A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 17th 18, 08:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,119
Default photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k

In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

The cheaper way is to copy to a decent make of SD card or external SSD
disk (less chance of mechanical failure) but the downside is you really
need to have a yearly regime of checking all devices are readable and an
X-yearly regime of "copy to new device" - even SSDs fail with age.


using sd cards is *not* cheaper, *not* practical and not reliable. a
bad choice all around.


I disagree on all 3 counts. On what basis do you make your arguments?


price, failure rates and capacity.

hard drives are more than an order of magnitude less expensive, more
reliable and available in far higher capacities than is possible with
sd cards (sdxc has a 2tb maximum). sduc can go higher, but that's not
available yet and won't be cheap.

there is also very little infrastructure to support sd cards. have you
ever seen a multi-bay sd card cage? the concept itself is laughable.

are you actually going to swap among multiple sd cards every time you
want to back up??

using an ssd for backup purposes is a waste of money because the speed
advantages are lost. use an ssd for the main drive and spinners for
backup purposes.


You missed the point - spinners are mechanical. They are prone to damage
due to shock (handling and dropping) and if used for offline archival
purposes, run the risk of seizing if left unpowered for long periods
(years).


don't drop them and don't leave them unpowered for long periods of
time. problem solved.

SSDs lose the mechanical problems which greatly increase the reliability.


that's true, but the point *you* missed is that ssds are the wrong
choice for backups. you're paying for speed that won't ever be
realized, with much lower capacity per dollar than with hard drives.

backups do not need to be fast since they happen automatically in the
background. ssds are a complete waste.

But even so, I wouldn't put any device in a drawer and forget about it
for several years, but if I did, I'd bet on the SSD and flash cards
being more likely to still work.


you'd more than likely lose, and there's no point in doing that anyway.

Ideally all files should have a checksum file written with them (MD5,
SHA1 or anything reasonable) and this used to verify files on an annual
basis.


that's automatic with modern file systems.


No it isn't.


it is.

The only common filesystems with *file data* checksums are ZFS, BtrFS -
both linux (and one also Solaris).


in other words, it is.

try to keep your story straight.

also, they're not limited to linux (nor is any file system).

exFAT has only metadata checksumming.


exfat is not a modern file system and is also proprietary. bad choice
all around.

The rest with file data checksumming a SquashFS, ReFS, NILFS and NOVA
and of those, SquashFS is the only one I've seen anywhere in use.


none of those are commonly used.

So yes, you really need to run a checksum generator at the start and
that is the only way you can be reasonably sure your data has not
suffered corruption.


nope.
  #12  
Old November 17th 18, 11:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Tim Watts[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k

On 17/11/18 19:18, nospam wrote:

there is also very little infrastructure to support sd cards. have you
ever seen a multi-bay sd card cage? the concept itself is laughable.


I never said they would be all online at once.

are you actually going to swap among multiple sd cards every time you
want to back up??


No - I churn a year's worth of stuff onto one then file it in a small
tough box where it won't get lost and it's labelled "2017" or whatever.
It's not expensive for the volumes I produce, simple and fairly foolproof.

Works for me (and I use Tresorit too for a cloud backup).


don't drop them and don't leave them unpowered for long periods of
time. problem solved.


Or use an SSD for when you will in fact fail to manage all of the above...

SSDs lose the mechanical problems which greatly increase the reliability.


that's true, but the point *you* missed is that ssds are the wrong
choice for backups. you're paying for speed that won't ever be
realized, with much lower capacity per dollar than with hard drives.


backups do not need to be fast since they happen automatically in the
background. ssds are a complete waste.


I'm well aware of that.

But even so, I wouldn't put any device in a drawer and forget about it
for several years, but if I did, I'd bet on the SSD and flash cards
being more likely to still work.


you'd more than likely lose, and there's no point in doing that anyway.


Really?

Ideally all files should have a checksum file written with them (MD5,
SHA1 or anything reasonable) and this used to verify files on an annual
basis.

that's automatic with modern file systems.


