What Do You Do with Your Disney Pictures?

[Olaf]

Recently had a hard-drive crash--yes, everything was backed up. However, the recovery process kinda messed up all my JPEGs. Soooo, I'm left trying to reorganize them. In the process, I realized I have thousands of Disney pictures, dating back to 2000. I've scrapbooked some of them, but most of them are just sitting there. I've set a goal for myself of getting that mess straightened out. Wondering what other photo bugs do with their many Disney photos?

Do you make photo books? Scrapbook? Slide shows?

How do you organize them?

When you get home, do you immediately go through the shots and delete the duds? I have a lot of duds. :sad2:

Backing up? Do you burn originals to discs?

I use Photoshop Elements, but I've found that organizer to be bit buggy and a huge RAM hog. I haven't done so well with the whole tagging thing. I mostly just make up folders with titles like "Aug 2009 Saratoga Springs". I have a feeling this isn't the best way to do things.

[ukcatfan]

We do create some photo books for each major trip. Since we live close, we kida go too often ;) My favorite thing to do with my shots is my photo screensaver on my computer though! It brings back so many memories seeing random shots pop up every five seconds.

[MinnieForMe]

I use to traditional scrapbook but I've now found digital so I make photobooks. I also do a DVD of each trip with music and the kids love to sit in front of the tv on a cold NH day and watch their Disney moments.

[ssanders79]

My backup strategy is as follows.

Import pics from memory card via LR3 to laptop. On a monthly basis I backup the month to a DVD (yes I know they are not as reliable as CDRs) and move the images from the laptop to an external drive I use for my quick access photo archive. All images are avaliable via the LR3 catalog.

It is not the most ideal backup strategy, but it is the one I use. Which is the key. Develop a plan an follow it.

As for printing... DW will sit down and pick out ones she wants to print to go into photo albums.

[Olaf]

The screensaver idea is a good one. I don't know why I've never done that?

Part of my "reorganizing project" is finally getting these photos into albums or books. I started working on a trip from 2006 this past weekend. Soooo glad I took travel notes and stored them with all of my WDW travel paraphernalia. I just can't believe what a mess it all is.

MinnieforMe, what program do you use to create your DVD's?

SSanders, I like your backup plan. I've been using Norton 360 Backup, but the recovery was a bit of mess. I need to come up with something else. Why are DVD's worse than CDRs for storage?

[ssanders79]

SSanders, I like your backup plan. I've been using Norton 360 Backup, but the recovery was a bit of mess. I need to come up with something else. Why are DVD's worse than CDRs for storage?

Thanks, it works for me... so far.

DVDs vs CDs. This is one of those debate topics, but the basic idea is that both media have the same physical sizes therefore to data is packed tighter onto a DVD. Which could lead to more read/write errors.

Thankfully, I have not had a problem. I am using brand name DVDRs vs the cheap storebrand spindles. I've considered the CDR route, but I do not have that much room for storage.

By the way speaking of storage, the DVDR Backups are stored in a fireproof box. In terms of backups my external drive is my primary backup then the DVD are in place as a redundant backup.

The prices are really low so I may upgrade to a new 1TB external as the main then the current drive will become another backup drive.

[Olaf]

I'm thinking of upgrading my external drive as well. I can hardly believe the amount of memory I use.

When you say "spindle" DVD's? Would those be the packages you buy at Sam's Club? :rolleyes: That's what I've been using. Haven't had too many problems with them--yet. I'm assuming you're using those that come in their individual jewel cases?

[ssanders79]

When you say "spindle" DVD's? Would those be the packages you buy at Sam's Club?

I also buy the spindles, but only brand name. Some computer stores sell no name generics or thier own store brand. I had a spindle of CompUSA CDRs back in the late 90's and they no longer work.

I know things have come a long way, but the couple dollars saved is not worth it in the long run if the discs are poorly constructed.

[ChiSoxKeith]

I've started making photo books. It's quite fun.

Great job having everything backed up!

