Memory card help

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

BorealChickadee

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
430
Reaction score
25
Location
Homer
Sandisk 1 gb memory card

I had over 200 pictures on this card this weekend.
I went to do some review and I could only see 4 photos but at that point the camera knew it had pictures since it was telling me there was only room for 139 more. Batteries died.

I came home, put in new batteries and only the last 4 pictures show up. And I get a message that the card needs reformatting.

I know if I reformat I'll lose everything forever.
Are my wonderful autumn pictures gone forever or are they still there somewhere in digital land??
 
What happens if you put it in a computer card reader? Usually you'll get one or two folders and then the photos. If you don't have a reader, bug a friend who does. I do, near Manchester NH if that helps.

Tim
 
thanks guys! So it looks like I need a card reader since it can't read directly from the camera. I don't have one (thanks for the offer bikeshikesfish) so I'm going to try my printer. Maybe that will work. I'll let you know.

This card has doen many thousands of pictures so I'm assuming I should toss it once I get my pictures back (fingers crossed :) ).
 
You can buy a USB card reader for $10 at any computer/camera store. You stand a very good chance of recovering most if not all your photos, just don't do anything with that card until you do.

-dave-
 
BorealChickadee said:
This card has doen many thousands of pictures so I'm assuming I should toss it once I get my pictures back (fingers crossed :) ).
The card itself may be ok--the problem might have been caused by the batteries failing during a write. Another way to cause problems is to remove the card while the camera is writing or is still turned on.

But it could also be bad. Replacing would be the safe thing to do. Also, it is a good idea to stick to the major manufacturers--the cheapie bargain may not turn out to be a bargain...

Doug
 
Cards rarely "go bad". They can have bad data written to them and be badly corrupted, but it rarely has a physical problem. It probably was corrupted when trying to write and running out of battery power.

At this point, I don't bother with brand names. Especially for SD cards which are common and cheap, I just go to newegg.com and buy the second least expensive card with the specs I'm looking for. Right now I'm using Transcend cards, but next time I buy it'll probably be something different.
 
Success!The card reader in the printer worked so I didn't have to buy an extra reader.

I tried two online free evaluations, cardrecovery for $20 and photorescue for $30. Both took about 5 minutes for me to read about them and then about 40 minutes to evaluate my SD card and create thumbnail images of what each could recover.

Cardrecovery pulled up 448 images but many were corrupted showing only a portion of each picture.

Photorescue pulled up 448 images but ALL were complete pictures.

I bought photorescue.

448 images were recovered of which 312 were from this weekend and the remaining were from a previous trip that I had deleted after uploading a few weeks ago. So in conclusion this program really works!

The batteries were very low and the camera kept shutting off as I tried to squeeeze in one more picture of a sunset. I was a short distance from the car (and more batteries) but knew if I went back, the sun would set.

I've now reformatted the memory card. I suppose I could test it out on pics that don't have value to me and if it works keep it as a backup. I think I'd feel more comfortable with a new one.

The pictures were special to me and I had pictures on there that I had promised two other people. What a time for trouble!

Thanks everyone. You are the best!
 
Last edited:
My workflow always includes uploading images from the camera memory card to a computer hard drive by way of a card reader. The process is quick and reliable. In six years of doing this in daily newspaper work I've not lost an image.

The routine also involves reformatting the memory card after each shoot is uploaded to the hard drive. This is far superior to deleting images in order to make space for new pictures.

Our shop uses several generations of Sandisk CompactFlash cards, which have proven themselves to be very reliable under hard-use, low-care conditions.

Just my $0.02.

G.
 
Grumpy said:
The routine also involves reformatting the memory card after each shoot is uploaded to the hard drive. This is far superior to deleting images in order to make space for new pictures.

Can you please explain this further? The cards just use a FAT16 or FAT32 (SDHC) file system. When you delete an image, the directory entry is marked 'deleted' which is why the recovery tools can 'undelete' or recover 'lost' pictures, presuming the image (data) blocks have not been reused.

In this case, the directory entries were corrupted by power failure during the write. In this case, I believe a low-level format is warranted to restore the card to 100% safely usable state.

If deleting were not reliable, eventually all hard drives would fill up and require low-level formatting.

Tim-the-software-engineer
 
I always reformat the card after uploading to the computer. Why? Because that takes just a couple writes of the card, very little time, and very little camera battery. If I choose "delete all" then it takes at least as many writes as there are pictures, a long time, and a lot of battery all at once.