No it isn't.


it is.

The only common filesystems with *file data* checksums are ZFS, BtrFS -
both linux (and one also Solaris).


in other words, it is.

try to keep your story straight.


It's you that's having trouble keep their story straight.

also, they're not limited to linux (nor is any file system).


Show me a Windows or Mac device that runs either commonly. I run ZFS on
one linux server at home - and I am quite rare in that regard. I have
seldom come across either BtrFS or ZFS run in a commercial environment.
It can happen but it's pretty uncommon.

There will be few professional photogs would would run either. Most will
be using some sort of NAS with a far more basic FS, or Mac or Windows
with their native FS'es

NTFS does not maintain file data checksums nor does Apple's APFS.

exFAT has only metadata checksumming.


exfat is not a modern file system and is also proprietary. bad choice
all around.


Yes it is. It is the most modern variant of the FAT family used commonly
on removable storage devices which makes it highly relevant to any
discussion on backups.

The rest with file data checksumming a SquashFS, ReFS, NILFS and NOVA
and of those, SquashFS is the only one I've seen anywhere in use.


none of those are commonly used.

So yes, you really need to run a checksum generator at the start and
that is the only way you can be reasonably sure your data has not
suffered corruption.


nope.


Yes!

I think I've demonstrated that I know a good deal more about filesystems
that you appear to.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore, welcome to the KF...

--
Email does not work
  #13  
Old November 18th 18, 07:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,119
Default photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k

In article , Tim Watts
wrote:


there is also very little infrastructure to support sd cards. have you
ever seen a multi-bay sd card cage? the concept itself is laughable.


I never said they would be all online at once.


which means more work for yourself. no point in that.

are you actually going to swap among multiple sd cards every time you
want to back up??


No - I churn a year's worth of stuff onto one then file it in a small
tough box where it won't get lost and it's labelled "2017" or whatever.
It's not expensive for the volumes I produce, simple and fairly foolproof.


1 sd card per *year*????

obviously, you don't produce much volume, as in almost nothing.

Works for me (and I use Tresorit too for a cloud backup).


but not for others.

don't drop them and don't leave them unpowered for long periods of
time. problem solved.


Or use an SSD for when you will in fact fail to manage all of the above...


or stop making up scenarios that don't actually matter.

non-operating shock is 300 g:
https://www.wd.com/content/dam/wdc/w...ssets/eng/spec
_data_sheet/2879-800022.pdf

it's a non-issue.

SSDs lose the mechanical problems which greatly increase the reliability.


that's true, but the point *you* missed is that ssds are the wrong
choice for backups. you're paying for speed that won't ever be
realized, with much lower capacity per dollar than with hard drives.


backups do not need to be fast since they happen automatically in the
background. ssds are a complete waste.


I'm well aware of that.


apparently not, since you suggested an ssd for a backup.

But even so, I wouldn't put any device in a drawer and forget about it
for several years, but if I did, I'd bet on the SSD and flash cards
being more likely to still work.


you'd more than likely lose, and there's no point in doing that anyway.


Really?


really.

Ideally all files should have a checksum file written with them (MD5,
SHA1 or anything reasonable) and this used to verify files on an annual
basis.

that's automatic with modern file systems.

No it isn't.


it is.

The only common filesystems with *file data* checksums are ZFS, BtrFS -
both linux (and one also Solaris).


in other words, it is.

try to keep your story straight.


It's you that's having trouble keep their story straight.


nope. you contradicted yourself.

first you say it's not automatic, then you list two filesystems that do
it automatically.

also, they're not limited to linux (nor is any file system).


Show me a Windows or Mac device that runs either commonly. I run ZFS on
one linux server at home - and I am quite rare in that regard. I have
seldom come across either BtrFS or ZFS run in a commercial environment.
It can happen but it's pretty uncommon.


btrfs is not only common, but it's *extremely* widespread.

synology, one of the most popular nas vendors in the world (if not the
most), supports btrfs on most of their nases. netgear, another popular
nas vendo (but not as good), also supports btrfs.

many commercial and consumer environments are running btrfs, wiht more
every day.

