Digital BW, The Print

This could be an interesting option for long term image storage.  Check out http://millenniata.com/



Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

It's a noble attempt, but the concept is flawed not due to material durability, or even hardware obsolescense in the conventional sense (although these points could also be debated). The flaw in this approach is the data density. Give it just a few more years, and today's optical discs with this level of data density will be about as useful as 8 inch floppy drives are today. I've already abandoned CDs and DVDs as a digital image storage medium for this very reason. They don't meet my current data capacity needs due to poor read/write times and sheer physical size of the media, and I'm not a anywhere close to being a prolific photographer or videographer.

cheers
Mark


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

>
> This could be an interesting option for long term image storage.  Check out http://millenniata.com/
> 
> 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

You are absolutely right Mark! Today the most obvious solutions are backed up RAID solutions. When truly high speed bandwidths become possible, then the "cloud" will probably be our best bet for us big storage users. But you never know when some "three dimensional" high density personal storage cube might jump in to upset the paradigm. ;-)

That's the trouble with our fast moving high tech world, it keeps on moving. Remember the Syquest disks? Then 3.5 in Opticals, Bernouli's, tape drives, all kinds of obsolete formats!

Why do you think Steve Jobs quit putting optical drives in Apples newest lightest machines? He was betting on the "cloud"!

 John Nollendorfs

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mark@...> wrote:

>
> It's a noble attempt, but the concept is flawed not due to material durability, or even hardware obsolescense in the conventional sense (although these points could also be debated). The flaw in this approach is the data density. Give it just a few more years, and today's optical discs with this level of data density will be about as useful as 8 inch floppy drives are today. I've already abandoned CDs and DVDs as a digital image storage medium for this very reason. They don't meet my current data capacity needs due to poor read/write times and sheer physical size of the media, and I'm not a anywhere close to being a prolific photographer or videographer.
> 
> cheers
> Mark
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@> wrote:
> >
> > This could be an interesting option for long term image storage.  Check out http://millenniata.com/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
>

"Mark" <mark@...> wrote:
>
> ...The flaw in this approach is the data density. ...

Their own materials acknowledge that weakness.  Blu Ray is being worked on but not yet ready.  For some uses I can see this type of solution being attractive.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Isn't film more permanent? Just asking....

- AnnMarie

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

>
> "Mark" <mark@> wrote:
> >
> > ...The flaw in this approach is the data density. ...
> 
> Their own materials acknowledge that weakness.  Blu Ray is being worked on but not yet ready.  For some uses I can see this type of solution being attractive.  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

I met the representatives of Millenniata almost three years ago as they were
trying to determine what their initial market would be. Since I divide my
photographic life between my fine art and imaging in science and medicine,
they were interested in making their product available in the medical
market. During the initial six months I was in contact with them, they were
awaiting the results of a series of longevity tests various government
agencies were doing on their product. Once the results of those tests came
back it seemed they had enough business from the government that they didn¹t
have the time or resources for other markets.

From what I learned about the product in those six months, I decided to use
it to archive my important work.

I have no financial interest in the company or product.

Mark
 
Mark Maio
InVision, Inc.
5445 Buckhollow Drive
Alpharetta, GA 30005
markmaio@mindspring.com
404-386-5676       

Consultant in ophthalmic and biomedical imaging.
Member of Adobe's Biomedical Imaging Advisory Group

My fine art photography is represented by Lumiere:
 http://lumieregallery.net/wp/?p=254





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"faeofavalon" <faeofavalon@...> wrote:
>
> Isn't film more permanent? ...

My old medium format negatives in the bank box look like new, but there is no affordable high resolution film recorder to convert digital to film.  Additionally, converting them back to digital for later use would involve yet another step where information is going to be lost.

Everything is an interim or temporary solution.  The Millenniata disks are an alternative that might be more convenient than the small external hard disk I now keep in a bank box.  (I'm told they need to be run periodically to keep them working.)  No in-home/business solution avoids the fire risk, and the bandwidth problem makes the "cloud" a problem.  So, for one's best work, a few of these disks may be a reasonable solution for now.  

