Old 02-21-2007, 04:44 PM   #26
alan-crotty
Senior Member
 
alan-crotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashford Kent England
Posts: 349
Default Bad Cards

Hi,

I have had two cards go bad on me, both were replaced by the manufacturer without question.

That doesn't help with the lost images though!

I managed to recover all bar one image on each card using Bad Copy Pro

http://www.jufsoft.com/badcopy/

I had tried four or five other bits of software before settling on Bad Copy.

Bad Copy was the only programme that recovered all bar one image.

I always format my cards in camera after downloading to disc via a card reader.

I now only use Sandisk cards and have had no trouble with them


Alan
alan-crotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2007, 06:06 PM   #27
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Senior Member
 
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 1,956
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Blaszczyk (2) Send a message via Yahoo to Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Default

I thought someone would have presented the real truth about formatting since this thread is buzzing, but it looks like no one is exactly sure what formatting is for.

Formatting is no longer harmful to memory cards (I only have knowledge with CF cards). It is probably true that the earliest form of memory was eaten away with repeated formatting, but times have changed along with technology. For those who have Canon dSLR's or any digital camera that can show exactly how much space is taken/empty on the card, you can do an experiment. Formatting is too clean out the entire card except the few files needed for it to function. If you simply delete all the pictures without formatting there are "ghost files" or empty folders that ligner from however you transfered the photos from the card to another medium. If you do not format the card these folders will take up space on the card. Now the amount of space taken up is not great but can add up if the card is not formatted. They can also create more problems then actually formatting the card. After hearing some outlandish explanations here, I don't see why they would allow this function if it would be harmful?

Maybe we send this in to "Myth Busters"?

On a side note, I don't understand how people can trust larger CF cards. I do have a 2GB card that I got as a gift, but that is the only card I will ever own over 512MB, I would never risk losing 500+ photos (I don't shoto RAW) at once in case something did happen. Two 512's = 1GB so whats the difference besides convienence which is taken care of with a pocket-sized 4-card case.

Finally, Rich, I hope the photos can be retrieved!!!
__________________
-Andrew Blaszczyk a.k.a. AB(2)
Proud fan of the Sabres, Islanders, Rockies, and Lions.

"My camera is an artistic medium, not a tool of terrorism."

www.ab2photography.com Coming soon!
My photos on RailPictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=960

Last edited by Andrew Blaszczyk (2); 02-22-2007 at 10:27 PM.
Andrew Blaszczyk (2) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 02:00 PM   #28
alan-crotty
Senior Member
 
alan-crotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashford Kent England
Posts: 349
Default Built in redundancy

I'm with you on this Andrew, all eggs in one basket is a bad policy.

I use 1Gb cards in my 1Dmk2, I have five of them, in the UK you can get 1Gb Sandisk Ultra 2s for only 11.00 each!

In addition to that I download to an Epson portable hard drive/viewer whilst on the road, double back up!

Alan

Last edited by alan-crotty; 02-22-2007 at 02:02 PM. Reason: Spelling
alan-crotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 09:06 AM   #29
Switched out
Senior Member
 
Switched out's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
(I don't shoto RAW)
What you don't shoot RAW!!! Andrew do yourself a favour and take your photography to the next level and shoot RAW, you will be surprised by the amount of flexibility you gain when processing your images.

Now back on topic.

Another cause for memory card failure is an electrical spike when unplugging the card from a reader or camera while the power is still applied if you are really unlucky it may even happen when there is no power. I know of a few incidents with some of my friends where there card has failed after it was removed from a card reader.

Cheers,

Christine.
Switched out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 11:47 AM   #30
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,892
Default

I don't have the software than can edit Raws right now, so I shoot in the highest JPEG so far.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 11:51 AM   #31
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,892
Default

My only problem with cards so far is that one was stolen. It was actually my fault. I dropped the card case trackside one day. The next day, a train member hops off the train and brings it to me and says, "Dod you drop this?" Well, I hadn't realized I had dropped it. So I opened it up and there were no cards inside. For some reason, I had the 256 in the camera, so I was mortified when I thought both of my 512s were gone. Luckily, I found that I had left one in my card reader at home. But someone has a 512 card that they found and, more than likely, threw away when they didn't know what it was or realized they couldn't use it.