There will be few professional photogs would would run either. Most will
be using some sort of NAS with a far more basic FS, or Mac or Windows
with their native FS'es


nope. most will use a synology nas with btrfs, and not just
photographers. they're a *very* popular nas.

NTFS does not maintain file data checksums nor does Apple's APFS.


neither is suitable for a server.

exFAT has only metadata checksumming.


exfat is not a modern file system and is also proprietary. bad choice
all around.


Yes it is. It is the most modern variant of the FAT family used commonly
on removable storage devices which makes it highly relevant to any
discussion on backups.


exactly why it's *not* modern, and it's also proprietary. bad choice
all around.

The rest with file data checksumming a SquashFS, ReFS, NILFS and NOVA
and of those, SquashFS is the only one I've seen anywhere in use.


none of those are commonly used.

So yes, you really need to run a checksum generator at the start and
that is the only way you can be reasonably sure your data has not
suffered corruption.


nope.


Yes!


no. there is *no* reason to do it manually when a computer will do it
*for* you and do a much better job of it.

I think I've demonstrated that I know a good deal more about filesystems
that you appear to.


you have not.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore, welcome to the KF...


because you don't have anything to support your claims.
  #14  
Old November 19th 18, 01:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Tim Watts[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k

On 19/11/18 11:10, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 17 November 2018 18:29:38 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 17/11/18 17:11, nospam wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

The cheaper way is to copy to a decent make of SD card or external SSD
disk (less chance of mechanical failure) but the downside is you really
need to have a yearly regime of checking all devices are readable and an
X-yearly regime of "copy to new device" - even SSDs fail with age.

using sd cards is *not* cheaper, *not* practical and not reliable. a
bad choice all around.


I disagree on all 3 counts. On what basis do you make your arguments?


I'd make the same statement based on experience , practicalities and looking at the devices.


using an ssd for backup purposes is a waste of money because the speed
advantages are lost. use an ssd for the main drive and spinners for
backup purposes.


You missed the point - spinners are mechanical.


So.

They are prone to damage
due to shock (handling and dropping) and if used for offline archival
purposes, run the risk of seizing if left unpowered for long periods
(years).


So, it is possible to eliminate these problems to some.

1/ DO NOT practice juggerling with hard drives, stick to balls and those items designed for that purpose.
2/ Like cars if you want them to last a lifetime then routine checks are requred leave a tank of gas in your car for 10+ years and it's unlikely to start.


Why add to your risk? I'm recognising the real world - people do
bang/drop/shock things like this. People have a hard enough time
actually backing stuff up - so I would always recommend the most robust
device (which has the least moving parts) for a job like this.

If you're happy with that, that's upto you.

I'm telling you all what *I* do and what *I* recommend.



SSDs lose the mechanical problems which greatly increase the reliability.


and their attractiveness for theft, and even accidetnal lose the smaller an item is the easier it is to lose too.
I'm nto sure if it;s been tried by conecting a SSD up to a voltage it wasntl expecting would seriusly damaged it. Do that to a HD and the logic board will fail and you might still get the data back.
We've done it here faulty contoller board replace with identical one get the data back.
There are companies out there that can get data back from HD's I;'m not sure it's been done for SSD as yet.


Again, in the real world, the risk of mechanical damage is far more
likely than electrical damage.


the data.f.com/tag/5-warning-signs-ssd-break-fail/

https://www.makeuseoDO NOT assume just because it;s on a SSD you wopn;lt lose


Obviously - I did not claim it was infallible - just that it was
*better* than a mechanical spinning disk.

I'm really not sure why some are finding a simple argument so hard to grasp?


But even so, I wouldn't put any device in a drawer and forget about it
for several years, but if I did, I'd bet on the SSD and flash cards
being more likely to still work.


People bet on all sorts of things including their lives.

