Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-23 by Christer Rosewelll

I do..=*^)

I always make at least three (3) - usually four (4) backups of the RAW 
originals - two sets of DVD's - each stored at a different site - and 
one set at the office plus the online hard drive copies. "Developed" - 
worked images (PSD Masters) backed up the same way and in addition I 
often make another (5th set) Master backup set on the hard drives. 
Guess I'll have to make another set soon with Adobe's new universal 
file format as well - or change it all over to that format - maybe....

Yeah, you don't ned to say it - when it comes to the safe keeping of my 
images I get kind of fanatic - on the other hand - there's a lot of 
time and effort gone into that stuff - and remember - you gotta leave 
something behind for those who's supposed to dissect you and your work 
when you're not around anymore - if nothing else - this will make it a 
lot easier for 'em...=*^)

Cheers,

Christer


			Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell
"It's the artist's job to accomplish two things-to stir the emotions of 
the viewer
	  and to lay bare the soul of his subject." Jousuf Karsh
      Member EP (Editorial Photographers) - 4,000+ professionals 
worldwide.
			  http://www.ChristerArt.com
		  	   3.4+ million visitors to date..


On Nov 22, 2004, at 9:16 PM, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>   Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:03:59 -0500
>    From: "bhhc" <tawow@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Canon for Digital B&W from color
>
> I would be really interested in knowing how many REALLY do store 
> digital copies elsewhere. Virtually every post I read from digi-geeks 
> goes on and on about how cheap it is . . . which would lead one to 
> suspect that having a "safe" storage site elsewhere, which would incur 
> additional costs, is contrary to the digi-geek mantra of "we spend no 
> money, we spend no money".
>
> ;-))
>
> ;-))
>
> Paul Aparycki
>
>
>   <<Digital storage is cheap and, if appropriate
>   precautions are followed, much
>   more secure than the storage of an asset such as
>   film.>>
>
>   Yes. Ansel Adams, in his book "forty Images" tells of
>   losing quite a number of his original negs in a fire
>   in his lab in Yosemite.  In this same book he
>   anticipates digital imaging and I'm sure he would be a
>   strong advocate......


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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-23 by Hans Van Rafelghem

Christer Rosewelll wrote:

>I do..=*^)
>
>I always make at least three (3) - usually four (4) backups of the RAW 
>originals - two sets of DVD's - each stored at a different site - and 
>one set at the office plus the online hard drive copies. "Developed" - 
>worked images (PSD Masters) backed up the same way and in addition I 
>often make another (5th set) Master backup set on the hard drives. 
>Guess I'll have to make another set soon with Adobe's new universal 
>file format as well - or change it all over to that format - maybe....
>
>Yeah, you don't ned to say it - when it comes to the safe keeping of my 
>images I get kind of fanatic - on the other hand - there's a lot of 
>time and effort gone into that stuff - and remember - you gotta leave 
>something behind for those who's supposed to dissect you and your work 
>when you're not around anymore - if nothing else - this will make it a 
>lot easier for 'em...=*^)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Christer
>
>  
>
3 and a half

-- 

Hans Van Rafelghem
http://www.vanrafelghem.com

Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-23 by Peter Nelson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Christer 
Rosewelll <christerart@m...> wrote:
>  you gotta leave something behind for those who's
> supposed to dissect you and your work when you're
> not around anymore - if nothing else - this will 
> make it a lot easier for 'em...=*^)

WRONGO!

It will make it a lot HARDER for 'em!

Digital technology changes so fast that even 15 years from now there 
will be no easy way to read those DVD's. 

Assuming that the shelf life of the media itself isn't an issue, in 
15 or 20 years we'll be - what - maybe 3 generations of storage 
technology past DVD's.    Traditionally PC's overlap one generation 
prior to what's current.   When 3.5" floppies came out most PC's also 
came with 5.25" floppies, too.   When CD's came out they still 
shipped with 3.5" floppies but 5.25's were gone.  Now that DVD's are 
standard, 3.5" floppies are going away (NONE of my last 3 computers 
came with one) but PC's can still read CD's.

