Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital vs. film on USA Today

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 10:32:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2005-01-20-digit...

Well, I delete the ones I don't like, just like I never printed the film
images I did not like. If I found I did not like the print I dumped it.

The easiest way to lower your reputation as a photographer is to show
all your images. Show only the best (dump the rest, if they are not good
enough to show, get them out of the way) and you will look like (and be) a
better photographer.

Why else did we have all those stories and jokes about those vacation
slides and being forced to watch hours of junk slides.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 11:01:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <VYSId.49556$re1.16640@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jer wrote:
> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2005-01-20-digit...
>
> Well, I delete the ones I don't like, just like I never printed the film
> images I did not like. If I found I did not like the print I dumped it.
>
> The easiest way to lower your reputation as a photographer is to show
> all your images. Show only the best (dump the rest, if they are not good
> enough to show, get them out of the way) and you will look like (and be) a
> better photographer.
>
> Why else did we have all those stories and jokes about those vacation
> slides and being forced to watch hours of junk slides.

Your reasoning is somewhat flawed. Sometimes an image becomes worth
while beyond the immediate use. Think Bill C and Monica.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Related resources
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 12:21:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <bugstopped_-3949A9.15055323012005@news.verizon.net>,
Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:

> Your reasoning is somewhat flawed. Sometimes an image becomes worth
> while beyond the immediate use. Think Bill C and Monica.

That is an excellent example of the advantages of film, by coincidence.
Everybody had deleted the images of "Bill with some unknown people", but
one oldtimer ;-) who still shot slides dug up the ONLY picture that
shows Bill and Monica together, and he made quite a buck from it...

;-)
Lourens
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 12:21:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lourens Smak" <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-2D4BAD.21213523012005@news.wanadoo.nl...
> In article <bugstopped_-3949A9.15055323012005@news.verizon.net>,
> Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
>
> > Your reasoning is somewhat flawed. Sometimes an image becomes worth
> > while beyond the immediate use. Think Bill C and Monica.
>
> That is an excellent example of the advantages of film, by coincidence.
> Everybody had deleted the images of "Bill with some unknown people", but
> one oldtimer ;-) who still shot slides dug up the ONLY picture that
> shows Bill and Monica together, and he made quite a buck from it...
>

I would say just the opposite. Because the cost of each frame is $0, I have
taken many times more shots than I did with film (probably close to 10x as
many--certainly more than 5x). I rarely delete anything because...why
bother? The cost of the media to save a given shot is also near zero. So
I'm roughly 10x as likely to have a random valuable shot in my collection of
digital photos as I would if I'd kept shooting film.

Mark
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 12:21:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:20:42 -0500, "Mark Weaver"
<weaver@nospam-corvusdev.com> wrote:


>I would say just the opposite. Because the cost of each frame is $0, I have
>taken many times more shots than I did with film (probably close to 10x as
>many--certainly more than 5x). I rarely delete anything because...why
>bother? The cost of the media to save a given shot is also near zero. So
>I'm roughly 10x as likely to have a random valuable shot in my collection of
>digital photos as I would if I'd kept shooting film.


Won't help you if all 10x pictures are on
the same media.

I love my digicams but frankly am not thrilled
about the effort it will take to ensure that
these captures last for the rest of my lifetime -
let alone beyond.

Archival storage is the Achilles heel of
digital capture.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 12:26:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I wonder how much the cost of film and developing really deters most
photographers. It might for casual sharpshooters. However, with what I
would call amateur photographers, I never remember anyone complaining
all that much. At least seriously. Oh, there was a time when that guy
tried to capture the silver market, and photographers really spoke out
in fear, but I suspect it didn't change film buying habits much.

I certainly can remember with sheet film cameras planning and
restricting my shots, but that was because I only had a limited number
of film holders :-)

Most amateur (and for that matter, pros) shot LOTS and LOTs of film.
Funny, one probably shot far more money in the film than we paid for our
cameras, and yet we complained whenever camera prices seemed to be going
up. Funny, as I look back at what I paid for film cameras, I find film
cameras cheaper today than they were 30 years ago or so.

