resolve to make those backups in 2019

I absolutely hate any type of automated backup, because the software just backs up everything.

Software doesn't know what photos I want backed up and which I don't want backed up. 95 -99 percent of my image files are just sheer crap that I'm too lazy to delete. No way I want my valuable storage space cluttered up with all that trash.

I need to be able to go in and hand pick the images that are actually worth backing up. Storage space, for me, is too expensive to waste on sub-par files.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18785251
I absolutely hate any type of automated backup, because the software just backs up everything.

Software doesn't know what photos I want backed up and which I don't want backed up. 95 -99 percent of my image files are just sheer crap that I'm too lazy to delete. No way I want my valuable storage space cluttered up with all that trash.

I need to be able to go in and hand pick the images that are actually worth backing up. Storage space, for me, is too expensive to waste on sub-par files.

^ This ^
I'll also add, I occassionally want to scan through old photos. PITA if I have to retrieve them from a backup before I can view them.

Mike Deep wrote in post #18785197
Do not rely on WD external drives as a sole backup: The I/O boards are an additional failure point, and the drive encryption is paired uniquely with each I/O board.

Yup. I had to use a hacksaw in order to open up a USB-connected WD external unit sufficiently to free the captive harddrive...the interface electronics of the external box crapped out, and the unit would never reach 'ready' status. But the harddrive was still sound, and putting it into a docking unit allowed the harddrive to continue providing good storage service.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18785251
I absolutely hate any type of automated backup, because the software just backs up everything.

Software doesn't know what photos I want backed up and which I don't want backed up. 95 -99 percent of my image files are just sheer crap that I'm too lazy to delete. No way I want my valuable storage space cluttered up with all that trash.

I need to be able to go in and hand pick the images that are actually worth backing up. Storage space, for me, is too expensive to waste on sub-par files.

I have been struggling with the same issue as my 12TB Synology is getting full. I am researching purchasing another bay or switching out hard drives.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18785251
I absolutely hate any type of automated backup, because the software just backs up everything.

Software doesn't know what photos I want backed up and which I don't want backed up. 95 -99 percent of my image files are just sheer crap that I'm too lazy to delete. No way I want my valuable storage space cluttered up with all that trash.

I need to be able to go in and hand pick the images that are actually worth backing up. Storage space, for me, is too expensive to waste on sub-par files.

Why don't you just delete the crap? I cull every time I upload images, so there's no big jobs to do. If it's valuable enough to keep its likely valuable enough to back up.

I use software that lets me do backup by folder, or if I wanted to by image / file, but I only go to folder level.

tim wrote in post #18785583
Why don't you just delete the crap? I cull every time I upload images, so there's no big jobs to do. If it's valuable enough to keep its likely valuable enough to back up.

I use software that lets me do backup by folder, or if I wanted to by image / file, but I only go to folder level.

Deleting images is easy and somewhat quick. . Deciding what images to keep and which to delete is excruciating to the brain and very time consuming.

If I have 200 images of a buck deer standing in one place, and many iterations of the same pose from the same perspective, then the only way to tell which image is a wee bit better than the others is to open each one up and zoom way in to look at the nose, then move over to look at the eye, then at the antler bases, then to start to examine all of the background elements at 100% to see which one has rendering that is a wee little bit different or better than the others. . There are often dozens of images that are very similar, and the only way I can see the differences is to zoom in deep and compare each one to all the others, so as to determine which one from the set is the very best at the pixel level. . This is a process that is excruciating to my brain and to my eyes, and which takes an enormous amount of time and mental energy.

Anyway, even if it was obvious which should be deleted, the actual process of deleting is rather painstaking and time consuming. . Having to click on an image to select it, then right-clicking to bring up the menu, then clicking on "DELETE", then clicking "YES" when it asks me if I am sure that I want to delete ... that is freakin' tedious, man! . There are many things that are more enjoyable to do, and most of my life is lived by doing what is enjoyable, despite the future consequences.

So, that's why I don't delete the crap. . I don't feel like it, and I try to do only the things that I feel like doing, and leave everything else undone.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18786677
Deleting images is easy and somewhat quick. . Deciding what images to keep and which to delete is excruciating to the brain and very time consuming.

If I have 200 images of a buck deer standing in one place, and many iterations of the same pose from the same perspective, then the only way to tell which image is a wee bit better than the others is to open each one up and zoom way in to look at the nose, then move over to look at the eye, then at the antler bases, then to start to examine all of the background elements at 100% to see which one has rendering that is a wee little bit different or better than the others. . There are often dozens of images that are very similar, and the only way I can see the differences is to zoom in deep and compare each one to all the others, so as to determine which one from the set is the very best at the pixel level. . This is a process that is excruciating to my brain and to my eyes, and which takes an enormous amount of time and mental energy.

Anyway, even if it was obvious which should be deleted, the actual process of deleting is rather painstaking and time consuming. . Having to click on an image to select it, then right-clicking to bring up the menu, then clicking on "DELETE", then clicking "YES" when it asks me if I am sure that I want to delete ... that is freakin' tedious, man! . There are many things that are more enjoyable to do, and most of my life is lived by doing what is enjoyable, despite the future consequences.

So, that's why I don't delete the crap. . I don't feel like it, and I try to do only the things that I feel like doing, and leave everything else undone.

.

If you don't look at them to choose the best to print / share / display why do you bother taking the photo? Do you just take them and leave them on your computer? I was at a museum yesterday, one guy took photos of everything - objects, plaques, etc. He's probably never going to look at any of those, so why take the photo? I took one photo to share on Facebook, then I'll delete it - I won't even keep it on my computer.