Digital has it's problems, but I'm about to sell some of my medium format equipment and frozen stash of 120 Tech Pan.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Yes, film is mostly more permanent, but more precisely "universal". You don't need any special equipment to look at the image.

Recently I photographed a bridge scheduled to be torn down, on B&W film to comply with the "recordation" requirements of the Federal grant for this project. 

Kind of interesting, if not labor intensive, hauling around the 4x5 view camera, film holders, etc. Then developing the film. Thank heavens I kept my old dark room sink around. No one else in town was capable of handling a film project like this.

Of course I scanned the negs on my Epson V700 with great results! And then printed out the required "proof sheets".

John Nollendorfs

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

>
> "faeofavalon" <faeofavalon@> wrote:
> >
> > Isn't film more permanent? ...
> 
> My old medium format negatives in the bank box look like new, but there is no affordable high resolution film recorder to convert digital to film.  Additionally, converting them back to digital for later use would involve yet another step where information is going to be lost.
> 
> Everything is an interim or temporary solution.  The Millenniata disks are an alternative that might be more convenient than the small external hard disk I now keep in a bank box.  (I'm told they need to be run periodically to keep them working.)  No in-home/business solution avoids the fire risk, and the bandwidth problem makes the "cloud" a problem.  So, for one's best work, a few of these disks may be a reasonable solution for now.  
> 
> Digital has it's problems, but I'm about to sell some of my medium format equipment and frozen stash of 120 Tech Pan.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

On 11/18/2011 6:42 AM, faeofavalon wrote:
>
> Isn't film more permanent? Just asking....
>
> - AnnMarie
>

Strictly speaking, probably not.  Even ordinary optical media tolerates abuse
that would effectively destroy film.  However, this question continues to focus
on the medium rather than the message (or the image in this case).

I'm not emotionally attached to any disk I own, but I am very fond of the
information/images/etc. stored on the disks.  The right question to ponder
is "how do I preserve the images for the long term?".

Because film inherently links the medium and image, we're all programmed
to think of archival as "preserving the film".  When you can make unlimited copies
of an image without degradation, this is no longer the right approach.

Cheers,
Dana



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"John" <jrnolly@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, film is mostly more permanent, but more precisely "universal". You don't need any special equipment to look at the image. ...


I'm going to make a set of prints on 13 x 19 as the "archival" storage medium for the museum project I seem to always be working on.  I looked at the various options for printing and, while glossy had the best signal to noise ratio, a cotton paper was chosen for permanence.


I wonder how the collectors look at all of this.  Will our really good carbon on cotton prints have more value if there is NO forever backup?

Sometimes an artist's work goes up  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I think I've mentioned this before, a while back, but please indulge me to mention it again.

I have a sample running in the Aardenburg test site, they were printed using the EpsonR1800/Premier Art FineArt 205/Eboni combination. The test (item #144) is up to 70 megalux-hours and doing quite well. (We owe a big debt to Mark and his worthy project!)

I do some local work with historic preservation and take photos submitted to the National Register. For many years I was submitting darkroom prints to their standards, but at their website they put out a call for newer technology prints. So I contacted them describing the carbon ink process and they now accept prints using the combination mentioned above.

It's been very satisfactory - but I'm still uneasy about storing the digital files. The Register does request, in addition to the prints, the files on a gold CD. Still, as has been mentioned here, what will happen when CD drives go the way of 5.25" or 3.5" disk drives? The Millenniata project does look promising ... but still....

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

>
> This could be an interesting option for long term image storage.  Check out http://millenniata.com/
> 
> 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

The most archival photograph will be the print that still looks good in 100 years. Who really cares about the digital file. The value is in the print. 

