One of Quebec's leading photojournalists has all is archives stolen

[randym77]

I would do an online plan...however, over the last six years and change, I have accumulated nearly three terrabytes of photography data, including original RAWs, modifications, TIFF exports, print versions, as well as all of the MASSIVE amounts of data you accumulate with astrophotography (well over a terrabyte of that alone, and I've been doing it only for a year and a half).

I have more than that, and it's all backed up in the cloud. Many backup services offer unlimited storage.

If you're on dialup, uploading several TBs of data could be a problem, but with broadband, it's pretty painless. Most backup services have software that will run in the background and automatically upload when you're not using your connection. After the initial upload is done, updating is pretty quick.

I am considering using Amazon Prime as an additional backup. They are offering free unlimited storage of photos (including RAW files) for Prime members. Worth the $99/year...if their interface is any good. I haven't tried it yet.

It's not cheap to store that much data, though. I hadn't heard about the Amazon Prime thing...I already am a Prime member... You sure about that? Unlimited storage? If so, then I might just do that...

https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/primephotos

I am no longer a Prime member, but am thinking of joining again just for that.

Currently I have an account with Crashplan. I have the "family plan" because I have multiple computers to back up. There are also individual and small business plans. It costs about the same as Amazon Prime. The interface is very easy, and you can back up anything, not just photos and RAW files. I have everything from software to video to 7 years of tax files backed up there. (Pro tip: you might need to bump up the memory the Crashplan software can access if you have several TBs to upload. Crashplan underestimates how much is needed. It won't use it if it doesn't need it, and it does the heavy lifting when you're not using your computer, so IME there's no harm bumping it up.)

 

[jrista]

The Prime plan only includes unlimited "photos"...they are not clear about whether that includes RAW or not. To get "unlimited everything", it sounds like you need to pay extra.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

That was really not smart having all the data in one location.

It is so freakin cheap to get a few portable HDDs and store them in safe deposit boxes at two different banks.

I have copies stored at home and at banks. I also place some special RAW files on optical disks as even more backup in case some giant magnet monster from outer space attacks our city. My HDDs might be toast, but the optical disks will be good to go!

 

[LarryC]

The Prime plan only includes unlimited "photos"...they are not clear about whether that includes RAW or not. To get "unlimited everything", it sounds like you need to pay extra.

Jon, I also use Crashplan because a few years ago they were the most well reputed online cloud storage site that offered unlimited storage but did not throttle uploads as some popular cloud storage cites do, or did. Several sites offer "unlimited" storage, but so severely throttle upload speeds after a couple of hundred mb that they are totally worthless as bulk storage sites. I have currently only a bit less than 1Tb on Crashplan, but it automatically backs up all files in my designated folders, including NEF, CR2, TIFF, etc., and of course all my non-photo documents.

I also have all photos automatically backed up on another internal drive and once a quarter, or so, I make another copy to a portable HDD I keep in my office at work.

 

[randym77]

The Prime plan only includes unlimited "photos"...they are not clear about whether that includes RAW or not. To get "unlimited everything", it sounds like you need to pay extra.

I have not tried it myself (yet), but Petapixel and other sites have reported that RAW files are included.

Maybe someone who has prime can check it out and report back?

 

[pwp]

Ouch! That would be absolutely crushing. It's a big wake up for anyone with valuable digital media of any description to keep multiple copies in multiple locations. Hope the thief rots in hell. The images will be useless to him.

-pw

 

[tpatana]

I don't get it. Why the thief(s) didn't take the lenses too?

 

[IMG_0001]

There is one thing that many often overlook. When the unlimited cloud storage offers are inexpensive, their terms and conditions can also be such that it might become unsuitable for professional archives. What I mean is that if there is to be any kind of proprietary or sensitive data, the access control may not be strong enough to meet some clients requirements.

In contexts other than photography, I've had a few occasions where clients explicitly required that no data were deposited in any but a very few select online services that had demonstrated their security (and were certainly not unlimited in storage space). Yet I can see reasons for many types of photography to be bound to some legal conditions that make cloud storage more complicated.

Of course, most people won't even check those terms and conditions as the internet is such a safe place...

 

[Famateur]

That's terrible!! How can they operate like that?

Well, it was a company laptop, as I understand, so it was subject to company policies as well. My advice is never mix your personal data with employer hardware. There are also ways to perform remote wipes, if needed, and I would not risk it if not under my control. There are also companies that when you're fired, you completely lose access to your PCs and network before they tell you, for security reasons.

About the system administrators, first they are bound to company policies, and they are responsible only for the company data, not yours. Also - and I know by experience - let some user sdo whatever they like and they'll put you in troubles

Ultimately, I have to blame myself for the loss -- there were several things I could have done to avoid it. That said, there were things the IT department could have done, too. When notifying us that we would each have a network share for backing up our machines, they could have warned in advance that images would be deleted. They also could have run a script that, if .jpg files were found, would notify the individual to remove them or they would be deleted.

The dangerous thing about the script is it was acting only on file extension. If I was doing the graphic work I do now, I would have lost oodles of work-related .jpg files (stock images, logos, etc). In this case, the IT manager was the one making the policy. In principle, it makes sense. In execution, it seemed a bit reckless.

Good advice on never mixing personal/work files, if possible. It's not practical for me to keep two laptops with my current business, but I do keep personal files on a separate partition and back it up regularly. I'm also my own IT manager, so that makes it easier. I routinely re-image the system drive without affecting the work and personal files drives. Of course, now I really only have myself to blame for any loss!

 

[IMG_0001]

I don't get it. Why the thief(s) didn't take the lenses too?

It appears they targeted the archive, curiously... As we are speaking of a news photographer, I guess one motive could be retaliation from someone or a group that had something against the way he depicted them, or a group that was angry at the subject he covered in his more artistic work.

From my own evaluation, Nadeau was somewhat 'left wing' in his point of view of society and had some work going on about somewhat touchy subjects (although not extremely controversial). I personally found him to be pretty good at showing or right wing politicians in ambiguous or ridiculous postures.