I have both a film and a digital camera and still find I shoot about as
much of each, i.e, use each about half the time. Of course, I can't
afford a multi-thousand dollar digicam. I might do things differently
if I were using one of those.
January 24, 2005 5:34:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in news:bugstopped_-
3949A9.15055323012005@news.verizon.net:

> Your reasoning is somewhat flawed. Sometimes an image becomes worth
> while beyond the immediate use. Think Bill C and Monica.
>

"Somewhat" is a good word choice. If the photographer had been shooting
digital, and had several versions of B & M, there would be no added value
to retaining the duplicates.

Bob
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 5:51:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Stauffer in Minneapolis <stauffer@usfamily.net> writes:

> I wonder how much the cost of film and developing really deters most
> photographers. It might for casual sharpshooters. However, with what
> I would call amateur photographers, I never remember anyone
> complaining all that much. At least seriously. Oh, there was a time
> when that guy tried to capture the silver market, and photographers
> really spoke out in fear, but I suspect it didn't change film buying
> habits much.
>
> I certainly can remember with sheet film cameras planning and
> restricting my shots, but that was because I only had a limited number
> of film holders :-)
>
> Most amateur (and for that matter, pros) shot LOTS and LOTs of
> film. Funny, one probably shot far more money in the film than we paid
> for our cameras, and yet we complained whenever camera prices seemed
> to be going up. Funny, as I look back at what I paid for film
> cameras, I find film cameras cheaper today than they were 30 years ago
> or so.

These days, I tell people "shoot a lot, film used to be cheap". When
I started I bulk loaded B&W film at about a penny a frame, and
developed and printed it myself. You can't get that kind of prices
these days, and fewer people are willing to stick to B&W.

> I have both a film and a digital camera and still find I shoot about
> as much of each, i.e, use each about half the time. Of course, I
> can't afford a multi-thousand dollar digicam. I might do things
> differently if I were using one of those.

See, my multi-thousand dollar digicam has paid for itself in film and
lab charges since I got it.

I wouldn't have been able to do nearly as much photography these past
few years (limited employment) if I hadn't gone digital. The cost of
film and processing would have stopped me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:07:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns95E8625846E5Cj123w123x123@216.77.188.18>,
bob <not@not.not> wrote:

> Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in news:bugstopped_-
> 3949A9.15055323012005@news.verizon.net:
>
> > Your reasoning is somewhat flawed. Sometimes an image becomes worth
> > while beyond the immediate use. Think Bill C and Monica.
> >
>
> "Somewhat" is a good word choice. If the photographer had been shooting
> digital, and had several versions of B & M, there would be no added value
> to retaining the duplicates.
>
> Bob

Yeah I choose my words carefully,

There was "just one shot", not knowing who she was he could have easily
erased it, and most people probably would. But it is just conjecture
either way.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:38:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark Weaver" <weaver@nospam-corvusdev.com> writes:

>I rarely delete anything because...why
>bother? The cost of the media to save a given shot is also near zero. So
>I'm roughly 10x as likely to have a random valuable shot in my collection of
>digital photos as I would if I'd kept shooting film.

Another aspect: I know exactly where to *find* all of the digital images
I've ever shot - they're all in a little stack of CD-Rs (with backups in
other places, of course). All the images are sorted by shooting date,
because that was done automatically, and I have a text file telling me
what I shot each date for reference. It's not difficult to find the
right day or days and just look through a few directories of images.
And when I do find the image I want, it's tagged with when it was shot
and exposure conditions.

In contrast, my film negatives are mostly filed in negative pages in
binders, but these are significantly more difficult to browse. And I
never set up any organized system of contact prints, or an index,
because I would have had to do all that manually. So finding anything
now is a lot more work.

Dave
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:32:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Stauffer in Minneapolis <stauffer@usfamily.net> writes:

> I wonder how much the cost of film and developing really deters most
> photographers. It might for casual sharpshooters. However, with what I would
> call amateur photographers, I never remember anyone complaining all that
> much. At least seriously. Oh, there was a time when that guy tried to
> capture the silver market, and photographers really spoke out in fear, but I
> suspect it didn't change film buying habits much.