I was digitizing a lot of photographs for our art museum recently. What a pleasure to see original Weston, Adams, Callahan and Minor White prints. What struck me in seeing many of the "greats" prints, is how much the quality of prints varied! I would have to say today's digital prints have a much better overall quality. Nothing comparable to your carbon prints Paul! ;-)

John Nollendorfs 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

> "John" <jrnolly@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, film is mostly more permanent, but more precisely "universal". You don't need any special equipment to look at the image. ...
> 
> 
> I'm going to make a set of prints on 13 x 19 as the "archival" storage medium for the museum project I seem to always be working on.  I looked at the various options for printing and, while glossy had the best signal to noise ratio, a cotton paper was chosen for permanence.
> 
> 
> I wonder how the collectors look at all of this.  Will our really good carbon on cotton prints have more value if there is NO forever backup?
> 
> Sometimes an artist's work goes up  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

You're absolutely right, John, these carbon ink prints are stunning. I never thought I'd make prints comparable to or better than silver prints. We have Paul to thank for that, as well as others like Clayton Jones.

I do care about the digital files, however. They allow us to make more prints when needed. I'd like to see a way of treating them as simply and archivally as we do negatives. Maybe I'm hoping for too much!

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jrnolly@...> wrote:

>
> The most archival photograph will be the print that still looks good in 100 years. Who really cares about the digital file. The value is in the print. 
> 
> I was digitizing a lot of photographs for our art museum recently. What a pleasure to see original Weston, Adams, Callahan and Minor White prints. What struck me in seeing many of the "greats" prints, is how much the quality of prints varied! I would have to say today's digital prints have a much better overall quality. Nothing comparable to your carbon prints Paul! ;-)
> 
> John Nollendorfs 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@> wrote:
> > "John" <jrnolly@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, film is mostly more permanent, but more precisely "universal". You don't need any special equipment to look at the image. ...
> > 
> > 
> > I'm going to make a set of prints on 13 x 19 as the "archival" storage medium for the museum project I seem to always be working on.  I looked at the various options for printing and, while glossy had the best signal to noise ratio, a cotton paper was chosen for permanence.
> > 
> > 
> > I wonder how the collectors look at all of this.  Will our really good carbon on cotton prints have more value if there is NO forever backup?
> > 
> > Sometimes an artist's work goes up  
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
>

I've been reading this topic, and getting frankly a bit frustrated because we are confusing the term 'archival' -vs- 'archiving' and getting 'fine art' mixed in the fray. Because a medium is 'archival' doesn't mean it's ideal for archiving, and because it might look good on a wall doesn't mean it's good for archiving.

I didn't get into carbon / pigment ink-jet printing because the prints last 100years. Most of us I dare say got into this medium because of the controls and quality that result in the process as being a superior alternative to anything commercial or dealing with the mess of wet-lab printing. The fact these prints last a very long time is important, but not nearly as important as to how they look.

I'm not sure where we steered into the archiving conversation, but I have some serious issues with anybody claiming conservatory standards for a B&W medium because this is 2011 and not 1911. Back in the early 90's I worked on several projects archiving some local landmarks, and since our goal was to actually 'archive' the structures without the aid of digital we followed the goals literally. The photographer shot color E-6 on 4x5, and we printed those images on glossy Cibachrome to the best of our abilities where they are currently in dark storage. I do believe the National Archives followed a similiar routine for a few decades.

Those images will likely last a very, very long time, and when they are viewed 25-50-100 years hence they will still be very close to when we originally printed them because they are not being degraded by light. Plus, being glossy, they will actually be scannable with very high precision unlike matte or textured papers. No one is going to point at the images and ask "why did they shoot it in B&W? Didn't color exist in 1992?" 50 years down the road an art critic is not going to grade my prints on tonal value.

In regards to the digital debate, I dare say Ansel Admam's Department of Energy portfolio has been viewed far more times on the Internet than it has in physical form, and every image I've scanned or aquired since I started with digital 15years ago is on my current hard-drive. External drive storage is cheap, easily redundant, even in the terrabyte range, and migrating data isn't too difficult. I work in a variety of corporate data centers, and nobody uses optical storage anymore nor misses it. If you're worried about a nuclear EMP or solar flare from the sun wreaking your magnetic storage you might find more priorities in the aftermath than re-printing your images.