Oh, and there's no such thing as a low-level format of a card. It's a high-level format, rewriting the root directory structure from scratch. Same thing as what's typically done with hard drives. It's incredibly rare (and difficult) to ever low-level format a hard drive.

Back in the days of floppies, most formats were low-level, and it wasn't until later versions of DOS and more reliable floppy disks that the "fast format", which is the high-level one, was put into use.

You're write about the archaic FAT filesystem being the key here, with its simply indicating a deleted file by the first byte of its directory entry, but the other important key is that deleted files give up their allocation chain, so unless the FAT driver is specifically using a nonstandard LRU allocation, as soon as something goes bad you have to stop writing to the card, lest you corrupt all the files on there.

Oh, the much less technical, more important key: don't push it when you get a low battery indication. If the camera doesn't have enough juice to completely write the card when you take the picture, this is what happens. I almost lost 2GB worth of photos (on a 4GB card) in Colorado this way. Bigger cards take more "effort" to write each picture, and I tried to squeeze one more out of the battery, and blammo.
 
I guess I assumed FAT16 still required the low-level format ala floppies. I'm still not convinced you gain any space advantage by formatting over deleting, but I can understand the power savings. With the SD reader, you're not using the camera battery, at least. So, after I copy stuff to my HD from the SD, I press the backup button on the computer, and then delete the stuff off the SD using the computer.

Tim
 
MichaelJ said:
I almost lost 2GB worth of photos (on a 4GB card) in Colorado this way. Bigger cards take more "effort" to write each picture, and I tried to squeeze one more out of the battery, and blammo.
One argument for using smaller cards is that if there is a problem, fewer pics are at risk.

Doug
 
BorealChickadee said:
Photorescue pulled up 448 images but ALL were complete pictures.

I bought photorescue.
Sweet. Again to add to this thread, I have also used Photorescue for lost pictures and photo recovery (enough search words there? ;) ) with good results.
 
bikehikeskifish said:
I guess I assumed FAT16 still required the low-level format ala floppies. I'm still not convinced you gain any space advantage by formatting over deleting, but I can understand the power savings. With the SD reader, you're not using the camera battery, at least. So, after I copy stuff to my HD from the SD, I press the backup button on the computer, and then delete the stuff off the SD using the computer.
The low-level format writes the clock track etc to decide where to put the bits. This is an issue on a magnetic medium, but not on a memory card (the bit locations are built-in). The high level format just initializes the filesystem.

Michael listed some advantages of a reformat over a file erasure. I've also seen the suggestion that the reformat be done in the camera--that way the camera's version of FAT (there are several...) will be chosen.

FAT is a primitive piece of junk. There would be fewer of these problems if a decent journaling filesystem were used...

Doug
who used to have to reformat SCSI disks...
 
I don’t know anything about the underlying technology in my CF cards. I do know that deleted or erased images leave residual “traces” in the card memory and that reformatting the cards (using the camera’s “reformat” command) appears to remove the residue, leaving me with a “clean” card.

How harmful or potentially harmful the residual data is in a card that has been “cleared” by deleting or erasing images, I don’t know. It makes me uneasy to leave it there.

I do know that people who I come in contact with who delete or erase their cards to make space for new pictures seem to have more lost- or corrupted-image data issues than those who reformat their cards to clear them. The professionals I work with invariably reformat their cards after uploading to a computer hard drive.

To me, the whole routine is commonsense simple (but perhaps I am a bit anal about this stuff). I’m an old wet darkroom guy, and find an analogy there.

For example, I always washed film processing tanks, reels, thermometers, etc. after they were used, so they were free of chemical contaminants and ready to go for the next run, no question about it. The time this took was minimal, and working with clean equipment on every film processing run was a step toward quality assurance.

Today, my cameras (Nikon D1H and D2Hs) will reformat full 2 GB CF cards in less than 15 seconds, start-to-finish. The cameras are set up to do this very easily and efficiently.

Mrs. Grumpy’s Fuji FinePix P&S will reformat its xD(M) cards in a comparable amount of time (but I had to do some menu searching and head-scratching to figure out its “format” command procedure – which buttons to push). I run the card formatting procedure after uploading her photos to the computer system (because Mrs. G. won’t). If I don’t do that I likely will be uploading today’s photos from her camera again tomorrow, or next week.

One precaution I do take before reformatting the memory card is to confirm that the data transfer from card to hard drive has been successful. This seems like a no-brainer, but … .

As noted in an earlier post, above, I use Sandisk CF cards and have been impressed with their performance. The last cards I purchased were 2 GB Extreme III – the package for each card included a mini-CD with image recovery software (RescuePRO 3.2). I haven’t used the software, and hope I don’t have to.