You don't have to pick the 100% best, you just have to pick one that's good enough for what you need. If you cull as you go it's relatively quick.

icopus wrote in post #18785275
I occassionally want to scan through old photos. PITA if I have to retrieve them from a backup before I can view them.

You need to distinguish between an archive and a backup. Cold files can be moved from your production machine into an archive. But the archive is still an original and needs to be 'backuped' as well. The goal is that you never have to touch your backups - except if something goes terribly wrong, like you got hit by ransomware that encrypts everything or your computer gets stolen.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18785251
95 -99 percent of my image files are just sheer crap that I'm too lazy to delete. No way I want my valuable storage space cluttered up with all that trash.
I need to be able to go in and hand pick the images that are actually worth backing up. Storage space, for me, is too expensive to waste on sub-par files.

Why is is less work to hand pick what needs to be updated then just simply delete the files you don't want? In most software you can choose a rating system (stars, colours, ....) and then choose the ones that got rated trash and delete them with one or two clicks? If you indeed value storage space so much, then with a small adaptation of your culling process you should be able to fulfill your main goal: save expensive storage space and you can utilise a large number of available backup software to do your bidding.
Alternatively, if you don't want to delete anything for other reasons then just choose the highly rated pictures and export them to an archive, which gets backed up to an off site server. Again, something that can be easily included in your workflow and only requires a few clicks.

.

drmaxx wrote in post #18786982
In most software you can choose a rating system (stars, colours, ....) and then choose the ones that got rated trash and delete them with one or two clicks?

I can't imagine taking that much time to rate my photos.

If I have 600 images from a day's shoot, which is about normal, and it took 3 seconds for each one to look at it and give it a rating, then - WOW - that'd be, like, a half hour spent just to get the day's photos rated. . I can't imagine spending a half hour doing something so mundane and tedious. . Never going to happen. . I'm not made like that.

Maybe most people don't mind the process of clicking on things over and over and over. . I hate it. . Very tedious - same boring thing over and over again. . I could spend that time watching YouTube videos about NFL football or music videos or whatever.

.

drmaxx wrote in post #18786982
....... then just choose the highly rated pictures and export them to an archive, which gets backed up to an off site server.

That is similar to what I have always done. . When I look at the photos and see one that's probably better than the others, I click on the little heart ion at the bottom of the photo, which makes it a "favorite". . Then when I do backup I only backup the "favorites" album.


.

tim wrote in post #18786763
You don't have to pick the 100% best, you just have to pick one that's good enough for what you need. If you cull as you go it's relatively quick.

I think this is where things are different for me than for you.

I have a pretty good case of OCD with some things, and that "good enough" mindset is in conflict with my OCD. . But then my OCD is in conflict with my laziness ...... so, yeah, I have some conflict going on when it comes to this stuff. . If one is hard-core OCD, but also extremely lazy, then the way one does things is not going to make sense to most people.

A similar situation goes on with my email inbox. . I currently have 25,837 emails that I haven't read yet. . I know somewhere in there are some emails with interesting content that I may enjoy reading some day. . So I'm not going to delete any, because they might have something worthwhile in them. . Yet I've been too lazy to open them and take a look. . So who knows when I'll get around to that? . But at least they're there in case some day I get a little spurt of energy and actually have enough ambition and work ethic to actually open a few up and look them over.

I'm not going to change the OCD or the laziness because I kinda like being this way.

.

tim wrote in post #18786763
If you cull as you go it's relatively quick.

But the problem is, when I have attempted to do so, it is not quick (see my post above). . A half hour spent culling photos may be what some people consider quick, but for me that is a ridiculous amount of time to spend doing such a thing.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18787050
When I look at the photos and see one that's probably better than the others, I click on the little heart ion at the bottom of the photo, which makes it a "favorite". Then when I do backup I only backup the "favorites" album.

This means that you should be able to select all your favorites and then invert your selection and you get all the rest that you then can delete. Most software should be able to do this. Not that I am telling you to delete anything - but your preference seems to be saving storage space and this is an easy way to safe a lot of storage....

No, that "invert and delete" wouldn't work, because there are a lot of really good photos that aren't favorites yet, simply because I haven't gotten around to looking at them yet.

When I get a little spurt of mental energy I will go back into my archives and look for good photos from 2010, 2011, 2014, etc. But I only do that for, like, 5 or 10 minutes, then I feel like doing something else. So I'll probably never 'catch up'.

I don't care about saving storage space on my computer. But I do care about saving storage space when it comes to additional devices that I need to buy.

It absolutely killed me to spend $80 just for a detachable hard drive to back my photos up on. I could've used that money for another day or two of photo-trip travels and been able to get more good wildlife photos.

When people say that storage space is really cheap these days, I don't know what they're talking about. They must have a very different concept of "cheap" than I do. To me, $80 is a ridiculous amount of money to have to spend just to back up a terrabyte's worth of RAW files. I think a good 1TB hard drive or thumb drive should be, like, $10. That would be commensurate with the value provided, in my opinion.

I think that what I wrote in post #16 has been misunderstood. People keep giving me advice and ideas on what I could do differently when it comes to backing up my photos. I never asked for advice. The way I do it works really well for me. I think that I have the perfect backup workflow for me and the way I like to do things.

Yep, I did misunderstand your post. If it works for you then perfect!