Help! 1DX II Cfast issues!

[clicstudio]

I want to add one other habit I try to use...

Multiple CF Cards. Especially if I'm travelling or it's a big shoot or a very important shoot. I would rather have 4 x 16 GB cards than one 64 GB card. Most of my cards are no larger than 32 GB and I very rarely fill them up.

- I'll swap cards after an hour or two of an important shoot.
- I'll swap cards at least every day while travelling (depending pictures value and number of shots).
- If I travel for more than a couple days, I take my Nexto media drive "backer-upper".

Why? If one card is failing, I only lose a portion of the images. If the camera is lost or stolen, I only lose a portion of the images. In other words, keep the images in multiple locations, even when those locations are your pockets, the camera, the backpack, another drive, etc. Keeping all of your images on one large media is risky, hazardous and honestly... lazy. I've done it before on afternoon shoots where I shoot a lot and I'll be back in a couple hours. But even then I know I'm risking image loss if something bad happens.

I use blue painter's tape on all my CF cards with a tab hanging off the back. When I pull a card from the camera, I move the tape around to cover the pin hole side and I know it's a "used" card.

I don't agree with that. Losing just one portion of a photoshoot could be devastating. Some things can't be redone or reproduced. I shoot people, not landscapes or birds. I can't afford to lose anything at all.
In 14 years, I only had 6 cards fail on me and lost everything. Only 6 times. Not terrible.
If your camera supports it, the best is to write to both of them simultaneously. That is a redundant real time backup.
I have done it many times specially after switching to Lexar, which has a habit of failing more than Sandisk...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I want to add one other habit I try to use...

Multiple CF Cards. Especially if I'm travelling or it's a big shoot or a very important shoot. I would rather have 4 x 16 GB cards than one 64 GB card. Most of my cards are no larger than 32 GB and I very rarely fill them up.

- I'll swap cards after an hour or two of an important shoot.
- I'll swap cards at least every day while travelling (depending pictures value and number of shots).
- If I travel for more than a couple days, I take my Nexto media drive "backer-upper".

Why? If one card is failing, I only lose a portion of the images. If the camera is lost or stolen, I only lose a portion of the images. In other words, keep the images in multiple locations, even when those locations are your pockets, the camera, the backpack, another drive, etc. Keeping all of your images on one large media is risky, hazardous and honestly... lazy. I've done it before on afternoon shoots where I shoot a lot and I'll be back in a couple hours. But even then I know I'm risking image loss if something bad happens.

I use blue painter's tape on all my CF cards with a tab hanging off the back. When I pull a card from the camera, I move the tape around to cover the pin hole side and I know it's a "used" card.

I don't agree with that. Losing just one portion of a photoshoot could be devastating. Some things can't be redone or reproduced. I shoot people, not landscapes or birds. I can't afford to lose anything at all.

Obviously it's best to lose nothing. What Rusty is saying is that it's better to lose part of a shoot/trip (e.g. one of four full 16 GB cards) than the entire shoot (one full 64 GB card) to a failure. Agree that writing simultaneously to two cards is best.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I want to add one other habit I try to use...

Multiple CF Cards. Especially if I'm travelling or it's a big shoot or a very important shoot. I would rather have 4 x 16 GB cards than one 64 GB card. Most of my cards are no larger than 32 GB and I very rarely fill them up.

- I'll swap cards after an hour or two of an important shoot.
- I'll swap cards at least every day while travelling (depending pictures value and number of shots).
- If I travel for more than a couple days, I take my Nexto media drive "backer-upper".

Why? If one card is failing, I only lose a portion of the images. If the camera is lost or stolen, I only lose a portion of the images. In other words, keep the images in multiple locations, even when those locations are your pockets, the camera, the backpack, another drive, etc. Keeping all of your images on one large media is risky, hazardous and honestly... lazy. I've done it before on afternoon shoots where I shoot a lot and I'll be back in a couple hours. But even then I know I'm risking image loss if something bad happens.

