[JJ_SO]

I did so, too, especially when I was stupid or hasty enough to buy a new camera with unsupported RAW, which is a fashion for all manufacturers.

But it's cumbersome for me: When deleting files, it's not so easy to synchronize the other type. Also, I need even more diskspace because I tend to adjust some photos rather quickly, but I develop them only if needed.

[thxbb12]

I did so, too, especially when I was stupid or hasty enough to buy a new camera with unsupported RAW, which is a fashion for all manufacturers.

But it's cumbersome for me: When deleting files, it's not so easy to synchronize the other type. Also, I need even more diskspace because I tend to adjust some photos rather quickly, but I develop them only if needed.

What I usually do is put the memory card in the computer and browse all images to cull most of them. I use geeqie viewer (might be linux only - not sure) which is very fast. When I delete a photo it deletes both the JPG and the RAW. I only keep the "keepers" (for instance I try to only keep a single or a couple of shots in a given sequence). Then, I import what's left in the RAW converter. This way, I don't end up with tons of images and disk space is mitigated.

Plus, storage is very cheap these days. You can get 16TB of RAID6 for less than $1500 (e.g. NAS with 4 HDD of 8TB each).

[JJ_SO]

I did so, too, especially when I was stupid or hasty enough to buy a new camera with unsupported RAW, which is a fashion for all manufacturers.

But it's cumbersome for me: When deleting files, it's not so easy to synchronize the other type. Also, I need even more diskspace because I tend to adjust some photos rather quickly, but I develop them only if needed.

What I usually do is put the memory card in the computer and browse all images to cull most of them. I use geeqie viewer (might be linux only - not sure) which is very fast. When I delete a photo it deletes both the JPG and the RAW. I only keep the "keepers" (for instance I try to only keep a single or a couple of shots in a given sequence). Then, I import what's left in the RAW converter. This way, I don't end up with tons of images and disk space is mitigated.

Plus, storage is very cheap these days. You can get 16TB of RAID6 for less than $1500 (e.g. NAS with 4 HDD of 8TB each).

Diskspace is cheap, that's true. But with bigger or more disks I also need bigger or more back-up disks and because I made bad experiences with only one document backup, I have to have two backups. At least.

RAID is no substiture for a backup afaik. It's more better up-time in case something goes wrong with a single disk.

I was tempted to use smaller JPGs to browse them before importing the bigger RAW, but I suspect the amount of time to sort and synchronize the selection would often be not worth the effort. Of course, it's silly to import first and delete second. But I'm more silly to sort and select before and then kill the worng RAW. 

[thxbb12]

I did so, too, especially when I was stupid or hasty enough to buy a new camera with unsupported RAW, which is a fashion for all manufacturers.

But it's cumbersome for me: When deleting files, it's not so easy to synchronize the other type. Also, I need even more diskspace because I tend to adjust some photos rather quickly, but I develop them only if needed.

What I usually do is put the memory card in the computer and browse all images to cull most of them. I use geeqie viewer (might be linux only - not sure) which is very fast. When I delete a photo it deletes both the JPG and the RAW. I only keep the "keepers" (for instance I try to only keep a single or a couple of shots in a given sequence). Then, I import what's left in the RAW converter. This way, I don't end up with tons of images and disk space is mitigated.

Plus, storage is very cheap these days. You can get 16TB of RAID6 for less than $1500 (e.g. NAS with 4 HDD of 8TB each).

Diskspace is cheap, that's true. But with bigger or more disks I also need bigger or more back-up disks and because I made bad experiences with only one document backup, I have to have two backups. At least.

RAID is no substiture for a backup afaik. It's more better up-time in case something goes wrong with a single disk.

I was tempted to use smaller JPGs to browse them before importing the bigger RAW, but I suspect the amount of time to sort and synchronize the selection would often be not worth the effort. Of course, it's silly to import first and delete second. But I'm more silly to sort and select before and then kill the worng RAW. 

If you use the right viewer you don't have to worry about killing the wrong raw file.

My current storage policy is the following:
- internal 10TB HDD that mirrors my desktop HDD each night.
- external 10TB HDD that mirrors my desktop HDD each night.
- 16TB NAS network connected (local) to backup my desktop
- online unlimited backup service that backups my desktop HDD

So I think I'm unlikely to loose any data ;-)

[JJ_SO]

I've only two backups for the photos, but I do alternate them. That's the only weakness I can spot in your system - if you mess up the desktop HDD, the other day the mess will be replicated 4 times. Else than that, I cannot imagine any serious worst case for your system.

But you don't mess up, I know   I should not conclude from me to others...

Anyway. 46 MP files also take some time to be viewed and I appreciate the opportunity to do first adjustments while viewing and rating.

[stoppingdown]

[quote pid='44045' dateline='1522234444']
if you mess up the desktop HDD, the other day the mess will be replicated 4 times. Else than that, I cannot imagine any serious worst case for your system.

[/quote]

That's true... unless you backup with archive. I use rsync, and whenever it detects a change (a file has been updated, or deleted) the old version is moved to an archive folder. It can do that with an unlimited number of archive folders, until there is room on the disk. So if you mess up the source folder, true it got replicated, but for quite some time you still have the older versions and you can recover them.

In any case I do major backups only after computing MD5 and comparing with the original - of course, this works only for RAW. That's a big advantage of RAW: that it never changes. So, if you imported the file and verified once it is ok, you compute a MD5 baseline that is valid forever. True, you're moving the backup problem to the settings files with post-processing instructions (e.g. XMPs, or LR or C1 catalog) but they're smaller and can be managed in an easier way.

[JJ_SO]

Yeah, that's kind of the hacker approach  

I could use TimeMachine to generate incremental backups with a timeline. I just guess, each of us has a reliable backup strategy. I will need to adapt mine soon enough but I'm too lazy to decide how to go on.

[thxbb12]

I've only two backups for the photos, but I do alternate them. That's the only weakness I can spot in your system - if you mess up the desktop HDD, the other day the mess will be replicated 4 times. Else than that, I cannot imagine any serious worst case for your system.

I use rsync to mirror my desktop every night. So if that were the only "backup" system I had in place, yes I would be screwed.

However, the NAS performs incremental backups every 3 days and the online backup system runs once a day (and keep a 1 year history).


Consequently, even in the event I were to totally mess up my system and screw up everything, I'd loose at most 1 day of data.

[JJ_SO]

Impressive. I do hesitate with cloud services, but that's merely based on emotions. I think, I don't want to let (all) my pictures out of the house.

[Rover]

I have most of my archive (except the very new stuff that hasn't been properly sorted and attributed) archived in a cloud. Problem is, I'm going to run out of space soon (43 GB out of 1 TB left), so some culling is probably in order.