So there is something to be said for leaving your card in the reader sometimes.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 01:32 PM   #32
EdM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
Default Another cause for memory card failure is an electrical spike

Yeh, and that is really sumpin to be concerned with.. 1.make sure your camera is OFF 2. keep finger contact with both the card and the camera while inserting/withdrawing the card (that part is easy)...
I would even consider NOT changing cards on one of those cold snappy dry winter days and if necessary, keep EVERYTHING from touching the contacts... Static charges are literally killers for semiconductor electronics..
The flag went up on static charges in about 1985 or so and the government required everyone, except the sectys (and presumable,management who, of coarse knew everything anyway), in my company to not only attend a class in static "awareness" but to even approach any of the manufacturing areas, one had to wear a badge with your name & "ESD Qualified"... Big big problem...
Someone (above) suggested going to RAW. OK, I haven't but I will give it a shot (pun intended) .. thanks.. Ed
__________________
spinner of many antennas as well as tall tales and some outright lies..

Last edited by EdM; 02-23-2007 at 01:38 PM.
EdM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 07:52 PM   #33
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Senior Member
 
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 1,956
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Blaszczyk (2) Send a message via Yahoo to Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Switched out
What you don't shoot RAW!!! Andrew do yourself a favour and take your photography to the next level and shoot RAW, you will be surprised by the amount of flexibility you gain when processing your images.
There are several reasons why I haven't gone into the RAW movement.

1.) I take wayyy too many photos and don't have a way to store photos while away. I woul dneed at least 8 1GB cards to fit the amount I take over a long weekend with a lot of action. I don't "go back and delete the bad ones" because I don't feel like anything will be "bad" when I look at them 20 years from now.

2.) Like Joe, I do not have programs that can process RAW images.

3.) I have yet to see or hear anything that gives RAW the edge over JPEG's.

Like was said in a different thread, I try to get the photo as close to perfect while taking it as possible. I have nothing against processing as I spend a lot of time doing it myself, but I'd rather do the work on it on the camera while I'm trackside instead of at home.

Maybe I'm crazy and/or wrong and someone can enlighten me. I won't give it a go until I KNOW I can work with them. There's no point shooting in a format you can't do anything with!
__________________
-Andrew Blaszczyk a.k.a. AB(2)
Proud fan of the Sabres, Islanders, Rockies, and Lions.

"My camera is an artistic medium, not a tool of terrorism."

www.ab2photography.com Coming soon!
My photos on RailPictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=960
Andrew Blaszczyk (2) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 08:12 PM   #34
John Fladung
JohnFladung.net
 
John Fladung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
There are several reasons why I haven't gone into the RAW movement.

1.) I take wayyy too many photos and don't have a way to store photos while away. I woul dneed at least 8 1GB cards to fit the amount I take over a long weekend with a lot of action. I don't "go back and delete the bad ones" because I don't feel like anything will be "bad" when I look at them 20 years from now.

2.) Like Joe, I do not have programs that can process RAW images.

3.) I have yet to see or hear anything that gives RAW the edge over JPEG's.

Like was said in a different thread, I try to get the photo as close to perfect while taking it as possible. I have nothing against processing as I spend a lot of time doing it myself, but I'd rather do the work on it on the camera while I'm trackside instead of at home.

Maybe I'm crazy and/or wrong and someone can enlighten me. I won't give it a go until I KNOW I can work with them. There's no point shooting in a format you can't do anything with!
Those of us without RAW capabilities seem to get by don't we?
John Fladung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 08:25 PM   #35
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Senior Member
 
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 1,956
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Blaszczyk (2) Send a message via Yahoo to Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fladung
Those of us without RAW capabilities seem to get by don't we?
Hahaha. I make it by pretty well, and I see you do too!
__________________
-Andrew Blaszczyk a.k.a. AB(2)
Proud fan of the Sabres, Islanders, Rockies, and Lions.