It was a major deterent for me, to the point where I didn't shoot much for
years. That all changed when I got my first digital camera, and at least until
I bought my DSLR, I had well past the point where the savings on not buying
film and only printing the prints that I want was higher than the cost of the
camera.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
January 25, 2005 10:21:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Archival storage is also the Achilles heel of film, paper and stone.
There is no such thing as an archive without an archivest anyway.
The chance of anything you cherish surviving beyond your lifetime is only
good if you can have multiple copies in the hands of people who might also
want to preserve it.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"rafe bustin" <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iq88v01cuctt0er1s2g4ikrajapim8lvhv@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:20:42 -0500, "Mark Weaver"
> <weaver@nospam-corvusdev.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I would say just the opposite. Because the cost of each frame is $0, I
have
> >taken many times more shots than I did with film (probably close to 10x
as
> >many--certainly more than 5x). I rarely delete anything because...why
> >bother? The cost of the media to save a given shot is also near zero.
So
> >I'm roughly 10x as likely to have a random valuable shot in my collection
of
> >digital photos as I would if I'd kept shooting film.
>
>
> Won't help you if all 10x pictures are on
> the same media.
>
> I love my digicams but frankly am not thrilled
> about the effort it will take to ensure that
> these captures last for the rest of my lifetime -
> let alone beyond.
>
> Archival storage is the Achilles heel of
> digital capture.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 11:59:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> "Mark Weaver" <weaver@nospam-corvusdev.com> writes:
>
>
>>I rarely delete anything because...why
>>bother? The cost of the media to save a given shot is also near zero. So
>>I'm roughly 10x as likely to have a random valuable shot in my collection of
>>digital photos as I would if I'd kept shooting film.
>
>
> Another aspect: I know exactly where to *find* all of the digital images
> I've ever shot - they're all in a little stack of CD-Rs (with backups in
> other places, of course). All the images are sorted by shooting date,
> because that was done automatically, and I have a text file telling me
> what I shot each date for reference. It's not difficult to find the
> right day or days and just look through a few directories of images.
> And when I do find the image I want, it's tagged with when it was shot
> and exposure conditions.
>
> In contrast, my film negatives are mostly filed in negative pages in
> binders, but these are significantly more difficult to browse. And I
> never set up any organized system of contact prints, or an index,
> because I would have had to do all that manually. So finding anything
> now is a lot more work.
>
> Dave


Ah, Dave, that is an advantage of digital I certainly agree with. To me
digital is just another 'format'. But the issue you raise is indeed one
of the biggies with me in favor of digital. I started keeping good
track of my negs a few years ago, but gradually sluphed off and back to
"where the heck is that shot". So easy to set up folders and subfolders
on my drive, and to keep a stack of CDs for older images.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 2:47:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony wrote:

> Archival storage is also the Achilles heel of film, paper and stone.
> There is no such thing as an archive without an archivest anyway.
> The chance of anything you cherish surviving beyond your lifetime is only
> good if you can have multiple copies in the hands of people who might also
> want to preserve it.


There's much truth to this. Even so...

I had not just one but two nasty hard
drive crashes over the last year or so,
an unfortunately lost some images that
hadn't been backed up.

The film scans have mostly been redone...
but the digicam images are gone for good.

For all its pain and hassles, there's
something nice about the palpable, tangible
nature of film. You just can't be too
vigilant about backups.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 4:12:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <jsmJd.39809$dt3.3483009@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

> Archival storage is also the Achilles heel of film, paper and stone.
> There is no such thing as an archive without an archivest anyway.
> The chance of anything you cherish surviving beyond your lifetime is only
> good if you can have multiple copies in the hands of people who might also
> want to preserve it.
>

That's very true, but an archivist can be anyone that cares enough
to maintain the imagery, brother,sister or ancestor.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 8:12:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:47:38 -0500, rafeb <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>
>Tony wrote:
>
>> Archival storage is also the Achilles heel of film, paper and stone.
>> There is no such thing as an archive without an archivest anyway.
>> The chance of anything you cherish surviving beyond your lifetime is only
>> good if you can have multiple copies in the hands of people who might also
>> want to preserve it.
>
>
>There's much truth to this. Even so...
>
>I had not just one but two nasty hard
>drive crashes over the last year or so,
>an unfortunately lost some images that
>hadn't been backed up.
>
>The film scans have mostly been redone...
>but the digicam images are gone for good.
>
>For all its pain and hassles, there's
>something nice about the palpable, tangible
>nature of film. You just can't be too
>vigilant about backups.

