|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/11/2009 12:17:29 AM · #1 |
Of course, I mean storage needs from growing into an unmanageable mass of data.
I have a lot of storage available, so it's not that I need more. The problem is that anytime I go out to shoot, I can easily fill an 8gb card or more. Then I do some edits, I have some huge PSDs as well.
I do backup my RAW files to DVD after each shoot, but I never have time to fully process my shots, so I keep them around in case I have a new "need for them" or get motivated to work on them. Likewise, if I edit and create a PSD, I keep that around for future editing.
So now I just filled my 1 terabyte drive (which is only for photos); I am going to put in another, not a big deal from expense (though it's my last of four internal bays; I have external drives too, but they tend to be slower, so I prefer the internal ones for my photos).
But again, the problem is even though I can add more storage, the NUMBER of photos being handled is out of control. And whenever I think I can go through and cull them, I find myself spending hours going through each folder, and I can't afford that time.
Right now my Lightroom catalog has 184835 photos in it (that doesn't mean 184835 originals, it would include PSDs and some TIFs.)
So what do you do to keep this in control? Maybe I need to try shooting fewer shots (of course, that's not easy because I like to bracket, and lately I've been shooting more panoramas!
|
|
|
|
10/11/2009 12:32:19 AM · #2 |
I never save PSD's once I'm done with an edit I save as a jpeg and keep the original RAW or JPEG, I keep twin externals that are backed up as twins. Once those are full I remove one, and add two more. I can still access the last one, have one off site for storage, and keep the two current ones for saving stuff too now. I never keep anything on my OS hard drive longer then a month.
Matt |
|
|
|
10/11/2009 12:48:09 AM · #3 |
What do you do with the images you're never going to use?
Is your keeper rate really that high?
There's an image of Jay Maisel, buried in 35mm slides...those are all rejects.
Edit..edit again...delete...don't look back |
|
|
|
10/11/2009 01:12:16 AM · #4 |
Film photography really is a lot cheaper than digital :)
|
|
|
|
10/11/2009 09:31:41 AM · #5 |
I feel your pain. With 3 internals and 3 externals totaling nearly 2TB, and TONS of CDs/DVDs that I want to convert to HD, my husband and I have been discussing the best way to go with this.
My husband likes the ReadyNAS, and I like the Drobo. The only reason I'm leaning towards the Drobo is the capability of 16TB, which I need. I'd like to get 2 Drobos, and I think that would last me a while.
I NEVER get rid of PSDs, simply because so much of them are "client" work, and I never know when I may need those layered files again.
I am brutal about culling images after I shoot so I don't have so much "trash" sitting taking up space. Even now, when I go through old files, I find myself wondering why I kept stuff - and I get rid of it right then and there.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2009 09:55:59 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Film photography really is a lot cheaper than digital :) |
I think you may be on to something.... |
|
|
|
10/11/2009 10:40:25 AM · #7 |
I simply stopped to shoot RAW.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2009 10:47:38 AM · #8 |
I think part of my problem is that I like to shoot the same subject from different angles, perspectives, etc. in addition to bracketing.
So I have a lot of similar shots from a given shoot and location; I may like one in particular and process it, but whose to say that going back I won't change my mind and want to use a different one? I could go and load the set from the DVD backup--and that may really be the answer. But then I'm tempted to keep a catalog of all the angles/shots. I think Lightroom is intended to do that, but I tend not to trust catalogs (e.g., even with Lightroom, you'd have to be careful not to let it delete missing files from a synchronize, though in fact, that's really what you want to do sometimes to get rid of PSDs or other intermediate files.)
So one strategy I've tried (but not settled on) is to build a subfolder "index" of an entire shoot. I call it _index so I know that's what it is and it's not "final" shots. I set up an export in LR to do that. I save everything as full size JPEG at quality 70. Then I have all the shots (I do delete anything that's technically "bad") in a smaller form factor--actually completely usable if I dont' need to later adjust white balance or take advantage of RAW latitude. I could always choose to save even more by reducing the size of these to 1600 pixels max or so, and I've wavered on doing that (I did it for a few folders). Then I can delete the RAW files, except the ones that I have "chosen".
But of course, even this strategy leaves me a LOT of files in my Lightroom catalog and on disc. But so far, it's the only solution I've come up with. I am still curious to hear if there's a better solution.
More storage doesn't really seem a solution in itself--it just postpones the inevitable!
|
|
|
|
10/11/2009 11:58:31 AM · #9 |
Sir, you have a *serious* file management problem on your hands! I though I had it bad, but I really don't. I tend to shoot judiciously, still in the "film mentality" where I am subconsciously counting shots. Still, yes, a full day of shooting can result in 8GB of RAW data. Normally, though, culling reduces that by 50%.