S Eaton


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:

>
> 
> 
> I think I've mentioned this before, a while back, but please indulge me to mention it again.
> 
> I have a sample running in the Aardenburg test site, they were printed using the EpsonR1800/Premier Art FineArt 205/Eboni combination. The test (item #144) is up to 70 megalux-hours and doing quite well. (We owe a big debt to Mark and his worthy project!)
> 
> I do some local work with historic preservation and take photos submitted to the National Register. For many years I was submitting darkroom prints to their standards, but at their website they put out a call for newer technology prints. So I contacted them describing the carbon ink process and they now accept prints using the combination mentioned above.
> 
> It's been very satisfactory - but I'm still uneasy about storing the digital files. The Register does request, in addition to the prints, the files on a gold CD. Still, as has been mentioned here, what will happen when CD drives go the way of 5.25" or 3.5" disk drives? The Millenniata project does look promising ... but still....
> 
> Paul
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@> wrote:
> >
> > This could be an interesting option for long term image storage.  Check out http://millenniata.com/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
>

Millenniata disks don't address the CD obsolescence issue, since to read a Millenniata disk, you need a drive that can read a CD.

Dick

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:
> ... what will happen when CD drives go the way of 5.25" or 3.5" disk drives? The Millenniata project does look promising ...

Blasterman:
I don't think anyone is confusing archival and archiving. When talking about prints they are quite related-- the longest lasting print possible.

Maybe you didn't get into carbon printing because of it's long lasting quality, but most serious photographers who are into "fine art" would like their images to last as long as possible. Having just worked on digitizing part of a fine art museum's photography collection, it's really sad to see what is happening to all of their Kodak "C" print images from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Of course Kodak back then said--"just make a new print". Now that's where archiving and archival get mixed up! A museum would like to have photographic prints that last a long time without being stored in a deep freeze, to keep the dark stored color prints from self destructing.

And I can tell you further, looking at the quality of prints that are 25, 50 or 100 years old is still important. It's important in the aesthetics and also in terms of evaluating the growth of the photographer and the media. Viewing an image on a monitor is not the same thing and never will be. So, while the short term emphasis for all photographers is how the image will look in the next show, many of us are also concerned that the images continue to look good far into the future for the patrons that buy our images. (but of course not all photographers care about the archival qualities of their images)

While in the "short term" we photographers are concerned about our digital files, (so we can make more prints, and make more money)our larger concern should be about how long the prints will ultimately last. This is our legacy, the gift of our vision, in the form of a print, to future man kind. For some photographers, the image is all that matters, not the print. Such a narrow interpretation of photography makes the image all too fragile in our digital age.

So what I'm saying, in the end, the print is still the main vehicle for enjoying the fine art of photography. Until museums join the digital photography revolution by paying for digital images, the print still is photography.

John Nollendorfs 
 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "blasterman789" <blasterman789@...> wrote:

>
> I've been reading this topic, and getting frankly a bit frustrated because we are confusing the term 'archival' -vs- 'archiving' and getting 'fine art' mixed in the fray. Because a medium is 'archival' doesn't mean it's ideal for archiving, and because it might look good on a wall doesn't mean it's good for archiving.
> 
> I didn't get into carbon / pigment ink-jet printing because the prints last 100years. Most of us I dare say got into this medium because of the controls and quality that result in the process as being a superior alternative to anything commercial or dealing with the mess of wet-lab printing. The fact these prints last a very long time is important, but not nearly as important as to how they look.
> 
> I'm not sure where we steered into the archiving conversation, but I have some serious issues with anybody claiming conservatory standards for a B&W medium because this is 2011 and not 1911. Back in the early 90's I worked on several projects archiving some local landmarks, and since our goal was to actually 'archive' the structures without the aid of digital we followed the goals literally. The photographer shot color E-6 on 4x5, and we printed those images on glossy Cibachrome to the best of our abilities where they are currently in dark storage. I do believe the National Archives followed a similiar routine for a few decades.
> 
> Those images will likely last a very, very long time, and when they are viewed 25-50-100 years hence they will still be very close to when we originally printed them because they are not being degraded by light. Plus, being glossy, they will actually be scannable with very high precision unlike matte or textured papers. No one is going to point at the images and ask "why did they shoot it in B&W? Didn't color exist in 1992?" 50 years down the road an art critic is not going to grade my prints on tonal value.
> 
> In regards to the digital debate, I dare say Ansel Admam's Department of Energy portfolio has been viewed far more times on the Internet than it has in physical form, and every image I've scanned or aquired since I started with digital 15years ago is on my current hard-drive. External drive storage is cheap, easily redundant, even in the terrabyte range, and migrating data isn't too difficult. I work in a variety of corporate data centers, and nobody uses optical storage anymore nor misses it. If you're worried about a nuclear EMP or solar flare from the sun wreaking your magnetic storage you might find more priorities in the aftermath than re-printing your images.
> 
> S Eaton