[Gianna'sPapa]

I keep all my Disney photos along with all my vacation images (heresy, I know, but on occasion we do vacation elsewhere) on two different external hard drives. I shoot JPEG + RAW. Because of the volume of images that are shot on vacation (average 4,000-5,000) I don't process all of them. I sometimes make up a photo book or put together DVD synopsis for relatives and friends who are interested. I title the files with the type of vacation, date and some type of descriptor. When I do post the images, those are processed from the RAW files and the subsequent JPEGS stored in a separate folder. I do have some redundancy, but that is okay. I delete very few, if any images. Why? Because I am demented and think that someday someone will write a computer app that will salvage my attempts at being a photographer!!:rotfl2:

[ChiSoxKeith]

I've thought about purchasing an Apple TV. A buddy of mine keeps all of his "good" images in a folder on the network and the Apple TV can pull them up. Turns his HD Tv into a 50" digital picture frame. Kind of a neat idea. Especially for family gatherings like graduation parties, etc.

[zackiedawg]

Initial process for me: load all photos each trip onto my main computer, stored in Windows Explorer folders and subfolders using a standardized folder and photo naming process with date. Then, go through the photos and sort out the absolute junk (I sometimes leave questionable photos, as I might decide there's something to be made of them in the future)...permanent delete. Once complete, each night by harddrive backs up onto a twin-mirrored external backup drive machine. When I edit/modify/crop any photos, I save the edited version in a separate subfolder called 'Processed'...leaving the original always untouched. After going through all and editing, I'll usually do a second cull to weed out duplicates or unnecessary shots, or ones I initially saved but found there wasn't anything there I wanted to mess with. I also every 3-4 months do a manual backup procedure to more external backup drives - one portable drive backs up the whole computer to supplement the 2 mirrored external drives and is stored off-site, while the other copies all of my photo folders to a portable drive, also kept off site.

As for what I do with them afterwards...1. Keep Disney galleries online for sharing, 2. Make photobooks and prints to enjoy, 3. Make screensaver slideshows for both work and home computers, 4. Go on Disney-centric forums and share a common interest and photos.

I have several 'photo organizer' type programs - that came with Photoshop & Paint Shop, that came with my cameras, that I downloaded or sampled like Picasa...but I'm just far too structured and anal-retentive of a person to use these automated and keyword type systems - I much prefer using good old traditional folders and subfolders in a classic tree layout, so I can find whatever I want easily based on when date, time, and place.

[handicap18]

I uploaded mine to smugmug for sharing with friends and family and on here. I also have them as part of my screen saver. Our main computer is in the family room right next to the TV and its nice to have the screen saver running showing a new picture every 8 seconds. I think I have over 3,000 images that are in the screen saver folder. Thats not all Disney. Also includes other vacations and many many pictures of the kids and other family members.

[ssanders79]

I've thought about purchasing an Apple TV. A buddy of mine keeps all of his "good" images in a folder on the network and the Apple TV can pull them up. Turns his HD Tv into a 50" digital picture frame. Kind of a neat idea. Especially for family gatherings like graduation parties, etc.

I have this same setup. You can also link to multiple Flickr accounts.

[Phil'sFrontier]

For those of you using DVD to back up keep this in mind. Those are not permanent, also if you write on them with Sharpie markers that can affect the discs also.

[ukcatfan]

For those of you using DVD to back up keep this in mind. Those are not permanent, also if you write on them with Sharpie markers that can affect the discs also.

I don't remember where I saw it, but there was someone that extensively tested the Sharpie thing and it turned out to be just an urban legend and caused no damage to the disk whatsoever. It might have been Myth Busters, but I cannot remember.

[Groucho]

We do create some photo books for each major trip. Since we live close, we kida go too often ;) My favorite thing to do with my shots is my photo screensaver on my computer though! It brings back so many memories seeing random shots pop up every five seconds.
I do the photo screensaver on my PC, too. The problem is that it's so hard to find a decent one that works well with multiple monitors... but it's nice having them on my work PC, and it can occasionally lead to conversation with passersby.

My backup strategy is as follows.

Import pics from memory card via LR3 to laptop. On a monthly basis I backup the month to a DVD (yes I know they are not as reliable as CDRs) and move the images from the laptop to an external drive I use for my quick access photo archive. All images are avaliable via the LR3 catalog.

