Buckets vs By Job

[Mike Guilbault]

Got your book yesterday Peter and almost done.. but I had one question about buckets.  I've been kinda-sorta doing this already, but mostly for small jobs like business head-shots.  As MegaPixels grew and shooting increased, most jobs are approaching a 'bucket' size of a CD.  Keeping the same directory structure and naming convention as you've described for sorting and storage retreival, is there any disadvantage to simply burning a CD by the job?  The bucket name in effect becomes something like a docket refererence but referenced only to one job rather than many.
My thinking is that CD's are relatively inexpensive now, and rather than burning multiple jobs to a CD (or lets say even a DVD), wouldn't the risk of loosing that data be even lower in that if a CD went corrupt for any reason?  You'd only lose one job rather than many.

Thoughts?

[peterkrogh]

Mike,
If You shoot few enough photos that burning CDs is not onerous, then I would say that it is just fine. (essentially it is a bucket: just one that is distinguished by Job, rather than size.)

This might get complicated when you shoot jobs larger than one CD can hold, or if you have lots of smaller groups of images, but if it seems workable to you, go for it.
Peter

[Mike Guilbault]

So far, if a job won't fit on a CD, it will on a DVD.  If it takes more, I simply burn the required number of media and 'package' it into an envelope and put one number on it.  For the smaller jobs, I still put a few of them onto one CD, but these are rarely images that I will use again - just keep 'em in case. 

Thanks Peter.. I look forward to finishing the book tonight!