You're right, Dick. Perhaps I should have inserted a qualifier, to say:
"What will happen when CD drives go the way of 5.25" or 3.5" disk
drives? Other than that, the Millenniata project does look promising
..."

Thanks for catching that!

Paul


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dick Rawson"
<Yahoo-lists-070713@...> wrote:
>
> Millenniata disks don't address the CD obsolescence issue, since to
read a Millenniata disk, you need a drive that can read a CD.
>
> Dick
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul"
paulmwhiting@ wrote:
> > ... what will happen when CD drives go the way of 5.25" or 3.5" disk
drives? The Millenniata project does look promising ...
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 11/20/2011 2:11 PM, Dick Rawson wrote:
>
> Millenniata disks don't address the CD obsolescence issue, since to read a Millenniata disk, you need a drive that can read a CD.
>

So far, we've had CD -> DVD -> SACD -> Blu-Ray that are physical super-sets of each
preceding generation.  This isn't like a 3.5" floppy disk.  A new BD drive reads old CDs.

Dana



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Dana Myers <dana.myers@...> wrote:
>
> On 11/20/2011 2:11 PM, Dick Rawson wrote:

> So far, we've had CD -> DVD -> SACD -> Blu-Ray that are physical super-sets of each
> preceding generation.  This isn't like a 3.5" floppy disk.  A new BD drive reads old CDs.
> 
> Dana

I don't have a crystal ball, but my guess is any kind of spinning disk technology will disappear in the next 10-20 years. People will have a window of time to migrate digital data from these technologies to newer ones. Thus, having very durable media is certainly valuable in terms of safeguarding digital data for the short and medium term, but doesn't solve the long term digital preservation issues.

I'm not a pessimist by any means about electronic data preservation, but the key strategies are 1) avoid obscure formats, 2) reformat whenever you see a looming file format obsolescence issue creeping into your digital collection 3), migrate data before hardware quits working and cannot easily be purchased, and 4) backup, backup, backup! All very time consuming, which means many digital files are destined to vanish. The digital age has, IMHO, made preservation practice more challenging, not less. Even the sheer volume of information that humans would have to painstakingly catalog in order to preserve has jumped enormously.

One other point:  the digital information age has brought us the notion of "perfect" copies with no data integrity loss ever, but In practice, we're not there yet. Still too many important image and video file formats that rely on lossy compression.  Migrating/converting from one format to another "newer" format without further lossy compression is much easier said than done in this era. People have to pay attention, and many don't realize there's even an issue there.  As a colleague of mine once said: "Confidence is what you have until you know the full extent of the problem"!
 
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

And don't forget the software. Even if you can read the bits on the CD that doesn't mean software of the future will be able to decode those bits.

NASA had that problem - early Apollo data were of interest to climatologists, but universities and the US government were not able to retrieve and decode the data.

