Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (
More info?)
Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> writes:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> writes:
>>>SNIP<
>
>> I've got working 5.25" drives, and professional data transfer services
>> do too.
>
> Three or four people do, and one of them always posts to point this
> out. The people with the diskettes (and in coming generations, the CDs)
> don't, though, and they'll just toss the diskettes since they can't read
> it.
And the professional data transfer services, don't forget them. The
point being that data that's wanted and is stuck on 5.25" floppies
*isn't unrecoverable*.
>>SNIP<
>> > Another issue is that nobody knows what's on a CD, so if your grandkids
>> > stumble across one, they won't know it's your valued imagery -- same with a
>> > DVD.
>>
>> One should label them, certainly. And perhaps the boxes they're
>> stored in as well.
>
> Yes, and that creates its own problems -- people are reporting that the
> adhesives in the labels and the chemicals in the inks are wrecking CDs, and
> the recommendation now appears to write in ink in the clear area in the
> center of the CD. Not much room for a full reckoning of the contents, but
> that's another story.
I'd never dream of adhesive labels on an archival CD. Ink chemicals
are an issue I worry about, I try to pick sensible pens (and CDs with
a good protective layer over the reflector).
>> > Many people who post here swear they'll keep up with changing technology
>> > and convert all their data from CDs to DVDs to keep the images available. I
>> > doubt it, but let's say you do manage to keep your files on a medium that's
>> > current at your death. Who's going to do that for you for the next one or
>> > two generations? Who's going to care?
>>
>> Probably nobody, but if so, then it doesn't matter.
>
> Well, I'll disagree with that. Someone in this thread has posted
> about 'old' photos with "Jill and the Ghost," and his assumptions
> about who is referred to. Identifying the persons may end up of less
> interest than the car, the clothing, or the location. The town I
> live in has large, wall-sized blow ups of photos from the teens and
> twenties of the last century. Nobody has a clue who the people are,
> but there's quite a bit of interest in what buildings still survive,
> the fact that "B" Street is dirt in the photos, and so on. Just
> because we don't know now who Jill and the Ghost are doesn't mean
> that the photos won't have an interest that transcends the
> individual identies when it's one or two generations later.
Some photos will survive; random CDs from various sources. Just like
some tiny percentage of the snapshots from the 1930s survive.
>> *I* have been working to carry forward photo images from my
>> grandparents' and parents' generations, so it doesn't seem that
>> inconceivable that somebody might continue to care after me.
>
> You're saying 'photo images.' I take it these are prints and maybe
> negatives. There likely will be interest, but one of the reasons is
> that there is no intermediary required to view the 'photo images.'
> People pick up the print and are immediately (or not -- they may not
> be interested) drawn to the picture. No need to boot a computer,
> find an appropriate access mechanism (CD or DVD or tape drive),
> launch applications, and so on.
Maybe, but I find that there's much more interest in them since I've
put them on my web site. The family can all find them and all see
them that way.
>>SNIP<
>> Color prints from the 1960s are mostly gone, ditto negatives. The
>> materials have deteriorated. I've had to deal with prints, negs, and
>> slides that are badly faded in my work preserving family photos.
>>
>> Modern chromagenic materials aren't nearly as bad as the 1960s stuff,
>> but you still shouldn't count on them for even 50 years in ordinary
>> household storage. You *might* get that, but you might not.
>
> You've gotten other answers on this, but I refer you to your own
> photographs which you are working to carry forward.
Yes, and my own photos are the ones that have convinced me that
chromagenic materials don't last very well.
> Another thing to consider is that the old prints may be folded,
> torn, stained, color-shifted or otherwise damages, but those people
> are still in there in the frame smiling into the sun with those old
> black cars with running boards. Analogue imagery survives, doesn't
> it? Fold a CD, spill coffee on a 5 1/4-inch diskette -- the digital
> media don't quite hold up to the wears and tears. The pink-cast
> prints from the 60s are still recoverable with some scanning and
> Photoshopping, even in the hands of a consumer. Recovering data from
> a broken DVD or coffee-soaked archive tape may be beyond the
> capabillities of mere mortals, and without knowing what's on the
> recorded medium, I fear the temptation is just to toss it.
Sure, analog degrades more gradually. But, as I've said repeatedly,
I've dealt with 1960s photos where the color was completely
unrecoverable and the image was iffy. That's only 40 years ago. I've
got CDs half that old that are still perfectly readable. The digital
media are getting close to demonstrating longer lives in the real
world than commonly-used color photo materials.
> I don't think this is an answer to the original question,
> though. Sure, you can argue with my points, but answer the original
> question. That will be the best refutation of my comments.
I don't want to completely refute your comments, either. Lots of
people think burning something onto one CD makes it eternal, and
that's nonsense.
You say there isn't a way to preserve digital images for two
generations, which I'll call 50 years just to be more specific. I
think that's overly pessimistic. If you're asking me for an
*absolutely certain* way to accomplish it, I'll freely admit there is
none. But that's true for preserving conventional film and prints,
too; bad processing or manufacturing batches can get you, and those
materials will fade significantly in 50 years in room-temperature
storage. And the house they're in might burn down. If I make CD and
DVD copies on 6 brands of media, test them after burning to be sure
they're good, and distribute those 6 copies among interested people
who agree to test and recopy as necessary, I think the digital results
will have a much better chance of lasting 50 years in perfect
condition than the conventional film and prints. If those 6 disks are
put in boxes in various attics and basements, I think they have an
equal chance of at least one of them lasting 50 years as conventional
film and prints put in boxes in attics and basements (the film and
prints are considerably more sensitive to humidity).
And you're ignoring the possibilty of making prints, of course; which
will last however long the materials will last, but it's no longer
dependent on the source being digital.
Also remember that the RA-4 print materials most commonly used haven't
been around for 50 years either. Our ideas on how long they will last
are based on the same accelerated testing procedures that people
complain so much about with inkjet prints and digital media.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http
/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http
/noguns-nomoney.com/> <http
/www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http
/dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http
/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http
/dragaera.info/>
Facebook
Twitter