But just suppose you had differnt backup systemes in place.
SSDs, HDDs, CD/DVDs, floppies, tape, punched cards.

if someone broke it what items are they most likely to steal, well provided they were looking for tech and not jewlery & cash ehat would they take otr what are you most likely lose.



That's why you put your good stuff on 2 devices, one at another location
- or one in the cloud...



--
Email does not work
  #15  
Old November 19th 18, 02:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,119
Default photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k

In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

They are prone to damage
due to shock (handling and dropping) and if used for offline archival
purposes, run the risk of seizing if left unpowered for long periods
(years).


So, it is possible to eliminate these problems to some.

1/ DO NOT practice juggerling with hard drives, stick to balls and those
items designed for that purpose.
2/ Like cars if you want them to last a lifetime then routine checks are
requred leave a tank of gas in your car for 10+ years and it's unlikely to
start.


Why add to your risk? I'm recognising the real world - people do
bang/drop/shock things like this.


no they don't.

it also doesn't matter, since drives are rated for 300g shock:
https://www.wd.com/content/dam/wdc/w...ssets/eng/spec
_data_sheet/2879-800022.pdf

People have a hard enough time
actually backing stuff up -


separate problem.

so I would always recommend the most robust
device (which has the least moving parts) for a job like this.


ssds are not 'the most robust' and are *not* a good choice for backup.

If you're happy with that, that's upto you.

I'm telling you all what *I* do and what *I* recommend.


if you regularly bang drives, you're not in a position to be
recommending *anything*.







if someone broke it what items are they most likely to steal, well provided
they were looking for tech and not jewlery & cash ehat would they take otr what are
you most likely lose.


That's why you put your good stuff on 2 devices, one at another location
- or one in the cloud...


have multiple copies of everything (not just the 'good stuff'), with at
least one off site and one in the cloud. the more the merrier.

should any one copy fail, there are others. replace the failed drive
and update. an ssd is a complete waste of money and its speed
advantages are completely lost.
  #16  
Old November 19th 18, 03:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,119
Default photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Obviously - I did not claim it was infallible - just that it was
*better* than a mechanical spinning disk.


Better in what respect ?
Theres no evidence yet that it is better for backups as that depends on the
users and the amount backed up SSD are NOT the best for me, mostly due to
cost, i.e the number I'd need.


yep, and the speed advantages are lost.

I'm really not sure why some are finding a simple argument so hard to grasp?


because yuo are wrong, it;s that simple, ask google what type of drives they
use in their servers then argue with them that they should eb using SSDs.

or read a bit more about the subject.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/ssd-re...es-experience/


SSD age, not usage, affects reliability.
....
The SSD is less likely to fail during its normal life, but more
likely to lose data.

so much for being better.

worse, he wants to archive stuff on a single device and then put it in
a drawer, which means only *one* copy. that's a disaster waiting to
happen.
  #17  
Old November 19th 18, 03:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Tim Watts[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k

On 19/11/18 14:02, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 19 November 2018 12:20:08 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:


I'm recognising the real world -


Not everyone lives in the same real world.


In my real world, spinning hard drives are susceptible to shock damage
and a variety of other modes of failure that a pure electronic device is
not.

What world do you live in?

But that doesn't make it THE most robust device.


For the second time, I have never claimed that. I said it was "better".
because yuo are wrong, it;s that simple, ask google what type of drives they use in their servers then argue with them that they should eb using SSDs.


I'm not wrong.

Google design redundancy in at a server level and at a high factor (ie
they'll tolerate more that one device in a group failing.

This only translates to backups *if* you are prepared to back up to
several spinning disks.

Most normal people struggle with backing things up at all. Ergo a more
expensive less likely to fail due to accidents/mechanical issues device
is generally what I recommend for that type of user.

If you are sure of your own regime, that's fine for you.

In the general case of the average person, I completely stand behind my
advice.


--
Email does not work
  #18  
Old November 19th 18, 04:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,119
Default photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k

In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

I'm recognising the real world -


Not everyone lives in the same real world.