  - susan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dick Rawson" <Yahoo-lists-070713@...> wrote:

>
> Millenniata disks don't address the CD obsolescence issue, since to read a Millenniata disk, you need a drive that can read a CD.
> 
> Dick
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <paulmwhiting@> wrote:
> > ... what will happen when CD drives go the way of 5.25" or 3.5" disk drives? The Millenniata project does look promising ...
>

Newbie to the list

I reciently retired and decided to get back to photography to keep busy. I retired as a senior systems engineer who had worked in research since the 1970s, and also in high energy physics and telecom related areas. I expect to bring the same attention to detail and record keeping that I used in my day jobs. I purchased my first digital camera in 1995 and have owned several others since, my dad had Contaflex with Ziess optics and I purchased a Sony based on the lens. I used film up to 2005 for important shots and would shoot a few rolls of B&W a year for the grandchildren to show to their grandchildren. I used Nikons from the late 1960's to 2005 I have two F's and 2 Nikormats and a dozen lenses.

I grew up in a home with a darkroom and was reading a light meter and shooting and developing and printing with help at 8 and on my own after school by age 9. My grandfather was a profesional photographer who did beach photography along the gulf coast and in St. Cloud FL where his father owned an orange orchard near the wintering grounds for the wild west show. I have photos he made with Annie Oakley. My dad did all his own photo work and I still have a darkroom and enlargers although the equipment is packed up. I receintly retired and have decided to get the equipment and software to do digital. I am very interested in the carbon on cotton process as my wife is a genealogist and I have been working on organizing and properly storing photographs for a few county historical societies. One project concerns hundreds of old school class photos usually 6 X 8 to 8 X 10 the objective is to scan and clean up and repair minor damage scratches and tears, and to print a new copy for their public access files. The few I have done I printed on archival scrapbooking paper with a smooth finish the paper I have been using states that they are for use with color ink jet printers. In order to get a better and more archival print after several months of reading and emailing I intend to use the Eboni 6 system with an Epson 1400 printer.

************************************
In 2000 as part of the Milenimum project the Library of Congress was to migrate the thousands of video cartridge of news footage and that of military photographers of the Vietnam era to archival DVD's. The problem: the old large format tape cartridge players had not been made for many years and there were only two functional machines at the library. Archivests had to beg machines from the closets of TV Stations and visit video junk yards, in the end they were able to get around a dozen players working by scavanging parts from several dead machines to rebuild each working unit. A similar problem occured when moving the NASA moon landing videos only there they found that the original tape had been reused and they had to make do with copies.

As the demand for CD Discs wains, and a visit to any large computer store will show a few stacks of CD's and dozens of brands of DVD's and a few blue ray discs. As this trend continues new computers will install new drives that in order to reduce costs will come with software drivers that will not support CD's. Why spend money to write code for something that will not be used. Some very early computers also included a drive for storing data to small casette tape cartridges. I had two of these but I doubt I could find a functional drive and if I could there would be no drivers to read the information into any editing program. I already have programs that will not run under vista or W7 and Apple is no better with many unsupported OS for which drivers for new hardware are no longer being written and new comercial software versions where the financial incentive to write Mac drivers is not seen as cost effective.

A change in consumer computing purchasing is happening the traditional desk top is vanishing from many homes replaced by net books, pads and smart phones. None of these can directly read a CD and they are fast becoming the consumer "Computer" of choice. Cloud computing is moving to the home and the face of the home computer is rapidly changing. Use of the cloud removes a lot of control over your data and puts some one else in charge. This happens when you use internet data storage sites where you are putting a third party in control of your information. A Google search on "Cloud computing + data loss" yielded almost four million hits.

Bill Lewis

Bill, 

Welcome to the list

> ...  I am very interested in the carbon on cotton process as my wife is a genealogist and I have been working on organizing and properly storing photographs for a few county historical societies...


Ditto.

The genealogist organizations might like to hear your process after you've refined it.  I've given talks to several and they seem to be very interested.


> ... I printed on archival scrapbooking paper ...

The Epson "Premier Art Scrapbook" paper is excellent for that purpose.  For larger prints I prefer the thicker Premier Art Smooth Hot Press 325.  (The Epson Scrapbook paper is Premier Art 205.)

> I intend to use the Eboni 6 system with an Epson 1400 printer.

It's a good choice. I recommend people start with the pre-filled carts to be sure you like it before buying bulk.  The pre-filled carts can be refilled.

Good luck with the process.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com