"My camera is an artistic medium, not a tool of terrorism."

www.ab2photography.com Coming soon!
My photos on RailPictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=960
Andrew Blaszczyk (2) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 08:31 PM   #36
Frederick
Senior Member
 
Frederick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hastings, Minnesota
Posts: 594
Default

The only real benefit of RAW is some added flexibility in photo editing programs. I can't really justify spending hundreds of dollars on extra storage for that.
__________________
Railpics Photos

Flickr Account
Frederick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 09:27 PM   #37
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
The only real benefit of RAW is some added flexibility in photo editing programs. I can't really justify spending hundreds of dollars on extra storage for that.
I took over 5000 pictures in RAW last year and have them stored a 250 gig drive ($100). Those files hardly made a dent in the memory space.

The size of a RAW file is a little over twice the size of the maximum jpg resolution on my camera. That difference in size, when storing on a 250 gig drive is negligible.

So how does the double file size equate to hundreds of dollars in extra storage space?
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 11:01 PM   #38
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
I won't give it a go until I KNOW I can work with them. There's no point shooting in a format you can't do anything with!
I'm a flip-flopper on this as was stated in another thread. So now I shoot RAW + JPEG so at least I have the RAW if I ever really need it down the road. But unlike Andrew, I take very few photos when I'm out, and it's rare that I'm away long enough to run out of space on my CF cards. For my trip out to Tehachapi (again) next week, I'll probably stick with JPEG as I won't have a place to download the images off the card and I'm down to only one usable card.
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 01:48 AM   #39
Frederick
Senior Member
 
Frederick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hastings, Minnesota
Posts: 594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
I took over 5000 pictures in RAW last year and have them stored a 250 gig drive ($100). Those files hardly made a dent in the memory space.

The size of a RAW file is a little over twice the size of the maximum jpg resolution on my camera. That difference in size, when storing on a 250 gig drive is negligible.

So how does the double file size equate to hundreds of dollars in extra storage space?
For that many photos, I'd much rather buy a very good external hard drive with less capacity, as that would probably lower the risk of it crashing. I would also have to buy several new memory cards, as well.
__________________
Railpics Photos

Flickr Account
Frederick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 04:23 AM   #40
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

On my camera (D80) I can fit about 110 RAW photos onto my 1GB SD card. If the same holds true, you would be taking over 800 photos in one weekend. If you are taking that many photos in one weekend, you either shoot way too many photos of the same thing over and over, or you're very shutter happy and take a lot of worthless photos.

I have one 1GB SD card for my camera and since I've put it in the camera, I've never taken it out. I hook up my camera to my computer via USB and transfer them to my computer and then onto my external hard drive. I then erase all the photos on the SD card and I'm ready to shoot again.
Why don't all of you just transfer the photos through the camera onto the computer?
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 04:56 AM   #41
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Why don't all of you just transfer the photos through the camera onto the computer?
Because it's easy moving the inch long CF card from the camera to the CF reader than man-handling the camera with a 6.5" lens to hook it up to the computer. Plus, the rubber tab deal where the USB hooks up to the camera sucks on my Canon; it likes to default to the closed position...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 07:59 AM   #42
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Considering you have to get your camera to get the memory card out of it, how much more work is it to set the camera on the desk and hook up a USB cable? An added bonus is that you'll never forget your memory card in the computer like so many people seem to do.
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 11:41 AM   #43
EdM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
Default Regarding formating - I can't imagine how that could "eat" away memory either now or

No, of coarse it cannot. My sense of humor got out of control again. Reformating can take time, use up batterys, and its only advantage is to gain slightly more memory and recording/reading speed by eliminating the need for file fragmentation. Some reasons for some of the other things I see written here do stretch my sense of creditability, however....---- some reasons for doing dumb things really are far out and seem to be valid to few if any others.. ed
__________________
spinner of many antennas as well as tall tales and some outright lies..
EdM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 12:53 PM   #44
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Senior Member
 