Yep, but the solution is in your workflow. Computers have been around
long enough now that everyone should have a spare old one, or a
laptop, one for the kids, a second computer at work, a computer
attached to the home theater etc. Your workflow should involve
downloading the CF cards to two different PC's (best if in different
buildings) before re-formatting the card.

This way, your loss risk is vastly reduced. If something happened to a
hard-drive on either machine before you had the chance to archive the
images, you still have a copy. At that point you'd instantly perform a
backup of the remaining at-risk images before starting your recovery.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 10:20:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
> Dave Martindale wrote:
>
>> "Mark Weaver" <weaver@nospam-corvusdev.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> I rarely delete anything because...why
>>> bother? The cost of the media to save a given shot is also near
>>> zero. So
>>> I'm roughly 10x as likely to have a random valuable shot in my
>>> collection of
>>> digital photos as I would if I'd kept shooting film.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another aspect: I know exactly where to *find* all of the digital images
>> I've ever shot - they're all in a little stack of CD-Rs (with backups in
>> other places, of course). All the images are sorted by shooting date,
>> because that was done automatically, and I have a text file telling me
>> what I shot each date for reference. It's not difficult to find the
>> right day or days and just look through a few directories of images.
>> And when I do find the image I want, it's tagged with when it was shot
>> and exposure conditions.
>>
>> In contrast, my film negatives are mostly filed in negative pages in
>> binders, but these are significantly more difficult to browse. And I
>> never set up any organized system of contact prints, or an index,
>> because I would have had to do all that manually. So finding anything
>> now is a lot more work.
>>
>> Dave
>
>
>
> Ah, Dave, that is an advantage of digital I certainly agree with. To me
> digital is just another 'format'. But the issue you raise is indeed one
> of the biggies with me in favor of digital. I started keeping good
> track of my negs a few years ago, but gradually sluphed off and back to
> "where the heck is that shot". So easy to set up folders and subfolders
> on my drive, and to keep a stack of CDs for older images.

With something like 420 gigabytes available to me on 3 computers, I
doubt I will run out of storage, so CDs aren't in my plan. HD storage
is so cheap these days that I will just add more HD space if I need it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 10:22:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:47:38 -0500, rafeb <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Tony wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Archival storage is also the Achilles heel of film, paper and stone.
>>>There is no such thing as an archive without an archivest anyway.
>>> The chance of anything you cherish surviving beyond your lifetime is only
>>>good if you can have multiple copies in the hands of people who might also
>>>want to preserve it.
>>
>>
>>There's much truth to this. Even so...
>>
>>I had not just one but two nasty hard
>>drive crashes over the last year or so,
>>an unfortunately lost some images that
>>hadn't been backed up.
>>
>>The film scans have mostly been redone...
>>but the digicam images are gone for good.
>>
>>For all its pain and hassles, there's
>>something nice about the palpable, tangible
>>nature of film. You just can't be too
>>vigilant about backups.
>
>
> Yep, but the solution is in your workflow. Computers have been around
> long enough now that everyone should have a spare old one, or a
> laptop, one for the kids, a second computer at work, a computer
> attached to the home theater etc. Your workflow should involve
> downloading the CF cards to two different PC's (best if in different
> buildings) before re-formatting the card.
>
> This way, your loss risk is vastly reduced. If something happened to a
> hard-drive on either machine before you had the chance to archive the
> images, you still have a copy. At that point you'd instantly perform a
> backup of the remaining at-risk images before starting your recovery.
>
> --
> Owamanga!