I use blue painter's tape on all my CF cards with a tab hanging off the back. When I pull a card from the camera, I move the tape around to cover the pin hole side and I know it's a "used" card.

I don't agree with that. Losing just one portion of a photoshoot could be devastating. Some things can't be redone or reproduced. I shoot people, not landscapes or birds. I can't afford to lose anything at all.
In 14 years, I only had 6 cards fail on me and lost everything. Only 6 times. Not terrible.
If your camera supports it, the best is to write to both of them simultaneously. That is a redundant real time backup.
I have done it many times specially after switching to Lexar, which has a habit of failing more than Sandisk...

Um... no offense but you're OK with SIX TIMES of LOST IMAGES !???! I'm glad you're honest but this only happened to me ONCE many years ago. That was enough to motivate me to get more disciplined and begin the more fault tolerant workflow I outlined in the posts above. Since then I've lost NOTHING and since I test my cards before I use them, I've returned (exchanged) 2 or 3 bad cards over the years before I lost even one image on them. I've also suffered failed hard drives with no lost images.

So my friendly feedback here is that based on the information you have provided you are using a system that is NOT particularly FAULT TOLERANT in several areas. You say the (multiple) errors are flukes and you still prefer that system. This isn't logical. You also say that your images are so important that you prefer to keep them all on one card (in lieu of spreading out the risk of loss). This isn't logical either. You say that importing the images via Aperture is easier and you prefer it even though it has burned you and others have expressed their more reliable methods. So I'm confused. Is there any part of your workflow you plan to change in order to avoid losing images or do you simply plan to hope it works better all by itself?

Please don't get mad and flame me. I'm not trying to insult you. I think I'm asking a legitimate question. I understand that old habits are hard to break but losing images is harder IMHO. But I'm just an old IT/Engineer type guy that values data redundancy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Is there any part of your workflow you plan to change in order to avoid losing images or do you simply plan to hope it works better all by itself?

HINAP

 

[RustyTheGeek]

HINAP

HINAP ??? Never seen that one before. (Neither has Google.) I'm stumped!

 

[neuroanatomist]

HINAP

HINAP ??? Never seen that one before. (Neither has Google.) I'm stumped!

Hope is not a plan.

Courtesy of Uncle Roger:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/fwigtew-and-other-first-wedding-acronyms/

 

[Halfrack]

I do not let any software do the copying of my files from CF or SD cards (and Cfast in a few days!) onto computer HDs. I do it always with the OS.

Part of why PhotoMechanic is so amazing is it allows you to build ingest processes and set multiple destinations with multiple sources. It also allows you to add IPTC info to everything on the way in.

Importing via an iPhoto/Photos/Lightroom/Aperture/etc process where it stuffs your photos into it's own file structure is bad and where a lot of folks have issues.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

For those who use their software of choice to "import" or "ingest" images, that's fine. In fact it can't be avoided in order to use some applications like Lightroom. But all of these apps can be configured to pull from a hard drive directory in a second step of the workflow in lieu of pulling directly from the CF card or other media as a first step. The initial copy to hard drive first step is the step that I think many tend to avoid and where problems can occur. (Like accidental deletions from the media or possible corruption.)

 

[privatebydesign]

I do not let any software do the copying of my files from CF or SD cards (and Cfast in a few days!) onto computer HDs. I do it always with the OS.

Tell me, what OS are you using that isn't software?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I do not let any software do the copying of my files from CF or SD cards (and Cfast in a few days!) onto computer HDs. I do it always with the OS.

Part of why PhotoMechanic is so amazing is it allows you to build ingest processes and set multiple destinations with multiple sources. It also allows you to add IPTC info to everything on the way in.

Importing via an iPhoto/Photos/Lightroom/Aperture/etc process where it stuffs your photos into it's own file structure is bad and where a lot of folks have issues.

It sounds like you do not understand Lightroom at all. It puts photos where you tell it in your own file structure. Lightroom will not delete photos from the card either.