It is not the most ideal backup strategy, but it is the one I use. Which is the key. Develop a plan an follow it.

As for printing... DW will sit down and pick out ones she wants to print to go into photo albums.
I would not agree with the CDR vs DVDR thing. There's around 15 year's worth of advancement in technology between the two. Blurays are supposed to be even tougher while storing more data than seven DVDs. (Talking about single-layer here - dual-layer is even more of a difference.) I've burnt thousands of CDs and DVDs and I can't remember a DVD-R going bad. CDs going bad have been pretty rare but there have been a few. They are all certainly vastly more reliable than a hard drive, especially your basic consumer-grade one. I'll probably hop on the Bluray burner bandwagon pretty soon since burners are now pretty cheap (<$100) and the media can be had for about the same price per meg as DVDs.

I also buy the spindles, but only brand name. Some computer stores sell no name generics or thier own store brand. I had a spindle of CompUSA CDRs back in the late 90's and they no longer work.

I know things have come a long way, but the couple dollars saved is not worth it in the long run if the discs are poorly constructed.
The problem is that even the big-name ones are often just rebrands. You need a program like ImgBurn to see the actual manufacturer of the disc - you can do this with any CD-R/DVD-R. I usually buy Ritek spindles, the manufacturer is "RITEKF1" on the DVD-R I have in my burner right now. A quick check of a couple others finds a Philips CD-R being made by CMC Magnetics (who also make discs for everyone from no-names to Verbatim, Memorex, TDK, HP, etc), a Memorex and a Fujifilm made by Ritek, etc... some do make their own (a Sony I checked was actually made by Sony) but many are just rebrands and you're just paying for the name. One of the manufacturers most revered amongst the hardcore is Taiyo Yuden, who are virtually unknown to the average consumer.

I don't remember where I saw it, but there was someone that extensively tested the Sharpie thing and it turned out to be just an urban legend and caused no damage to the disk whatsoever. It might have been Myth Busters, but I cannot remember.
I hadn't even heard of that rumors before, but it sounds pretty silly! :)

To the original question... I do screensavers on my PCs, put them on my website, and now put them on Flickr also. I don't print much but my wife did make me a photobook for Christmas and suggested that we do that more often.

I also often copy photos to my Playstation 3, which has a great interface for viewing photos. It's best done with the actual game controller, which allows you quick access to zooming and scrolling around the image by using the analog sticks. If you copy the photos to the internal drive, flipping between 1920x1080 resolution photos is basically instant. (I swapped in a 500g drive into mine - a trivial task and very cheap to boot, I highly recommend it - so I have plenty of space for photos without getting in the way of the games.) This is the modern equivalent of the old slideshows - the ones with real slides. I remember my grandfather boring us young kids to tears with vacation photos, and now I can bore my family and other visitors with my photos. :teeth: (To be fair to my grandfather, I have a much greater appreciation for his slideshows, and am happy that I have access to them and am slowly scanning them all in.)

[Phil'sFrontier]

I heard the Sharpie thing watching Photoshop TV. I am pretty sure it came from Scott Kelby. Either way, the dvd will not last forever.

[beebeeryan]

What don't I do! I backup everything of course, to an external drive. I upload to a Shutterfly share site to share with family. Facebook. I make a photo collage that I put on a Shutterfly Photo Plaque this year and it looks really nice. Then of course, a photo book and a DVD of the videos and pictures to music. I use Roxio for that. I put the original videos on the DVD as well and a folder with the Photos only.

[MICKEY88]

I don't remember where I saw it, but there was someone that extensively tested the Sharpie thing and it turned out to be just an urban legend and caused no damage to the disk whatsoever. It might have been Myth Busters, but I cannot remember.

I don't have any faith in mythbusters ever since they did the show on the dangers of re-entering your car while pumping gas. They supposedly proved that it is totally safe to re-enter your car while pumping gas, and that there is no risk of static electricity igniting the gas fumes when you go to remove the gas nozzll from your car... when in fact if you google it, you will find numerous videos showing fires started in that exact way,

A Year ago February, 15 minutes from where I sit right now, a 19 year old young man, lost his life, when he was pumping gas re-entered his car, then when he touched the gas nozzle a spark ignited gas fumes and he and his car were engulfed in a fireball.

