Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Following up to Tim Challenger

the problem is wider than travel, how do you secure your images
without large backup procedures, home burned CDs have a limited
life. Hard disks crash. Systems change.

Film gets over x-rayed or over heated/humidified on travels. Paper prints
fade. Negatives get scratched and can be attacked by moulds.
Both media have pros and cons.

true, its not black and white :-) I never have problems with x
ray or heat, touch wood anyway. My oldest slides are still fine
after 25+ years. I've had two hard disk total failures and I'm
beginning to worry about what to do about all my VHS video
footage now it seems that format is nearing its end. I also have
a few CDs (manufactured not home burn) that dont play, that was
not supposed to happen. Its not just digital photos, its also
the rate of change in formats too.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale, Thames path, London, landscapes "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Tim Challenger writes:

One would have thought so.

It is also a fast-growing market segment.

Throw it away and get a new one. Do that twice and you've
already out-sold the SLR market.

How so? Two disposable film cameras cost about $10-$20.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:54:48 +0000, Reid wrote:

Following up to Tim Challenger

the problem is wider than travel, how do you secure your images
without large backup procedures, home burned CDs have a limited
life. Hard disks crash. Systems change.

Film gets over x-rayed or over heated/humidified on travels. Paper prints
fade. Negatives get scratched and can be attacked by moulds.
Both media have pros and cons.

true, its not black and white :-) I never have problems with x
ray or heat, touch wood anyway. My oldest slides are still fine
after 25+ years. I've had two hard disk total failures and I'm
beginning to worry about what to do about all my VHS video
footage now it seems that format is nearing its end. I also have
a few CDs (manufactured not home burn) that dont play, that was
not supposed to happen. Its not just digital photos, its also
the rate of change in formats too.

I agree with you there - that's my main worry: will I be able to read the
CDs/disks/DilithiumMemoryCrystals in x years time?
I only have a handful of digital original photos so far, so I have 35mm
originals somewhere.
Just be conservative and don't use any storage medium until it's been
around for 5 years and still looks viable. A worrying prospect.


--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:55:18 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Tim Challenger writes:

One would have thought so.

It is also a fast-growing market segment.

Throw it away and get a new one. Do that twice and you've
already out-sold the SLR market.

How so? Two disposable film cameras cost about $10-$20.

you've sold twice as many.
2 disposables(or more, in reality, I'd expect). One SLR.
--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

Reid writes:

Yes, they can be good and they can be affordable. I take
landscapes and I like to take wide angle up to 17mm. If I buy a
half frame camera that turns my 17mm into a 34mm, which for me is
completely useless. so until I can get a full frame at a sensible
price I have no option but film.

Digital is ill-suited to landscapes, anyway, unless you are using
scanning backs. Landscapes require very high resolution, because they
tend to contain a lot of fine detail that people like to examine, and
because they tend to favor substantial enlargement (so that people can
see the detail--if it's there!).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Tim Challenger writes:

you've sold twice as many.
2 disposables(or more, in reality, I'd expect). One SLR.

A lot more rolls of film are sold than digital cameras, if that's the
only number that interests you.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Following up to Tim Challenger

I agree with you there - that's my main worry: will I be able to read the
CDs/disks/DilithiumMemoryCrystals in x years time?
I only have a handful of digital original photos so far, so I have 35mm
originals somewhere.
Just be conservative and don't use any storage medium until it's been
around for 5 years and still looks viable. A worrying prospect.

I have been told home burn CDs need backing up every 2 years,
quite an undertaking if you dont want to loose anything! I think
digital is brilliant for certain things, for long term storage
its a dilemma.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale, Thames path, London, landscapes "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
bigbrian writes:

The penultimate time I came back from a longish trip, the
cost of developing the films would have funded a damn
fine digital camera.

Typically you must shoot several thousand pictures to amortize the cost
of a digital camera. Most people shoot only about one or two dozen
photos _per year_. They shoot more on vacation, but often surprisingly
few even then. Most people on vacation, unless they are truly serious
photographers, take pictures only when they have nothing else to do.

I wouldn't call myself a "serious" photographer, but better than
average, I guess. I spend a month each year in Europe, and typically
take 1200 photos, or about 40 a day. I put them into photo albums,
along with train tickets, museum tickets, cards from restaurants,
receipts, etc., for a lasting souvenir of my travels. My albums are
widely praised.

I still use an SLR, in fact I just bought a new one. I haven't gone
digital, first because of the storage problem, but also because I
haven't found one that meets my needs -- 28-300mm optical zoom, good
definition (6 megapixels) for enlargements, convenient power source,
rapid firing. (Also I'll have to get a new computer, since my Windows
95 doesn't work with digital cameras.) I think they'll have something
in the next couple of years, but they aren't quite there yet.....

Following up to Mxsmanic

Digital is ill-suited to landscapes, anyway, unless you are using
scanning backs. Landscapes require very high resolution, because they
tend to contain a lot of fine detail that people like to examine, and
because they tend to favor substantial enlargement (so that people can
see the detail--if it's there!).

The critical factor in capturing detail in landscape is often air
quality. I don't see any reason digital is specially unsuitable
to landscape.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale, Thames path, London, landscapes "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Magda

I would like to see your pics taken with a 17mm. For me the 20mm is already too wide, I'm
sticking with the 24mm now.

24mm is a good standard wide angle, you are in good company as
Galen Rowell did not like to go wider, due to the risk of
distorting converging verticals.
Where this is not an issue I like to emphasise the foreground
sometimes, or the sky. Its not for every shot but when it works,
it works.
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict067.htm"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict106.htm"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/waspic200.htm"

It also has tremendous depth of field:-
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict163.htm"
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale, Thames path, London, landscapes "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap