# One of Quebec's leading photojournalists has all is archives stolen



## IMG_0001 (Jul 16, 2015)

Sorry for the main article being in french, but its a saddening, angering and somewhat stunning story. After hearing about stolen camera gear from the games, this story puts things in perspective. Gear is expensive, but can be replaced. On the other end, your work can't be replaced...

Jacques Nadeau, one of Quebec's leading photojournalists, has just had all is archives (and TV) stolen from is Montreal's appartment. The camera gear and other valuables were left alone. For example, his 300mm prime was sitting on the table and left there, but the burglars stole all his printed archives and all is hard drives. Incredibly, Nadeau did not have off-location backups except for his later news work, which is archived at Le Devoir, where he is a staff photographer. These archives are not full resolution however. He is also appalled that he has lost all of his work for his next photo book project. All he has left is a few USB sticks...

Nadeau was known for taking some of the most poignant portraits of Quebec's and Canada's politicians for the last 35 years or so. Now, his life's work has vanished. I'm floored (and I'm going to back up my drives, I swear...).

Full story in french
http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/actualites-en-societe/445148/vol-chez-jacques-nadeau

short story in english
http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montreal-photographer-jacques-nadeau-s-life-s-work-stolen-1.2470355
http://petapixel.com/2015/07/15/photojournalist-loses-lifes-work-after-burglars-steal-hard-drives/


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 16, 2015)

Having one's backup in the same room/building is like having no backup at all.....

The thieves come, they take the computer, and they take the backup drive sitting beside it......

The building catches fire, the computer burns, and the backup beside it burns....

and if you have no backup, remember it not a case of "if" your hard drive will fail, but "when" your hard drive will fail.

Any professional should have an offsite backup as part of their operating plan. Let this be a lesson to those who do not!


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 16, 2015)

Pitty over the thieves! 

But...


IMG_0001 said:


> ... Nadeau did not have off-location backups except for his later news work...



that's the truth


Don Haines said:


> ... Any professional should have an *offsite backup* as part of their operating plan. Let this be a lesson to those who do not!


And that is not only about professionals but everybody that don't want to lose data.

You know the saying:
"The admin is only as good as his latest backup!"


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 16, 2015)

Its hard for me to blame the photographer for someone taking his equipment and Archives. Obviously, off site backups would be wise, but there is never a 100% guarantee.

I'd blame the scum who broke in and took the stuff. The fact that there were no backups is secondary.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jul 16, 2015)

I fully understand the requirement for backup, but I feel like I can see a photojournalist being under enough pressure for work to postpone the off-location backup to a further date until there is just so much to backup that he gets overburdened by the task and just goes along. To his defense, he had local backups hidden at his place, but they were also taken.

I think we need to realize we are talking about a 35 year career as a photojournalist. That means film and then to film and digital combo and to fully digital process. The pity being that he had managed to have all his film work digitized and had discarded the originals...

Honestly, I've often seen big names in having part or full-time staff managing their life-time work, but I don't see a photojournalist from Quebec, even the very best ones, having the resource for an archive curator.

What puzzles me is that the archives were targeted and many valuables were left untouched. I have a hard time seeing a market for such archives and I would have to think it was more meant to be an aggression than an attempt to monetize the loot.


----------



## LDS (Jul 16, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its hard for me to blame the photographer for someone taking his equipment and Archives. Obviously, off site backups would be wise, but there is never a 100% guarantee.



It is true up to a point - digital archives are far too easy to lose (because of a failure) or be stolen, while are far easier to make copies of. Moreover while once drawers and boxes of prints, slides or negatives would have not attracted but targeted actions, today electronics looks like that used for everything else, and can be easily resold.

I also wonder they weren't kept in a safe or the like at least - after all they are your true valuable assets. Sure, it could not have deterred a skilled burglar (nor saved them from a catastrophic fire), but if those were after some easy to sell electronics only it could have - and it could survive other disasters (it is true it could attract some burglars also, thinking it contains money, jewels or the like).