I use a Sandisk “Imagemate 12-in-1” reader to upload image data to my computer hard drive. The unit accepts 12 different memory card types, costs about $30 (B&H Photo-Video, uses a USB 2 connection, and will copy the contents of a full 2 GB CF card to my MacBook hard drive in about 2 minutes (more-or-less -- I’ve never actually timed it). A firewire connection would be faster, and one day I may get a card reader with that type of interface.

B&H lists more than 50 card readers ranging in price from about $9 to $80. Portable card readers that incorporate a hard drive are available, as well, running in price from about $140 - $190. These might be a good solution for photographers who need to recycle memory cards while on the go but don’t want to lug a full computer setup with them.

My needs as a working daily newspaper photog probably don’t match up very well with those of most hiker-photographers, all-in-all. But I do think the practices I follow in respect to handling memory cards are pretty good practices for anyone. They sure work well for me.

G.
 
Grumpy said:
I don’t know anything about the underlying technology in my CF cards. I do know that deleted or erased images leave residual “traces” in the card memory and that reformatting the cards (using the camera’s “reformat” command) appears to remove the residue, leaving me with a “clean” card.

As noted earlier, deleting a file on a FAT16/FAT32 filesystem changes the first character to ^@ or something (a zero byte I think), making it easy to recover the data intact, if the directory entry has not been reused or the data blocks have not been overwritten. A high-level (filesystem) format just re-writes the directory structure, but does not erase the data blocks, leaving some trace of the images there, recoverable with proper software.

This is why a format with the erase option takes so much longer than without -- it writes 0s on all the data blocks.

Everyone has presented good reasons why you should reformat the card, but saving space on the card is not one of them... if it were, then every FAT16/FAT32 drive (magnetic or otherwise) would slowly leak usable storage, which simply isn't the case. FAT is arcane for sure, but it doesn't leak bytes requiring a (re)format.

And yes, Doug, ext3 or Reiser would be nice, but alas, the consumer world is still dominated by windoze :( NTFS is a journaling FS but it is proprietary, of course.

Tim
 
Last edited:
bikehikeskifish said:
As noted earlier, deleting a file on a FAT16/FAT32 filesystem changes the first character to ^@ or something (a zero byte I think), making it easy to recover the data intact, if the directory entry has not been reused or the data blocks have not been overwritten. A high-level (filesystem) format just re-writes the directory structure, but does not erase the data blocks, leaving some trace of the images there, recoverable with proper software.
The reformat probably also clears the free block list which will minimize fragmentation. The reduced fragmentation would likely make recovery easier if it is required.

This is why a format with the erase option takes so much longer than without -- it writes 0s on all the data blocks.
Writing 0s everywhere places unnecessary wear-and-tear on a memory card, but may be worth doing if there is sensitive info on the card which you wish to destroy.

And yes, Doug, ext3 or Reiser would be nice, but alas, the consumer world is still dominated by windoze :(
There are other journaling filesystems. Agreed, much of the consumer computer world is lowest-common-denominator... :(

Doug
 
Last edited:
Grumpy said:
One precaution I do take before reformatting the memory card is to confirm that the data transfer from card to hard drive has been successful. This seems like a no-brainer, but …

Portable card readers that incorporate a hard drive are available, as well, running in price from about $140 - $190. These might be a good solution for photographers who need to recycle memory cards while on the go but don’t want to lug a full computer setup with them.
Some people make sure they have two independent copies before they erase anything. After all, your storage medium might fail, be lost, be stolen, etc.

BTW, hard drives (and anything mechanical) tend to be the least reliable pieces of computer hardware.

Doug
 
DougPaul said:
Some people make sure they have two independent copies before they erase anything. After all, your storage medium might fail, be lost, be stolen, etc.

BTW, hard drives (and anything mechanical) tend to be the least reliable pieces of computer hardware.

It's good to be aware of the hard drive "fragility" or reliability issue. I back up the photo files in my computer's on-board hard drive to a second hard drive, and burn the photo files to DVDs. Edited image sets converted from RAW files to JPGs usually are burned to CDs.

All things considered, my digital photo archives probably are better protected from loss than are my film archives. In the latter case, I have original film negatives (or positive transparencies) and selected prints, with almost no dupe transparencies. That probably is living on the edge, speaking archivally.

The residual worry about digital archives is technology changes that will render the files unreadable sometime in the future. With film archives, we at least have a physically tangible thing that can be viewed directly ... . But that's another whole discussion.

G.
 
Top