What Lightroom does do is to create a database with a list of the photos and the location where I put them. It never ever changes the originals. You can change the settings to have it create sidecar files with the data in them and stored with the images. Twice the number of files greatly increases the possibility of a glitch, but you can always re-edit your 100,000 files.

Its a very secure and reliable way of handling photos. I don't use aperture, but I doubt that it stuffs photos into its own file structure either.

Photomechanic is not a photo editor, or at best a weak one. Its practical use is for key wording files. It adds the information into a sidecar which is easy to lose and get disconnected from the original file. You can always search for it or re-edit your 100,000 files if that happens though.

 

[privatebydesign]

Part of why PhotoMechanic is so amazing is it allows you to build ingest processes and set multiple destinations with multiple sources. It also allows you to add IPTC info to everything on the way in.

Importing via an iPhoto/Photos/Lightroom/Aperture/etc process where it stuffs your photos into it's own file structure is bad and where a lot of folks have issues.

Yeh sorry you are 100% misguided here. Lightroom does the multiple destinations thing and writing IPTC info "on the way in", and it doesn't "stuff your photos into it"s own file structure".

 

[scyrene]

For my own workflow I do not let any software do the copying of my files from CF or SD cards (and Cfast in a few days!) onto computer HDs.

Also good advice. Manually copy the files from the card, don't 'import' them. After copying, import them from your local drive into your favorite editor/converter.

May I ask why? You guys have got me mildly worried I'm doing something wrong now, but I've never had a problem letting Lightroom import the photos for me... What could go wrong? :-\

Inadvertently altering the settings for delete on import or handling of duplicate images.

Ah ok, thanks! I did used to take the SD card out and put it into the computer slot, but then I knocked the computer over and snapped the card, killing the slot in the process. Since then I've used the USB cable, and that means using Lightroom... especially now I'm back to using a CF card as the main one. I guess it's what each of us is comfortable with!

 

[scyrene]

For my own workflow I do not let any software do the copying of my files from CF or SD cards (and Cfast in a few days!) onto computer HDs.

Also good advice. Manually copy the files from the card, don't 'import' them. After copying, import them from your local drive into your favorite editor/converter.

May I ask why? You guys have got me mildly worried I'm doing something wrong now, but I've never had a problem letting Lightroom import the photos for me... What could go wrong? :-\

When working with important data, keep things as simple as possible.

Apple and Microsoft, at their core of cores, are disk operating systems. Using the file transfer feature of an OS keeps it as simple as possible.

Once a program, even tried and true, gets involved in moving files from one medium (here a Cfast card) to another (be it SSD or HDD), a whole new set of code AND user options get involved. Chances of something going wrong are small, but statistically have now increased over using just the OS.

Though not 100% on point (transferring files already on the HDD to somewhere else), here's a thread on an Adobe forum discussing LR vs OS:

https://forums.adobe.com/message/8240928#8240928

This is well explained, thanks. However, the OS doesn't recognise the camera as an external drive, so I have to go through software unless I use a card reader. Unless - and this would be very helpful - there is a way to get the computer to 'see' the camera directly?

 

[GHPhotography]

Photomechanic is not a photo editor, or at best a weak one. Its practical use is for key wording files. It adds the information into a sidecar which is easy to lose and get disconnected from the original file. You can always search for it or re-edit your 100,000 files if that happens though.

The other major benefit of Photomechanic is culling photos. It loads the JPEG previews lighting fast. I can get through the reject/rate phase of my process in like 1/4 the time using it.

 

[cinema-dslr]

If you have a friend with a windows pc you could try recuva at piriform.com.
Its free and works a lot better than rescuedisk pro

 

[zim]

This is well explained, thanks. However, the OS doesn't recognise the camera as an external drive, so I have to go through software unless I use a card reader. Unless - and this would be very helpful - there is a way to get the computer to 'see' the camera directly?

What camera and OS ?

