Is 8x10 a good backup size?

[JustJazzie]

You may have read yesterday that my computer is most likely crashing. So I am updating my picture backup library. Before I saved as an aperture vault- but then I can only backup to aperture. I can't find my original key code and if I have to buy a new program it will be light room.

So I am saving JPEGS of all my snap shots that I will probably never print larger than 5x7, and original RAW of the "good stuff"

I've been exporting a little larger than 8x10 So before I make a stupid mistake and export three years of photos wrong I'm doing JPEG, 300dpi pixel size 1024x768 (online says 8x10 is 900x720) srgb....sound right? Is that a decent backup size?

 

[Designer]

If you bought Aperture from Apple iTunes (the Apple app store) then you haven't lost it.

 

[JustJazzie]

If you bought Aperture from Apple iTunes (the Apple app store) then you haven't lost it.

I have the aperture 2 disk. My FIL upgraded me Christmas 2011....I have no Idea how he did it.

 

[Derrel]

300dpi pixel size 1024x768 is a very dinky image, in my book. I look at that as a .75 megapixel image...a three-quarter of a megapixel image...not sure about saving images at such a tiny size...my gosh, they'd probably be 600k images...very low-rez by my way of looking at it.

 

[JustJazzie]

300dpi pixel size 1024x768 is a very dinky image, in my book. I look at that as a .75 megapixel image...a three-quarter of a megapixel image...not sure about saving images at such a tiny size...my gosh, they'd probably be 600k images...very low-rez by my way of looking at it.

So your suggestion would be what? Would that not print a 5x7?

 

[Derrel]

My suggestion would be to save much larger images, like say 6 megapixel JPEG files, which have some "beef" to them... something in the 2.8 megabyte to 3.5 megabyte file storage size, as opposed to very small .75 MP shots that are under 600 kb in size. RAW files of course are nice to have, but in many ways they are not as "usable" as a finished, edited, corrected JPEG. RAW files in many applications only contain instruction sets...you really have no "finished" image for actual, immediate use. I think a "beefier" JPEG file looks better on-screen than a smaller one that has much less information.

 

[lambertpix]

Personally, for the price of HDD space these days (I've seen 3TB drives as low as $109), there's no way I'm throwing away RAWs for anything I have even the slightest passing interest in.

You can never go back once you process & downsize.

 

[gsgary]

Mine go in a negative sleeve

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[apaflo]

Would that not print a 5x7?

If you print, it depends on the printer. Epson printers use 360 PPI, Canon and HP use 300 PPI, and commercial printers are everything from 200 to 406.4 PPI.

Hence, if you are ever going to print an image on a commercial LightJet5000 (used by commercial print labs) you would want the pixel dimensions to be 2032x2845. For an Epson printer, 1800x2520; and for a Canon printer 1500x2100. Those are minimum pixel sizes, as larger won't hurt at all.

Of course it's actually just a guess that 5x7 will be the largest you'd want to print. Who can say what wildness might grow in your mind 10 years from now! You may want an 8x10, a 10x12... or horror of horrors a 16x20!

The message is that disk drives are very cheap, while pixels are not. Save every picture at the original size, and save it in at least two places.

I pulled out some shots made with a 1MP Sony P&S in the late 1990's the other day for a young lady who turned 16. She was always very happy, back then, to let me photograph her. Her two older sisters weren't. So I printed half a dozen of the first pictures I took of her for her birthday. The older sisters (now off to college and not home often) were really excited and wanted copies of them! So I did two things. 1) I printed larger copies of everything for all of them, and 2) I had a lot of fun teasing the two older ones about how nice it would be if only I had 50,000 pictures of them as I do of the little sister!

 

[JustJazzie]

My suggestion would be to save much larger images, like say 6 megapixel JPEG files, which have some "beef" to them... something in the 2.8 megabyte to 3.5 megabyte file storage size, as opposed to very small .75 MP shots that are under 600 kb in size. RAW files of course are nice to have, but in many ways they are not as "usable" as a finished, edited, corrected JPEG. RAW files in many applications only contain instruction sets...you really have no "finished" image for actual, immediate use. I think a "beefier" JPEG file looks better on-screen than a smaller one that has much less information.

*sigh*

My son decided to unplug the hard drive during export. So my 3 hours of sifting through raw and JPEG was lost anyways. Screw it. I'm just saving all the master files (raw) and calling it a day.
hopefully my computer finishes before the drive crashes.
I've still got 2013 to go...
I think it am gonna get 2 new hard drives, start keeping one hooked to the computer for working files (to keep my computers HD running smooth, and then backup to a second. Then when it's full I can just replace with 2 new hard drives. Would that work?? Would it work with Lightroom if I got that program instead?

 

[BillM]

I have an iMac with a 1 TB drive and i use LR5.3. I also have a Drobo 5N with a pair of 3 TB drives. I keep the LR catalog and the current month's photos on the iMAC and that is backed up to a Time Capsule every few minutes. All previous photo folders are on the Drobo. Plus I save a good number of my photos on SmugMug for sharing but it also acts as another backup in case something really bad happens at home. And as cloud storage options have gotten better I'm taking a closer look at that too. Can never be too safe

 

[Designer]

I think it am gonna get 2 new hard drives, start keeping one hooked to the computer for working files (to keep my computers HD running smooth, and then backup to a second. Then when it's full I can just replace with 2 new hard drives. Would that work?? Would it work with Lightroom if I got that program instead?

File backup strategies are many and varied, but for true backup safety you should plan on keeping one copy off site.

Search this site for threads on the subject.

 

[JustJazzie]

I have an iMac with a 1 TB drive and i use LR5.3. I also have a Drobo 5N with a pair of 3 TB drives. I keep the LR catalog and the current month's photos on the iMAC and that is backed up to a Time Capsule every few minutes. All previous photo folders are on the Drobo. Plus I save a good number of my photos on SmugMug for sharing but it also acts as another backup in case something really bad happens at home. And as cloud storage options have gotten better I'm taking a closer look at that too. Can never be too safe

Does time capsule use internet data? Or just like a Bluetooth thing? We live in the middle of nowhere and have capped internet with only 10 gigs a month so any backup system that requires internet connection won't work for me.

 

[Designer]

The Time Capsule is cabled to the iMac. That is how you access Time Machine. I think the main advantage is that it can be configured to back up whatever is new every so often, say 30 minutes. It does not send anything out via the internet.

As a side note; if you currently don't have a wireless router, the Time Capsule does that too.

 

[JustJazzie]

The Time Capsule is cabled to the iMac. That is how you access Time Machine. I think the main advantage is that it can be configured to back up whatever is new every so often, say 30 minutes. It does not send anything out via the internet. As a side note; if you currently don't have a wireless router, the Time Capsule does that too.

So if I use time machine- do I need to back up aperture separately??