RAW captures stored & accessed via network file server?

[-eric-]

Is there any inherent risk in downloading your RAW captures to a file server, then from another workstation pointing Bridge at that volume to build previews, perform ACR tweaks, etc.?

Cheers,

-eric-

[peterkrogh]

Eric,
I would suggest doing this locally for several reasons.

1. Network errors.  Why introduce the risk if you don't have to?
2. Bridge does not automatically build cache for networked volumes. You'll have to export cache *every* time you work on a folder or take a big speed hit.
3. General Speed.  This part of the process needs to be as fast as possible.Get a reasonable sized local drive and it will go much faster. 

While it would work, the only justification I can see is if you have gigabit ethernet, and no possible way to configure local storage (broken FW and USB ports, need to work while sitting on the toilet or something, etc).
Peter

[-eric-]

This is a Gigabit network, but your point is taken. I was curious about Bridge and how it would handle cache files for network folders...and now i know!

Thanks!

-eric-

[BobSmith]

I do almost exactly what you are proposing... daily.  I've not encountered any problems at all.  I've been working this way for about a year now.  I shoot tethered (Canon and Kodak cameras) with the software set to record the image from the camera directly onto a file server.  Bridge is pointed at the same server and is used to view the images as they are shot.  It's then used for initial naming, editing, metadata entry and such.  When downloading from cards (I don't do this as much as tethered shooting), I handle it the same way.  Cards are downloaded to the server and Bridge is pointed at the server for editing.  

The only thing I don't like about this method is that Bridge insists on building its cache locally when the images are on a network drive.  So if you access the same folder from a different computer, it has to build it's own cache all over again.  I've thought about putting the computer's local cache folder on the server as well and then pointing more than one computer to the same cache folder.  Don't know if that'll work or not.  Haven't had time to test it yet.

Chronosync is used to mirror the data on the server drives several times a day to another server.  I just recently moved the server that handles these backups to a more remote location so that it's on a separate power supply and connected only by wireless network.  Backups are slower but who cares... still happens reliably... and now the backup server is less suceptible to the same fire, theft, electric glitches that might affect the main server.

Bob Smith

[peterkrogh]

Bob, Why not shoot to a local drive and sync to the network drive?  It would have cache then.

BW, you can export the cache for the folder (if you have it set to Distributed Cache in the Bridge Prefs), in the Tools menu.  Of course, you have to remember to do it each time you are about to exit a folder when in Bridge.
Peter

[-eric-]

My client has been working this way for some time now with (up until recently) no problems. Something has come up recently where Bridge is encountering an error and crashes, so I'm starting to suspect a network gremlin. Per Peter's point, its probably best to work on local files. Keep the variables to a minimum!

-eric-