In my real world, spinning hard drives are susceptible to shock damage
and a variety of other modes of failure that a pure electronic device is
not.


ssds have *different* types of failures. they are not immune (nothing
is), and shock isn't an issue in the real world anyway. people don't
normally drop their computers or servers.

anyone who regularly drops hard drives has bigger issues to resolve.

What world do you live in?


not your imaginary one.

But that doesn't make it THE most robust device.


For the second time, I have never claimed that. I said it was "better".
because yuo are wrong, it;s that simple, ask google what type of drives
they use in their servers then argue with them that they should eb using
SSDs.


I'm not wrong.


yes you are.

Google design redundancy in at a server level and at a high factor (ie
they'll tolerate more that one device in a group failing.


that's not unique to google. anyone can have a redundant server.

This only translates to backups *if* you are prepared to back up to
several spinning disks.


what's to prepare? enable backups and the computer does the rest.

Most normal people struggle with backing things up at all.


separate problem, and one which has been resolved.

Ergo a more
expensive less likely to fail due to accidents/mechanical issues device
is generally what I recommend for that type of user.


even if that were true (which it isn't), it doesn't solve the real
problem of people struggling to make backups.

the best solution is an automatic backup strategy using a nas which
syncs to a cloud service. set it and forget it.

manually backing up up to multiple devices is asking for trouble.
  #19  
Old November 19th 18, 09:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Tim Watts[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k

On 19/11/18 15:39, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 19 November 2018 14:45:21 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 19/11/18 14:02, Whisky-dave wrote:


Google design redundancy in at a server level


why bother if they could use SSDs.


Because when scaling to 10000s of servers, even a few percent savings of
costs amounts to a *lot* of capital.

For a professional (or keen amateur) user, even a premium of 100-odd%
extra is unlikely to amount to a huge amount in absolute terms. It's
like giving your dinner guests Lidl digestives because they're cheaper
than After Eights.


and at a high factor (ie
they'll tolerate more that one device in a group failing.


and that's the way backups should be done/kept.
I bought an external 4TB for £85 last week.
How much would I need to spend to get 4TB of SSD ?

I bought a 1/2 TB for £80 internal.

So I would have needed to spend about ~£1600 + a PSU for a similar SSD.


Rubbish. And you have the cheek to tell me I don't know what I'm talking
about?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/SanDisk-Ext.../dp/B078STRHBX

£180 for 1TB.

That's a decent make (I have 2), fast and reliable. I have never had a
Sandisk flash product fail on me, whereas I have had several spinning
hard drives fail from a similar number of units I have bought for home use.

Little over 2x to lose the whole mechanical aspect - also more compact,
lighter, faster.


I'd rather have multiple HDs than rely on one SSD.


This only translates to backups *if* you are prepared to back up to
several spinning disks.


why wouldn't I be.


Because lots of people can barely manage to maintain a simple regime let
alone one that requires making multiple copies of the same data.



Most normal people struggle with backing things up at all.


you mean sub-normal people like yourself.


Says the one arguing the toss and resorting to ad-hom because he's lost
the argument.

I have an excellent backup regime. I use SSDs for primary, SD for
secondary (which gets pulled for a batch, then replaced back in its box)
and Tresorit which is automatic with no intervention on my part and puts
a copy of my data in Switzerland.


Anyway - welcome to the KF - You can argue with yourself. Anyone
sensible can take my advice, leave it or adapt it to the way that suits
them.


--
Email does not work
  #20  
Old November 19th 18, 11:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,119
Default photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k

In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

Google design redundancy in at a server level


why bother if they could use SSDs.


Because when scaling to 10000s of servers, even a few percent savings of
costs amounts to a *lot* of capital.


the difference is *much* more than a few percent, not that it matters,
since google can't afford *not* to lose user data, which would cost a
lot more than the difference in hardware costs.