I understand many photographers think about themselves as "artists" so they don't like to care much about the "tech/business" side, but I believe it's a real mistake - when your life depends on some assets, you need anyway to learn how to protect them. Otherwise, unluckily, you learn it the really hard way, one bad day.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 17, 2015)

Putting my tin-foil hat, it is interesting that the criminals took the hard drives (if I read the story correctly). So they were not after high value easy to sell loot. What picture on those hard drives did the criminals want (cue dramatic music)?


----------



## martti (Jul 17, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Putting my tin-foil hat, it is interesting that the criminals took the hard drives (if I read the story correctly). So they were not after high value easy to sell loot. What picture on those hard drives did the criminals want (cue dramatic music)?



Most certainly it seems like a custom job.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 17, 2015)

What a terrible story, I just realized I didn't have an updated offsite backup... doing it now and signed up for an online backup plan.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 17, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> What a terrible story, I just realized I didn't have an updated offsite backup... doing it now and signed up for an online backup plan.


So terrible, but at least one could react soon enough. Thank you, Craig.


----------



## Famateur (Jul 17, 2015)

I know the feeling, having lost all 250 photos of my daughters birth. All I could recover were a half-dozen 640x480 versions I had e-mailed to relatives.

The company I worked for at the time was going to re-image everyone's laptops, so they provided a network share on which we could back-up our files, so I did -- including the birth images I had just uploaded to my computer a couple days before. They re-imaged the computer, then I went to gather my files from the network backup. Everything was there -- except my photos. The explanation from the IT manager: "Oh, we run a script that deletes any .jpg files because we don't allow storing photos on the network." Would have been nice to know BEFORE they asked us to back everything up there! Worked with them for two weeks scouring old nightly tape backups to try to recover the photos. No luck.

I'm not a professional, and my career is not on the line, but my "life's work" still means a great deal to me. This is why I now finish each session in Lightroom with a back-up to two identical external drives (plug 'em in, two clicks, go get a root beer, come back and done). One drive lives in the safe, and the other travels with me _everywhere _I go in my "man purse."  I still hesitate to delete photos from the memory cards...

PS: For those of us who shoot RAW, it's critical that RAW files be backed-up, too, along with sidecars of the adjustments made (and/or back-up the Lightroom catalog with them, which is what I do). Recovering only an exported .jpeg, while MUCH better than nothing, is only a partial recovery if you lose the RAW files or if you have RAW files but lose all the work you did to process them.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 17, 2015)

Famateur said:


> The explanation from the IT manager: "Oh, we run a script that deletes any .jpg files because we don't allow storing photos on the network." Would have been nice to know BEFORE they asked us to back everything up there!



That's terrible!! How can they operate like that? They don't tell you that they globally delete some file types until afterwards.  I am really sorry to hear about this.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 17, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > The explanation from the IT manager: "Oh, we run a script that deletes any .jpg files because we don't allow storing photos on the network." Would have been nice to know BEFORE they asked us to back everything up there!
> ...


ditto. :'(
shame on those st%&!& admins.


----------



## Famateur (Jul 17, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



Thanks. Yeah...my feelings, too. Unfortunately, this was several years before I started shooting RAW. I doubt their script would have cared about .cr2 files! Looking back, it's hard to avoid the "if only" thoughts, like having more than one memory card or immediately backing the photos up to an external drive and to my home desktop, but I was younger, stupider and poorer. 

It often takes an experience like this for us to take backing up seriously...


----------



## Famateur (Jul 17, 2015)

While different than theft, accidental deletion can cause some panic, so I'll share another quick experience that I hope helps someone:

My aunt somehow managed to delete all the photos she was attempting to transfer from her card to her computer. She was devastated. I installed Recuva (from Piriform Software), did a quick scan of the card and recovered all but two or three of the several hundred photos.

For many, how/why this works is common knowledge, but I'm sure there are a few members here for whom this will be new information:

When you delete a file, it is not actually deleted. Instead, the address of that file is marked as being free to use for saving other data. Until another file (or part of a file) is saved over the top of the old file (or parts of the file), it is still there on the disk. Recovery programs, like Recuva, can locate and restore those files. The sooner this recovery is attempted after a deletion, the less likely it is that something else was written over that file (or parts of the file) and the more likely it is you can recover it intact.