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 1,956
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Blaszczyk (2) Send a message via Yahoo to Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B.
On my camera (D80) I can fit about 110 RAW photos onto my 1GB SD card. If the same holds true, you would be taking over 800 photos in one weekend. If you are taking that many photos in one weekend, you either shoot way too many photos of the same thing over and over, or you're very shutter happy and take a lot of worthless photos.
How would you know if it is way too many? I like to document areas whether there is a train or not. I also do a lot more artistic stuff than most people and usually take a number of shots at different settings. I can't always tell which is better on a tiny 1.5" screen. I really don't think I'd call my photos worthless either. I'd be really pi$$ed if I deleted a shot because I thought I had a "better" one. As for being shutter happy, I'll bite, I am. Digital is free so why not take 800 photos over a weekend? I also use the continuous shotoing feature for shots that require extreme timing or where there are many different shots in one spot.

Maybe I take too many photos or maybe you don't take enough. Matter of opinion.
__________________
-Andrew Blaszczyk a.k.a. AB(2)
Proud fan of the Sabres, Islanders, Rockies, and Lions.

"My camera is an artistic medium, not a tool of terrorism."

www.ab2photography.com Coming soon!
My photos on RailPictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=960
Andrew Blaszczyk (2) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 12:54 PM   #45
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Senior Member
 
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 1,956
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Blaszczyk (2) Send a message via Yahoo to Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween
Plus, the rubber tab deal where the USB hooks up to the camera sucks on my Canon; it likes to default to the closed position...
Hahahaha! I can imagine your frustration.
__________________
-Andrew Blaszczyk a.k.a. AB(2)
Proud fan of the Sabres, Islanders, Rockies, and Lions.

"My camera is an artistic medium, not a tool of terrorism."

www.ab2photography.com Coming soon!
My photos on RailPictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=960
Andrew Blaszczyk (2) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 01:43 PM   #46
Frederick
Senior Member
 
Frederick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hastings, Minnesota
Posts: 594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B.
Why don't all of you just transfer the photos through the camera onto the computer?
From what I've read, a card reader is much, much faster than transferring directly from the camera.
__________________
Railpics Photos

Flickr Account
Frederick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 01:56 PM   #47
Bill
Senior Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 234
Default

I think the moral of this thread is, there is no right or wrong way to do things. Some ways are more efficient for some, but not for others.
If your ultimate goal is to get a nice photograph, there are thousands of ways to get to that result.

Ok, I'm out of here...going out to get a nice photograph.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 03:25 PM   #48
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B.
Considering you have to get your camera to get the memory card out of it, how much more work is it to set the camera on the desk and hook up a USB cable?
Assumption. For what it's worth, the way I have my camera sitting in the camera bag, it lays on its left side with the card side pointing straight up, ripe for me to pluck the card without ever lifting the camera. Any more assumptions I can clear up for you?
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 05:30 PM   #49
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
For that many photos, I'd much rather buy a very good external hard drive with less capacity, as that would probably lower the risk of it crashing.
So at what point in time do you finally take that step forward and catch up with the current technology? By that reasoning, you should probably still be using a computer from 5-10 years ago, because news one obviously raise the risk of crashing.

Quote:
I would also have to buy several new memory cards, as well.
Why several? 2 one gig cards (which you should probably have already if you're shooting a lot of pictures) aren't very expensive at all.

You know, it REALLY doesn't have to be this complicated.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 05:35 PM   #50
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween
Because it's easy moving the inch long CF card from the camera to the CF reader than man-handling the camera with a 6.5" lens to hook it up to the computer. Plus, the rubber tab deal where the USB hooks up to the camera sucks on my Canon; it likes to default to the closed position...
Sorry, Ween, I just had to have a good chuckle over that, especially as I sit here and look at my camera with it's long lens that I man-handled out of my bag to hook up to the usb cable.

Believe me, I'd much rather be able to slip the card out and put it in a card reader, but for some odd reason, whenever I'm out at a store, I NEVER remember to spend $20 on a card reader. Maybe I'll do that today. You just motivated me.

Last edited by JimThias; 02-24-2007 at 05:38 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.