For a professional (or keen amateur) user, even a premium of 100-odd%
extra is unlikely to amount to a huge amount in absolute terms. It's
like giving your dinner guests Lidl digestives because they're cheaper
than After Eights.


you're off by an order of magnitude, particularly for sd cards.
see below.

and at a high factor (ie
they'll tolerate more that one device in a group failing.


and that's the way backups should be done/kept.
I bought an external 4TB for 85 last week.
How much would I need to spend to get 4TB of SSD ?

I bought a 1/2 TB for 80 internal.

So I would have needed to spend about ~1600 + a PSU for a similar SSD.


Rubbish. And you have the cheek to tell me I don't know what I'm talking
about?


you don't.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/SanDisk-Ext.../dp/B078STRHBX

180 for 1TB.


the largest capacity for that is 2tb at 419, which means two of those
would be needed for the requested 4tb, or 838, along with the
additional hassle of managing two devices rather than one for a single
backup.

meanwhile, a 4tb hard drive is 80:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/WD-Elements...ve/dp/B00JT8AJ
Z0/

that's more than a ten-fold difference, a difference in cost of 758,
far more than your claimed '100% premium'.

that difference is enough to buy an additional *nine* 4tb hard drives,
or better yet, a fully populated nas.

also, 4tb is considered small these days. backing up 10-20tb and the
difference becomes *substantial*.

the other problem is you said you use sd cards for your backups.

looking at prices for those, a 512g sd card is 274:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/SanDisk-Ext...y/dp/B00NP699Z
I/

the requested 4tb would require *eight* sd cards, totaling 2192,
nearly *thirty* times the price of a single 4tb hard drive, and nowhere
near as convenient nor as reliable.

That's a decent make (I have 2), fast and reliable. I have never had a
Sandisk flash product fail on me, whereas I have had several spinning
hard drives fail from a similar number of units I have bought for home use.


nothing lasts forever and hard drive failures do not matter.

simply replace the failed drive and restore to the new drive as
appropriate. it takes maybe a minute to unbox and swap, with the
remainder of the restoration process being entirely automatic.

Little over 2x to lose the whole mechanical aspect - also more compact,
lighter, faster.


try 10x-30x see above.

I'd rather have multiple HDs than rely on one SSD.


This only translates to backups *if* you are prepared to back up to
several spinning disks.


why wouldn't I be.


Because lots of people can barely manage to maintain a simple regime let
alone one that requires making multiple copies of the same data.


that you're calling it a regime shows your ignorance.

all the user needs to do is click a button to enable backups (which is
done *once*) and then computer takes care of everything else, the part
that you're calling a 'regime'.

in other words, there is nothing for the user to manage. it's all
*automatic*.

Most normal people struggle with backing things up at all.


you mean sub-normal people like yourself.


Says the one arguing the toss and resorting to ad-hom because he's lost
the argument.


you're not one to be talking about ad hominem, especially when you kill
file anyone who disagrees with you. you have *nothing* to back up your
claims (no pun intended).

I have an excellent backup regime. I use SSDs for primary, SD for
secondary (which gets pulled for a batch, then replaced back in its box)
and Tresorit which is automatic with no intervention on my part and puts
a copy of my data in Switzerland.


that's a clumsy manual process which uses very expensive low capacity
media.

no reasonable person would call that acceptable, let alone 'excellent'.

Anyway - welcome to the KF - You can argue with yourself. Anyone
sensible can take my advice, leave it or adapt it to the way that suits
them.


anyone sensible knows that your 'advice' is awful, a disaster waiting
to happen.
 




Thread Tools
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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adobe Cloud was deleting MAC files Davoud Digital Photography 0 February 16th 16 05:02 PM
Adobe Cloud was deleting MAC files nospam Digital Photography 0 February 16th 16 06:26 AM
Brisbane Wedding Photographer takes amazing bridle portrait! D_Mac 35mm Photo Equipment 10 August 27th 07 09:50 PM
Deleting photos [email protected] Digital Photography 4 June 6th 07 10:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.