While I don't always keep 100% current, my images generally exist on 4
different drives at this point. Of course, they are all in the same
place, usually (the laptop travels with me).


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
January 26, 2005 4:49:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
>
>> Dave Martindale wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark Weaver" <weaver@nospam-corvusdev.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I rarely delete anything because...why
>>>> bother? The cost of the media to save a given shot is also near
>>>> zero. So
>>>> I'm roughly 10x as likely to have a random valuable shot in my
>>>> collection of
>>>> digital photos as I would if I'd kept shooting film.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Another aspect: I know exactly where to *find* all of the digital images
>>> I've ever shot - they're all in a little stack of CD-Rs (with backups in
>>> other places, of course). All the images are sorted by shooting date,
>>> because that was done automatically, and I have a text file telling me
>>> what I shot each date for reference. It's not difficult to find the
>>> right day or days and just look through a few directories of images.
>>> And when I do find the image I want, it's tagged with when it was shot
>>> and exposure conditions.
>>>
>>> In contrast, my film negatives are mostly filed in negative pages in
>>> binders, but these are significantly more difficult to browse. And I
>>> never set up any organized system of contact prints, or an index,
>>> because I would have had to do all that manually. So finding anything
>>> now is a lot more work.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, Dave, that is an advantage of digital I certainly agree with. To
>> me digital is just another 'format'. But the issue you raise is
>> indeed one of the biggies with me in favor of digital. I started
>> keeping good track of my negs a few years ago, but gradually sluphed
>> off and back to "where the heck is that shot". So easy to set up
>> folders and subfolders on my drive, and to keep a stack of CDs for
>> older images.
>
>
> With something like 420 gigabytes available to me on 3 computers, I
> doubt I will run out of storage, so CDs aren't in my plan. HD storage
> is so cheap these days that I will just add more HD space if I need it.
>
>


Same here, Ron. I've got several hardrives in the data safe, and dupe
drives offsite. Recently, I migrated the data from the two oldest drive
pairs to a single newer drive pair. Leaving the hard drive cables
hanging out the back makes this effort easier than handling CDROMs.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:20:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

>With something like 420 gigabytes available to me on 3 computers, I
>doubt I will run out of storage, so CDs aren't in my plan. HD storage
>is so cheap these days that I will just add more HD space if I need it.

Yeah, there's something to be said for that. However, CD-Rs are small.
I have a duplicate set of digital camera images stored in my desk at
work, so a fire at home wouldn't wipe out all copies. At other times
I've kept the "off site backup" in a safety deposit box at the bank.

I also like putting backup hard drives in external USB2 drive boxes.
This way, they can be connected to whatever machine I want. If one
machine dies a horrible death, I simply move the drive to another. If a
power supply dies with an overvoltage fault and destroys all the
hardware in one computer case (unlikely though that may be), the
external drive with its separate power supply is likely to remain safe.
And I keep them turned off most of the time - most for noise
reasons, but it also means that the spindle bearings will never wear
out.

Dave
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:20:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>With something like 420 gigabytes available to me on 3 computers, I
>>doubt I will run out of storage, so CDs aren't in my plan. HD storage
>>is so cheap these days that I will just add more HD space if I need it.
>
>
> Yeah, there's something to be said for that. However, CD-Rs are small.
> I have a duplicate set of digital camera images stored in my desk at
> work, so a fire at home wouldn't wipe out all copies. At other times
> I've kept the "off site backup" in a safety deposit box at the bank.
>
> I also like putting backup hard drives in external USB2 drive boxes.
> This way, they can be connected to whatever machine I want. If one
> machine dies a horrible death, I simply move the drive to another. If a
> power supply dies with an overvoltage fault and destroys all the
> hardware in one computer case (unlikely though that may be), the
> external drive with its separate power supply is likely to remain safe.
> And I keep them turned off most of the time - most for noise
> reasons, but it also means that the spindle bearings will never wear
> out.
>
> Dave

One of the computers is a laptop, and one of the drives (120GB) is an
external USB 2.0 drive. It's a quick 'grab and run' arrangement.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
!