[lug] syncing deletes in backup (or picture workflows)

[Rob Nagler]

Ken wrote:
> So the last couple of days are *your* fault then?

No, it was my boss's fault!  ROFL.

Anthony wrote:
> Somewhat agree, but then again, if it's not worth someone's time to
> weed through it later, then are they worth anything at all?  If it's
> not worth *my* time to sort them now, nor someone else's time later,
> the odds are good that the drive should just be reformatted, no?

I think it's worth time now, because I have the context.  When I got
the crates full of pictures from my mom, I didn't have the context.
Fortunately, she put a date here, a little comment there.  I'd say
there are a thousand or so pictures to wade through, which is
manageable, because you sit there and kind of look at them.  Now I
have hundreds of filtered pictures a year, but I shoot, sometimes,
hundreds in a day.  That's the beauty of digital, but that's it's
bane, too.  Leaving that to my kids to sort through is worse than the
national debt!

All my pictures are online for my family and close friends.  It's a
wonderful resource.  It's also a journal for what we did so we can
know the year we went to Greece or Lake George.

Before the digital age I had a bunch of pictures in folders, since I'm
pretty organized, and it's more natural when you do your own
developing (ah the smell of acetic acid! ;-).  However, what a waste!
It just sits in a box in some dry, cool place.  What's the point of
that?  The same thing with hard drives loaded with too many pictures
to look at...

> You might also consider chatting with pros that have been dealing with
> shooting digital for the last 10 years.  The mechanisms I discuss are
> probably not applicable there (figure hundreds of shots per day, shot
> raw on 20+ megapixel backs, so easily GB/data *per day*.)

I was on a plane flight a couple years ago with a dude who has been
digital for 20 years or more.  He saved everything, always.  Yes, a
disk a day.  However, for his business (fashion photography) it didn't
matter.

> [This doesn't contradict Rob's comments about documentation being
> superior to file naming; I agree, but I would just stick that
> documentation into the EXIF/JPEG comments and cart them around with
> the raw data itself.]

I think this is a better idea than what I do.  I'm too lazy to change
what I do, and I'm pretty organized with data so it's no biggie.  One
problem is that I manage multiple file formats and movies so an
external file is easier than dealing with N metadata libraries.