own 458 vinyl LP's--put ALL of the music into .MP3's! Doah! Vinyl records are for IDIOTS!!!! Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a year. Jesus!"

Not really. We're talking about workflows and efficiency. Vinyl records analogy would be better suited for the film vs digital argument.

Right.

You beat me to the punch lol.

 

[Josh66]

This is a lot like the people who scream, "WHY play vinyl records? Why buy vinyl records!? Just convert your ENTIRE collection to .MP3 or .ACC and then give the vinyl to Goodwill! You're an idiot to own 458 vinyl LP's--put ALL of the music into .MP3's! Doah! Vinyl records are for IDIOTS!!!! Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a year. Jesus!"

Not really. We're talking about workflows and efficiency. Vinyl records analogy would be better suited for the film vs digital argument.

Right.

If you read Derrel's post, he is talking about workflow/efficiency - not quality (where the vinyl argument would be used in the digital/film debate)...


...the way I'm reading it anyway.

 

[Ballistics]

Not really. We're talking about workflows and efficiency. Vinyl records analogy would be better suited for the film vs digital argument.

Right.

If you read Derrel's post, he is talking about workflow/efficiency - not quality (where the vinyl argument would be used in the digital/film debate)...

Kind of... but again, not really. The reason why I say that is because our initial argument is about efficiency, where as the vinyl argument brings in quality.

WHY play vinyl records? Why buy vinyl records!?

This is the questions asked in the beginning, and the answer has nothing to do with being more efficient, but because the quality is different.

He then talks about the time consumed accessing your records vs digital files... where as in the case of occupational workflow makes a difference(Radio, DJ) but if you are just listening to music, then preference prevails.

 

[manaheim]

Whatever the case, can we close the thread now? The whole thing has become very stupid.

 

[Josh66]

This is the questions asked in the beginning, and the answer has nothing to do with being more efficient ...

Oh, but it does. "Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a year. Jesus!"

(Not "more efficient", but it is dealing with efficiency.)

 

[Josh66]

I took his post as satire. In that light, it makes perfect sense to me.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Did the original question ever get answered?

Put them in a shoe box organized by date.

Ok, you can close it now.

 

[Ballistics]

This is the questions asked in the beginning, and the answer has nothing to do with being more efficient ...

Oh, but it does. "Everybody knows that! You want ALL your music in ONE location!!! So you can access infrequently-accessed songs in 4.9 seconds once or twice a year. Jesus!"

I know, I said that, but it's still different.

I asked why she converted from RAW to TIFF... that's got nothing in common with Vinyl vs MP3 in this case. People buy vinyl because it sounds different, converting from Raw to Tiff holds no weight in any category.

 

[bentcountershaft]

You know, when cassettes got popular they really we're kind of step backwards with all that fast forwarding business. LPs and 8 tracks you could skip right to the magic.