What SD card

[Howard]

Probably not going to do video though , it'll never get watched , i'd much rather have a lot of photos.

 

[NIPhil]

If i put the first year of her life on a 32gb card and lose it , then i have lost everything.

If put each month on a 2gb card , and lose one , ok it's not great but then i've lost a month , not a year.

That's why i want small ones

A Snapfish account (Free) would also be a good idea
Click HERE

It's also handy for sharing photos as you can send people a link to the photos/album you want them to see but they can't view the rest of your photos.

 

[Dryce]

I picked out that parts of your post on raw & DNG.

I would encourage users to make use of the RAW file format for image storage. It has the disadvantage of being proprietary and unique between different manufacturers but it should permit re-purposing as the technologies change and improve. It has a processing and a storage overhead that many will find onerous.

This is the worst storage format to use if it is your only format.

It's the most proprietary, closed, and specialised.

The Adobe DNG format is effectively universal but many people do not want to see a repeat of the same sort of stranglehold that Adobe has on the portable document format, leading to the necessity to buy expensive software to access all of the format's possibilities.

DNG is actually a *published standard*.

20 years down the line it's more likely that your proprietary Canikaxy ABC1000 with its model specific *undocumented* raw format will be unconvertible.

Personally I store as raw + jpg from my DSLRs. But if I was using DNG at all as part of my workflow I'd archive the DNGs + jpg.

This Sandisk card could not be described as slow (write speed up to 90Mb/s) in my opinion.

I think that still qualifies as expensive and slow for the money.

 

[The G.F.P]

If i put the first year of her life on a 32gb card and lose it , then i have lost everything.

If put each month on a 2gb card , and lose one , ok it's not great but then i've lost a month , not a year.

That's why i want small ones

ah, i see, yes thats logical

i back mine up to the internal 1tb on the pc, 500gb usb external & 2tb external once a month for mine (ive got 20,000+ photos as my offspring is now 13), if ive been taking pics that day they go straight onto the pc that day, its not an OCD sort of thing more just organised plus my samsung wb550 takes great hd (720) video so i video a lot too especially as we have 5 new kittens

 

[BTB 500]

Probably not going to do video though

I bet you do once she starts walking/talking/first bike etc.!

Easy to share with family via Youtube etc. too.

 

[racall]

sd or sdhc

Ive a acer aspire one AOA101 that i use on holidays.
It says on the expansion slot SD.
Now do you think it would take SDHC or only SD cards?

 

[jepho]

I picked out that parts of your post on raw & DNG.




This is the worst storage format to use if it is your only format.

It's the most proprietary, closed, and specialised.



DNG is actually a *published standard*.

20 years down the line it's more likely that your proprietary Canikaxy ABC1000 with its model specific *undocumented* raw format will be unconvertible.

Personally I store as raw + jpg from my DSLRs. But if I was using DNG at all as part of my workflow I'd archive the DNGs + jpg.



I think that still qualifies as expensive and slow for the money.

In my experience, the various raw file capabilities are added to the software which I use to process my images. I can still re-process the original raw file formats from my early digital cameras. My understanding of DNG files is this: The raw file must be re-processed into the DNG format and that provides a processing overhead that can be quite time consuming.

e.g. I had to shoot a product catalogue for one client at the beginning of this year and it had to be shot to an immutable deadline. It required me to process 21,000 product images and the overhead for processing the raw files into DNG format would have caused me to exceed the stated deadline. My client would have been seriously unhappy.

DNG format can also remove some picture control meta data from the raw file format. This data cannot be retrieved again and that too makes the file format not quite good enough. If I am copying the information to put it into another format, then all of that information better be present in the copied file or I have wasted my time. With a raw file, I can process it in numerous different ways and the file remains untouched. With a DNG file, the changes which I make during processing are written into the file itself, necessitating me making another DNG copy file that is never to be used... other than to make additional copies if the image file is to be reprocessed using different techniques from the first fully processed image file.

I know that storage has become progressively cheaper but the overhead after a large shoot is something that keeps me from using DNG format just yet. Don't get me wrong here... I like and use PDF format extensively and I use the format sufficiently frequently to require a full version of Acrobat.

This issue with storage overhead and workflow using DNG format requires me to re-process the raw file (one unnecessary step if I stick with raw files) and to keep one unused copy of the DNG file if I wish to re-purpose it at a later date by changing my processing technique. Two steps which I do not need to undertake, when I use raw file format images, represents a considerable time saving on a large shoot such as the product catalogue I mentioned earlier.

At the amateur level, it is highly likely that two extra steps in image processing are not going to be any great hardship. Deadlines and tens of thousands of images to be processed professionally will usually mandate a different set of priorities. Archiving jpeg files is not something I need to do. The files are useless to me in that format... only 8bits with no alpha channel and they leave insufficient headroom to make simple image adjustments without re-saving a severely damaged image file and it sustains more damage every time it is re-processed and re-saved. In short, jpeg files are unsuitable for archival treatment.

 

[spinaltap]

Probably not going to do video though , it'll never get watched , i'd much rather have a lot of photos.

My daughter has recently turned 18, and believe me that time has really flown!

It only seems like last week that I first took her to infant school.

It's only when I watch past videos that I can truly recall her characteristics and mannerisms at a given age - something that photographs alone can never convey. The videos I have are all stored on my computer and on DVD-RW for watching on TV.

So, take it from me, get a video camera pronto - you'll really regret it if you don't.

 

[malcolmsmill]

the price of memory continually drops therefore smaller cards become obsolete simply because people want more memory for their money.

I too prefer to keep smaller collections on the basis that if one fails (and of course it will) I do not want to loose everything in one go.

Remember, just because it will hold a million pictures doesn't mean you have to put a million pictures on it.

buy the cheapest card from a reliable maker and only put on it what you want, not what it takes

 

[renault12ts]

It should not matter if you lose a card. back up should be done multi times, and held in different locations. Storage is cheap, so get plenty of it.

 

[Benzowner]

You could always print them off

 

[dulayj]

Just remember more than one back-up -as all hard drives will eventually fail so will other data storage systems-although more reliable can be corrupted etc.