My old 500d and XP up to windows 7, 7D with windows 9.0, 9.1 and 10
All I do is plug the camera in and then switch it on, shows up in explorer with it's own cute wee camera icon.
The first time it does take a while though, thereafter quick.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I do not let any software do the copying of my files from CF or SD cards (and Cfast in a few days!) onto computer HDs. I do it always with the OS.

Part of why PhotoMechanic is so amazing is it allows you to build ingest processes and set multiple destinations with multiple sources. It also allows you to add IPTC info to everything on the way in.

Importing via an iPhoto/Photos/Lightroom/Aperture/etc process where it stuffs your photos into it's own file structure is bad and where a lot of folks have issues.

It sounds like you do not understand Lightroom at all. It puts photos where you tell it in your own file structure. Lightroom will not delete photos from the card either.


What Lightroom does do is to create a database with a list of the photos and the location where I put them. It never ever changes the originals. You can change the settings to have it create sidecar files with the data in them and stored with the images. Twice the number of files greatly increases the possibility of a glitch, but you can always re-edit your 100,000 files.

Its a very secure and reliable way of handling photos. I don't use aperture, but I doubt that it stuffs photos into its own file structure either.

Photomechanic is not a photo editor, or at best a weak one. Its practical use is for key wording files. It adds the information into a sidecar which is easy to lose and get disconnected from the original file. You can always search for it or re-edit your 100,000 files if that happens though.

1st - Here is a (somewhat old but still relevant) thread about "Delete photos after Import" discussion... https://forums.adobe.com/message/1434331#1434331#1434331

2nd - I almost purchased PhotoMechanic a year or two ago but after a bad experience with the individuals that run that company, I was motivated to look for other options. For what PhotoMechanic does (and does pretty well), it is waaay over priced. I found a very good (actually BETTER) alternative in FastRawViewer. - http://www.fastrawviewer.com/ Thank goodness that the PhotoMechanic folks pissed me off because they saved me a lot of money and helped me find a BETTER SOLUTION for what I needed. PhotoMechanic is fine but I think it was much more necc and relevant about 5 years ago. Now I think it should cost about $25 for what it does in today's more robust software ecosystem.

3rd - Lightroom does have the tendency/ability to allow folks to just let everything dump into a "big bucket" of files and let the LR catalog sort it all out for you. I DON'T do it that way but this is one way people tend to use Lightroom.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't use aperture, but I doubt that it stuffs photos into its own file structure either.

Depends on your import settings. You can choose for files to be stored 'in the Aperture Library' (which is whatever library you currently have open), and they will be stuffed into its own file structure, i.e. within the app package. If you dig into the package contents, you see they are stored in folders as year > month > day of import > folder with an Aperture-assigned name. But they are copied there, not moved. Or, you can choose to important them as Referenced Files, so they are left in place and with just a pointer and thumbnail in the library (which is nice if you store libraries on external drives).

But 'stuff them into its own file structure' is actually the first choice in the list (although it defaults to whatever you selected last).

 

[nvsravank]

Hi Neuro,
I dont htink we have heard back from the OP, but the first few responses were spot on. The OS is not updated and is showing wrong infomration as it is not able to process the CR2 files as it usually does. I thinking he said opening in lightroom they were fine. except for the movies.
Aperture is the problem here. Not the copy process.

Bah! Copy using Lightroom etc is ok

'Cuz, you know, it worked just perfectly for the OP.

 

[scyrene]

This is well explained, thanks. However, the OS doesn't recognise the camera as an external drive, so I have to go through software unless I use a card reader. Unless - and this would be very helpful - there is a way to get the computer to 'see' the camera directly?

What camera and OS ?

My old 500d and XP up to windows 7, 7D with windows 9.0, 9.1 and 10
All I do is plug the camera in and then switch it on, shows up in explorer with it's own cute wee camera icon.
The first time it does take a while though, thereafter quick.

I've used Macs for as long as I've had a DSLR. OSX, various incarnations. 300D, 50D, 5DIII.