If you accidentally delete a file, immediately run a recovery program, and you should be able to get it back.

I hope this helps someone!


----------



## LDS (Jul 17, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> That's terrible!! How can they operate like that?



Well, it was a company laptop, as I understand, so it was subject to company policies as well. My advice is never mix your personal data with employer hardware. There are also ways to perform remote wipes, if needed, and I would not risk it if not under my control. There are also companies that when you're fired, you completely lose access to your PCs and network before they tell you, for security reasons.

About the system administrators, first they are bound to company policies, and they are responsible only for the company data, not yours. Also - and I know by experience - let some user sdo whatever they like and they'll put you in troubles


----------



## jrista (Jul 17, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> What a terrible story, I just realized I didn't have an updated offsite backup... doing it now and signed up for an online backup plan.



I would do an online plan...however, over the last six years and change, I have accumulated nearly three terrabytes of photography data, including original RAWs, modifications, TIFF exports, print versions, as well as all of the MASSIVE amounts of data you accumulate with astrophotography (well over a terrabyte of that alone, and I've been doing it only for a year and a half). 

I use a combination of a NAS RAID device, and backups to bluray disc that I keep at my parents house. The BluRays have become significantly too small...it would be so nice if I could back up 100-200 gigs a disc...backing up 25 gigs a disc has become tedious.


----------



## randym77 (Jul 17, 2015)

jrista said:


> I would do an online plan...however, over the last six years and change, I have accumulated nearly three terrabytes of photography data, including original RAWs, modifications, TIFF exports, print versions, as well as all of the MASSIVE amounts of data you accumulate with astrophotography (well over a terrabyte of that alone, and I've been doing it only for a year and a half).



I have more than that, and it's all backed up in the cloud. Many backup services offer unlimited storage.

If you're on dialup, uploading several TBs of data could be a problem, but with broadband, it's pretty painless. Most backup services have software that will run in the background and automatically upload when you're not using your connection. After the initial upload is done, updating is pretty quick.

I am considering using Amazon Prime as an additional backup. They are offering free unlimited storage of photos (including RAW files) for Prime members. Worth the $99/year...if their interface is any good. I haven't tried it yet.


----------



## jrista (Jul 17, 2015)

randym77 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I would do an online plan...however, over the last six years and change, I have accumulated nearly three terrabytes of photography data, including original RAWs, modifications, TIFF exports, print versions, as well as all of the MASSIVE amounts of data you accumulate with astrophotography (well over a terrabyte of that alone, and I've been doing it only for a year and a half).
> ...



It's not cheap to store that much data, though. I hadn't heard about the Amazon Prime thing...I already am a Prime member... You sure about that? Unlimited storage? If so, then I might just do that...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 17, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> What a terrible story, I just realized I didn't have an updated offsite backup... doing it now and signed up for an online backup plan.


It is good to learn from these things.....


----------



## randym77 (Jul 17, 2015)

jrista said:


> randym77 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/primephotos

I am no longer a Prime member, but am thinking of joining again just for that. 

Currently I have an account with Crashplan. I have the "family plan" because I have multiple computers to back up. There are also individual and small business plans. It costs about the same as Amazon Prime. The interface is very easy, and you can back up anything, not just photos and RAW files. I have everything from software to video to 7 years of tax files backed up there. (Pro tip: you might need to bump up the memory the Crashplan software can access if you have several TBs to upload. Crashplan underestimates how much is needed. It won't use it if it doesn't need it, and it does the heavy lifting when you're not using your computer, so IME there's no harm bumping it up.)


----------



## jrista (Jul 17, 2015)

The Prime plan only includes unlimited "photos"...they are not clear about whether that includes RAW or not. To get "unlimited everything", it sounds like you need to pay extra.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jul 17, 2015)

That was really not smart having all the data in one location. 

