![]() |
Register /
Login
|
Desktop view
|
In the interest of full disclosure, I have to say "it depends," but in your case the answer is "yes."Mark Gerber wrote:Do the claims of space-saving efficiency apply to graphics files, too?
This is exactly why I wrote QRecall. In fact, Photoshop documents were used as the first test files for QRecall.For instance, if I add a layer or two to a 300 MB Photoshop or Painter file, will QRecall only back up those layers so that I don't end up
with two 300 MB files?
Or if I make changes to an existing layer, are only those changes added to the back up file?
Yes. Photoshop and similar applications write documents in their entirely when you save them, so the contents of the documents aren't in flux while you work. This means that saved documents are captured completely. The only potential problem would be if QRecall was capturing an item at the same instant that you were saving it. Regardless, the next capture would absolutely capture the current version.Is it practical to have QRecall back up these as files as I'm working?
(clip) QRecall won't have any problem with that at all. It will see most of these files as semi-duplicates of each other and store only one copy of the data.When I work with Painter and, because I have had reason in the past not to trust their native RIFF format, I typically save iterative versions of a working file. At the end of the day, I might have an additional five or ten or fifteen saved files. I'll usually delete all but the last three or four and keep those until the next day when I start again, repeating this until the project is finished (which can be anywhere from one to six weeks after it's started), at which time the final version is archived to DVD and the iterative versions deleted.
So it might look like this:
Given your work flow, I'd say that QRecall is perfectly suited.I'm trying to figure out a back up strategy that will give me the protection I need without filling up a drive too quickly.