It troubles me that they could state so strongly that they proved it couldn't happen, when video proof is so readily available on the internet..

[Groucho]

I don't have any faith in mythbusters ever since they did the show on the dangers of re-entering your car while pumping gas. They supposedly proved that it is totally safe to re-enter your car while pumping gas, and that there is no risk of static electricity igniting the gas fumes when you go to remove the gas nozzll from your car... when in fact if you google it, you will find numerous videos showing fires started in that exact way,

A Year ago February, 15 minutes from where I sit right now, a 19 year old young man, lost his life, when he was pumping gas re-entered his car, then when he touched the gas nozzle a spark ignited gas fumes and he and his car were engulfed in a fireball.

It troubles me that they could state so strongly that they proved it couldn't happen, when video proof is so readily available on the internet..
Are you sure about that? I've seen every episode from the first, oh, 5 seasons or so (I'm catching up on the ones since then) and I believe I saw that episode and I am pretty sure that they did not say that it was safe. Did you see the episode or are you going from second-hand information?

If I remember right, it was cell phone use that was "busted" - cell phones are not going to start a fire at the gas pump. Getting in and out of your car definitely will and I'm almost positive that that is what they said.

A quick Google search finds this (http://mythbustersresults.com/episode2) summation (I added the boldface), from episode 2:
A properly-working cell phone poses almost no danger of igniting gasoline, even when surrounded by gasoline vapor with the optimum fuel-air mix for ignition. The actual risk comes from an electrostatic discharge between a charged driver and the car, often a result of continually getting into and out of the vehicle.

I think you need to be a little bit more sure of your facts before falsely smearing one of the more important shows on television, one that encourages skeptical thinking and interest in science, two things which are sorely lacking in this country.

I have this episode recorded so can get specific quotes if you don't believe me.

[Groucho]

Here's a cut-down version of the myth in question, as posted by Discovery Channel on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw6-PhvcS3M

Around 1:15 is when they get to the static charge part of the story, and specifically point out and show videos of what happens when static is involved, and also what to do (don't pull the nozzle out!)

I think you owe Jamie and Adam an apology.

[MICKEY88]

Here's a cut-down version of the myth in question, as posted by Discovery Channel on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw6-PhvcS3M

Around 1:15 is when they get to the static charge part of the story, and specifically point out and show videos of what happens when static is involved, and also what to do (don't pull the nozzle out!)

I think you owe Jamie and Adam an apology.

perhaps they did the show I saw prior to the cell phone show, because they clearly tried to generate static electricity to start a fire... and they could not do it

[MICKEY88]

I think you need to be a little bit more sure of your facts before falsely smearing one of the more important shows on television, .

Ouch that's a little harsh..
I know what I watched on tv, because I commented to the person watching it with me, it had nothing to do with cell phones, and they certainly didn't have an expert there explaing that it does indeed occur, again perhaps the show I watched happened first and someone contacted them and gave them info that encouraged them to do it again,,


check out this message board

http://www.elementownersclub.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-33308.html


read from here down, apparently I'm not the only person that saw the show..

remilk04-07-2007, 06:51 PM
Last Season on Mythbusters, Adam and Jamie busted the myth that statis electricity would cause a fire or explosion at a gas pump.

Try as they may, they could not start a fire or get an explosion from gasoline from the static discharge from a car or other vehicle.



Dial Tone04-08-2007, 11:08 PM
They explained in Myth Busters that the flash point of gas fumes were not enough to ignite even in saturated environment and a bigger spark.
The thing with the cell phone isnt true either.


another message board..

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=273493

08-29-2004, 09:51 AM
HeyHomie
Charter Member Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Springfield, IL
Posts: 6,447

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZebraShaSha
Mythbusters did a show on this. Cellphones do not create enough of a spark to blow anything up but static electricity can, and has, been shown to cause a big enough spark to ignite the vapors.