It is so freakin cheap to get a few portable HDDs and store them in safe deposit boxes at two different banks. 

I have copies stored at home and at banks. I also place some special RAW files on optical disks as even more backup in case some giant magnet monster from outer space attacks our city. My HDDs might be toast, but the optical disks will be good to go!


----------



## LarryC (Jul 18, 2015)

jrista said:


> The Prime plan only includes unlimited "photos"...they are not clear about whether that includes RAW or not. To get "unlimited everything", it sounds like you need to pay extra.



Jon, I also use Crashplan because a few years ago they were the most well reputed online cloud storage site that offered unlimited storage but did not throttle uploads as some popular cloud storage cites do, or did. Several sites offer "unlimited" storage, but so severely throttle upload speeds after a couple of hundred mb that they are totally worthless as bulk storage sites. I have currently only a bit less than 1Tb on Crashplan, but it automatically backs up all files in my designated folders, including NEF, CR2, TIFF, etc., and of course all my non-photo documents. 

I also have all photos automatically backed up on another internal drive and once a quarter, or so, I make another copy to a portable HDD I keep in my office at work.


----------



## randym77 (Jul 18, 2015)

jrista said:


> The Prime plan only includes unlimited "photos"...they are not clear about whether that includes RAW or not. To get "unlimited everything", it sounds like you need to pay extra.



I have not tried it myself (yet), but Petapixel and other sites have reported that RAW files are included.

Maybe someone who has prime can check it out and report back?


----------



## pwp (Jul 18, 2015)

Ouch! That would be absolutely crushing. It's a big wake up for anyone with valuable digital media of any description to keep multiple copies in multiple locations. Hope the thief rots in hell. The images will be useless to him. 

-pw


----------



## tpatana (Jul 18, 2015)

I don't get it. Why the thief(s) didn't take the lenses too?


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jul 18, 2015)

There is one thing that many often overlook. When the unlimited cloud storage offers are inexpensive, their terms and conditions can also be such that it might become unsuitable for professional archives. What I mean is that if there is to be any kind of proprietary or sensitive data, the access control may not be strong enough to meet some clients requirements.

In contexts other than photography, I've had a few occasions where clients explicitly required that no data were deposited in any but a very few select online services that had demonstrated their security (and were certainly not unlimited in storage space). Yet I can see reasons for many types of photography to be bound to some legal conditions that make cloud storage more complicated.

Of course, most people won't even check those terms and conditions as the internet is such a safe place...


----------



## Famateur (Jul 18, 2015)

LDS said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > That's terrible!! How can they operate like that?
> ...



Ultimately, I have to blame myself for the loss -- there were several things I could have done to avoid it. That said, there were things the IT department could have done, too. When notifying us that we would each have a network share for backing up our machines, they could have warned in advance that images would be deleted. They also could have run a script that, if .jpg files were found, would notify the individual to remove them or they would be deleted.

The dangerous thing about the script is it was acting only on file extension. If I was doing the graphic work I do now, I would have lost oodles of work-related .jpg files (stock images, logos, etc). In this case, the IT manager was the one making the policy. In principle, it makes sense. In execution, it seemed a bit reckless.

Good advice on never mixing personal/work files, if possible. It's not practical for me to keep two laptops with my current business, but I do keep personal files on a separate partition and back it up regularly. I'm also my own IT manager, so that makes it easier. I routinely re-image the system drive without affecting the work and personal files drives. Of course, now I really only have myself to blame for any loss!


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jul 18, 2015)

tpatana said:


> I don't get it. Why the thief(s) didn't take the lenses too?



It appears they targeted the archive, curiously... As we are speaking of a news photographer, I guess one motive could be retaliation from someone or a group that had something against the way he depicted them, or a group that was angry at the subject he covered in his more artistic work.

From my own evaluation, Nadeau was somewhat 'left wing' in his point of view of society and had some work going on about somewhat touchy subjects (although not extremely controversial). I personally found him to be pretty good at showing or right wing politicians in ambiguous or ridiculous postures.


----------