I recently read through Kelby's Lightroom 2 for Digital Photographers, and found a wealth of information on how to tailor Lr's behavior to help me manage the glut. Way too much to go into in a short post, but I highly recommend the book.
That said, my main issues with catalogs have always been the proprietary nature of them. I want the information and organization to be available to me long after the application has passed from common use. So I take the approach of using sidecar files (not a big space requirement) and IPTC keywording to increase organization. This information should be transportable, should I ever migrate away from Lr.
All this brings me back to thinking about the future of space requirements for photography... driving increased space requirements are:
- Increasing pixel counts; unlikely to slow for at least one or two more camera generations
- Increasing use of higher bit-depth images; unlikely to slow *anytime* soon
- Increasing use of higher quality storage formats (lower compression ratios)
On the flip side, storage density is still increasing dramatically. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but in the next 5 years we are probably going to see, finally, the beginning of the end for spinning "hard drives" in favor of solid state technologies. The 30+ year run for that technology seems finally to be coming to a close. It will not happen quickly, though. There is still some life left in the technology. The key is that we should continue to see rapidly increasing storage density at declining per-terabyte cost.
In the end, we as photographers had pretty much better resign ourselves to leaving a pile of old storage devices in our wake. I know my "hardware hell drawer" contains a few old friends, rapidly supplanted by bigger, faster brothers and now only waiting for those usurpers to join them in purgatory. I used to use a Seagate 1GB drive for a door-stop in my workroom. It was a 5 1/4 inch drive with about a dozen platters, must have been four inches high, weighed about 5 pounds! I'm sure it cost well into 4 figures when new, and it was still functional when relegated to doorstop duty. |
|
|
|
10/11/2009 12:23:11 PM · #10 |
I don't know if Lr has it, but iPhoto puts each download into an "event" file with a "key photo" of your choosing. By viewing the "events" page in thumbnail view, it's pretty easy to locate any shot if you know what was shot at the same time. I have about 20 K shots in iPhoto, and can locate any image within a minute. Putting keywords with batches of images helps a lot too with the search feature.
I store images in ext HD's too, as well as making a backup to DVD about once or twice a month, just in case of a crash. I can understand the confusion about having an original and several edited versions of the same file to deal with about not wanting to write over a saved version.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2009 05:50:46 PM · #11 |
| The root of the problem is a failure to edit adequately. Instead of pitching the 90%+ images that should be edited out, the temptation is to keep everything "just in case". |
|
|
|
10/11/2009 06:05:33 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I am still curious to hear if there's a better solution. |
[x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [4], [x], [x], [x], [x], [3], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [5], [ pause for reflection... ] [left arrow] [4], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [x], [ repeat for as long as necessary ] ... [control-backspace] [Delete From Disk] Then, sit back and sigh. :D
On a more serious note, I feel your pain. For several reasons, I recently went from a large number of medium-sized catalogs to a few large-sized catalogs, and the one rather unexpected rationalization it led to was -- "HOLY CRAP, that's a lot of images." When I had them all spread out into a bunch of 500-1,000 image catalogs I really didn't notice. I've reached capacity on my current NAS storage platform as well. I keep hoping to win a drobo in the multiple contests I entered at PSW, but no luck so far. :) One contest left -- if that one doesn't pan out, looks like it's back onto the egghead web site for me........
|
|
|
|
10/11/2009 07:40:44 PM · #13 |
I haven't been able to buy TBs of storage yet, simply due to the expense and low priority (when compared to bodies/lenses), so I just trim what I keep down to the barest essentials.
While I may shoot hundreds of frames in a day, on average I only edit about 10% of the total. I save the edits as TIFFs and, unless the shot was really amazing, I toss the RAW files. My thinking is, when I am ever really going to need the RAWs again?
With client photos, I do modify that a little - then I tend to save the RAWs for all the edited shots, in a separate sub-folder. I still don't really know why I would need them, but at least they exist. But even then, after 9-12 months, I go through and purge them.
The result is, I'm using a 500GB external HD that's creeping up on being half full after several years of shooting. (I also backup the HD to DVD.)
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 04:47:59 PM · #14 |
Ahhhh, the geeky goodness:
$ df -h .
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/md0 1.4T 457M 1.4T 1% /mnt/HD_a2
For those whom do not grok such text, that is the disk sizing report from my new (yet another) DNS-323 NAS, having just installed a full build of debian and built a RAID-1 md device 1.4 terabytes in size. Wooooof!
Sad thing is that the new 323 plus both SATA drives I just purchased (2x1.5 TB) cost *less* than the previous 323 and 2x500 GB drives I bought a couple years ago...
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 16:49:45. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 02:34:09 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 02:34:09 PM EDT.
|