The Mythbusters team could not replicate a static electricity explosion for any amount of trying. They tinkered with the static electricity source, different ratios of air to fuel, etc. and never got a fire to start with a static electricity discharge. The smaller and younger one (Jamie?) declared the myth "busted."Of course, earlier in the program they showed actual video footage of fires at gas stations being started by static electricity sparks, yet since the Mythbusters team couldn't replicate it then it must have been a myth.

[Groucho]

perhaps they did the show I saw prior to the cell phone show, because they clearly tried to generate static electricity to start a fire... and they could not do it
This episode was episode two in their first season (plus three pilot episodes), so the fifth episode ever aired. They did revisit it in episode 14 but they were tackling the myth about cell phones - static causing a fire is not a myth and they were not testing that.

Ouch that's a little harsh..
I know what I watched on tv, because I commented to the person watching it with me, it had nothing to do with cell phones, and they certainly didn't have an expert there explaing that it does indeed occur, again perhaps the show I watched happened first and someone contacted them and gave them info that encouraged them to do it again,,


check out this message board

http://www.elementownersclub.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-33308.html


read from here down, apparently I'm not the only person that saw the show..

remilk04-07-2007, 06:51 PM
Last Season on Mythbusters, Adam and Jamie busted the myth that statis electricity would cause a fire or explosion at a gas pump.

Try as they may, they could not start a fire or get an explosion from gasoline from the static discharge from a car or other vehicle.
Just because more than one person believes something does not make it true. :) This quote is wrong on multiple levels; not only are they factually wrong about what Mythbusters were attempting to do (they were testing cell phones causing fires, not static; in fact static was pointed out as the real reason fires started that were blamed on phones), but it could not have aired "last season" but the message was written in 2007. The original episode aired in 2003 and the revisit was in 2004.

The fact is that human memory is very unreliable (just look at any court of law for proof), that's why it's so important to check and recheck one's facts. Perhaps when you originally saw it, you were multitasking and didn't catch everything that was said? As the video I linked to shows, they clearly point out that entering your car was a real danger.

In fact, I remember getting a dirty look from someone after I pointed out to someone that they shouldn't do it when they were doing it while pumping gas next to me one day not long after the episode aired.

[MICKEY88]

This episode was episode two in their first season (plus three pilot episodes), so the fifth episode ever aired. They did revisit it in episode 14 but they were tackling the myth about cell phones - static causing a fire is not a myth and they were not testing that.


Just because more than one person believes something does not make it true. :) This quote is wrong on multiple levels; not only are they factually wrong about what Mythbusters were attempting to do (they were testing cell phones causing fires, not static; in fact static was pointed out as the real reason fires started that were blamed on phones), but it could not have aired "last season" but the message was written in 2007. The original episode aired in 2003 and the revisit was in 2004.

The fact is that human memory is very unreliable (just look at any court of law for proof), that's why it's so important to check and recheck one's facts. Perhaps when you originally saw it, you were multitasking and didn't catch everything that was said? As the video I linked to shows, they clearly point out that entering your car was a real danger.

In fact, I remember getting a dirty look from someone after I pointed out to someone that they shouldn't do it when they were doing it while pumping gas next to me one day not long after the episode aired.

once again, the episode I saw was not about cell phones, they were specifically trying to start a fire with static, they rubbed different types of matrerials together etc, to simulate getting in and out of the car, I also remember the cell phone one, but that is a different show,

so different people on different message boards are having the same bad memory, these same people also reference the cell phone issue as a seperate on...??

well we could go on forever, I was sitting watching TV nothing else, when they concluded by saying myth busted, I looked at the other person and said wow, I've seen numeros videos of fires starting in such a way....and those who know me will tell you my memory is scarey at times, and I'm fairly certain I'm intelligent enough to know what I saw and what was said.
I'm a little confused as to why your memory is fact, but mine might be wrong, but whatever.....

