Digital BW, The Print

Digital prints made with archival materials (inks, paper) should 
last as long as traditional prints.  Regarding files, Delkin Devices 
makes a CD-R called eFilm Archival Gold that they claim has a 300-
year life span.  So I don't think that longevity of digital 
photography is an issue.

Val   

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Now this is really stupid....First of all the consumer marketplace 
disagrees
> and has already switched to digital.  This is reflected in sales.  
As for
> backup, let's not go around that bush again.  There will be many 
who wish
> their parents had kept their negatives at all, or hadn't kept their
> negatives in a shoebox and decided to toss them years ago, or wish 
their
> parents could afford a camera.
> 
> 
> > From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@a...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:50:47 +0100
> > To: jnhugo <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy
> > 
> > 
> > jnhugo writes:
> > 
> >> I really think families should still shot their events on film. 
Film
> >> will last much longer than digital files. Few home photographers
> >> practice proper back-up of their digital files and every 
computer will
> >> have a crash event that will threaten the hard drive.
> > 
> > Kodak feels the same way; they once predicted that at least 80% 
of all
> > digital photos will be lost, because they are being stored on 
disk
> > drives for which there are no backups.  When the disk fails, the 
photos
> > disappear.
> > 
> >> I predict in 20 years from now there are going to be many many 
23 and
> >> 24 year olds who will be pissed off because there are no 
pictures of
> >> thier chidhood-because dad didn't back up properly and all were 
lost
> >> in the early part of the century due to a computer hard drive 
crash.
> > 
> > I agree.  It will all be gone.  The chances of those digital 
photos
> > surviving are about the same as the chances of all e-mail 
surviving
> > (that is to say, almost nonexistent).
> > 
> >