I know what I saw and I owe no one an apology, I'm guessing that even if I found the video, you would claim it was edited... so feel free to blast me once again, I'm done with this, I left the boards for a reason, ....and this, shows me that it was a good decision at that time,

[Groucho]

well we could go on forever, I was sitting watching TV nothing else, when they concluded by saying myth busted, I looked at the other person and said wow, I've seen numeros videos of fires starting in such a way....and those who know me will tell you my memory is scarey at times, and I'm fairly certain I'm intelligent enough to know what I saw and what was said.
I'm a little confused as to why your memory is fact, but mine might be wrong, but whatever.....

I know what I saw and I owe no one an apology, I'm guessing that even if I found the video, you would claim it was edited... so feel free to blast me once again, I'm done with this, I left the boards for a reason, and this shows me that it was a good decision at that time,
I'll tell you one last time.

The myth was CELL PHONES CAUSING FIRES AT GAS STATIONS. They busted that myth.
The myth WAS NOT re-entering your car causing fires. They specifically said that re-entering your car CAN cause a fire and that those fires could incorrectly be blamed on cell phone use.

Once again. Cell phones. Busted. NOT re-entering the car.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but you are, in fact, incorrect in your statement and you've been laboring under false pretenses about Mythbusters. Don't get angry at me or anyone else for correcting your error, it's not my fault that you misunderstood the episode and what was being tested. I even found a transcript of the show here (http://www.livedash.com/transcript/mythbusters-%28cell_phone_destroys_gas_station%29/6222/DSCP/Sunday_May_16_2010/297654/). They were not able to make gasoline vapors explode with a static charge but they do clearly state that it can happen.

People who re-enter the car during refueling face the biggest risk.
They're typically younger people, because older people will go like this to get out of their car. And when they do that, they discharge. So, they just simply pop out of the car. Not touch anything, not shut the door, not ground themselves, not touch this. They'll take one, two steps. They're wearing neoprene shoes so they're not discharging. They're not dissipating on the concrete. They touch a piece of metal here, the vapors are coming out of the tank, the air is coming in from outside. So that's two parts of the fire triangle, and the third part is the source of ignition, which is the spark. The problem comes is when they overreact. They go, "oh, my goodness," and they leave a stream of gasoline. They already have a fire -- it gets underneath the car, or they can get it on themselves.

I would bet that the person who died near you did exactly that - removed the gas nozzle. If they had seen Mythbusters, they might have known to not do it. You're vilifying the show when it actually could have saved his life.

[MICKEY88]

I'll tell you one last time.

The myth was CELL PHONES CAUSING FIRES AT GAS STATIONS. They busted that myth.
The myth WAS NOT re-entering your car causing fires. They specifically said that re-entering your car CAN cause a fire and that those fires could incorrectly be blamed on cell phone use.

Once again. Cell phones. Busted. NOT re-entering the car.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but you are, in fact, incorrect in your statement and you've been laboring under false pretenses about Mythbusters. Don't get angry at me or anyone else for correcting your error, it's not my fault that you misunderstood the episode and what was being tested. I even found a transcript of the show here (http://www.livedash.com/transcript/mythbusters-%28cell_phone_destroys_gas_station%29/6222/DSCP/Sunday_May_16_2010/297654/). They were not able to make gasoline vapors explode with a static charge but they do clearly state that it can happen.



I would bet that the person who died near you did exactly that - removed the gas nozzle. If they had seen Mythbusters, they might have known to not do it. You're vilifying the show when it actually could have saved his life.


I didn't misunderstand anything, you found the transcript to A show, the show you keep referencing......and again,, the show I saw involved rubbing different materials together trying to build static, to get a spark to ignite gas fumes.
it did not involve a cell phone..
.....
LOl, I know what I saw, I 'm not angry, but there is a difference between debating, and what you have done,

[Groucho]

In this episode, they built a rig that would attempt to create a static charge with panties and fur and used that to attempt to detonate the gas after the cell phone failed. They were not able to generate a good enough spark, probably because they're usually not working in a dry environment like you find in colder, snowier areas in the winter.

That rig and their failure to ignite vapors with it is probably what you remember. They did eventually create a stronger spark and detonated the vapors that way. They never, even claimed that you cannot start a fire with a spark nor that it was safe to get in and out of your car.