So say XYZ replaces DVD in 5 years - DVD's will still be around.    
But 5 years later, when ABC replaces XYZ, DVD's will go and computers 
will still have old XYZ drives.     

And nevermind the drives - you would also need DRIVERS, and something 
that can read the file formats, etc!!    How many PC's today have 
drivers and display software for hardware and image formats that were 
in use 20 years ago?

So your plan forces your heirs and descendants to keep copying your 
images to whatever is current every few years!   That's a lotta 
trouble for them to go through!   What makes you think they'll be 
willing to do that?

Now *I*, on the other hand, have Kodachrome slides and BW negatives 
my father took over 60 years ago!!    They have been sitting around 
in attics and drawers all this time and NOBODY had to do ANYTHING to 
update them.   Yet I can pop them into my Nikon Coolscan and read 
them like they were taken yesterday.

If you want archival images for your descendents, you need to pick a 
storage medium that does not force them to do constant maintenance.   
I suggest BW silver-emulsion film.   Even if there are no scanners, 
because no ones uses film, in the future, there will still be 
cameras.   And those cameras will be FAR higher-res and wider dynamic 
range than today.   So your descendants can just "scan" the old film 
by taking a picture of it, like people do today to copy slides with 
their cameras.

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-23 by Hans Van Rafelghem

>Now *I*, on the other hand, have Kodachrome slides and BW negatives 
>my father took over 60 years ago!!    They have been sitting around 
>in attics and drawers all this time and NOBODY had to do ANYTHING to 
>update them.   Yet I can pop them into my Nikon Coolscan and read 
>them like they were taken yesterday.
>
Taken yesterday??
My father was a professional photographer about 50 years ago. His 
filmrolls were typically stored in drawers, each roll wrapped in paper. 
I tried to scan some of them on my Nikon 4000ED. I also tried to scan 
some slides with snapshots from when I was a kid - I am now 42. Those 
were typically stored in the pouches that came from the lab. All scan 
results were simple horrible. All the slides from the family trips I 
made with my parent are all fading fast up to the point of being 
completely useless. And I am not even mentioning the hundreds of 
photographs were I can't find a single negative from.
-- 

Hans Van Rafelghem
http://www.vanrafelghem.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-23 by Robert Damon

I'm getting excellent results scanning Kodachrome (and Ektachrome) 
slides taken in the late 70's. So 25 year old Kodachrome slides are 
holding up well in my hands. The slides look good visually and they 
produce nice images via my Nikon 4000 ED scanner. The overwhelming 
majority of them do not appeare to have visually deteriorated at all. 
I'm not confident any of my digital images will be easily readable 25 
years from now. Long term storage of digital data (not just images) is 
a major issue for many of the reasons outlined by Peter Nelson (and 
others). I've got lots (probably hundreds) of 3.5" floppy disks with 
data (documents, etc.) prepared on a Macintosh IIx or IIci back in the 
late 80s-early 90s. I doubt if I could read much of it anymore. The OS 
has changed, software has changed or disappeared, floppy disk drives 
are no longer standard equipment (on Macs, anyway), etc.  Most of them 
will simply be discarded -- not worth the time or trouble anymore to 
even figure out what's on them.

On the other hand, I have talked to some friends who, during that time 
period (late 70's) bought cheap film (repackaged inexpensive movie 
film, I think it was) thinking they were saving money vs. buying 
Kodachrome. Their images have all but disappeared, and are now useless. 
So not all film will last. Kodachrome is apparently among the best of 
the color films in this regard. Properly processed and stored high 
quality B&W film is probably the best for long term storage.

Regards,
Bob Damon
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Nov 23, 2004, at 5:34 PM, Hans Van Rafelghem wrote:

>
>
>> Now *I*, on the other hand, have Kodachrome slides and BW negatives
>> my father took over 60 years ago!!    They have been sitting around
>> in attics and drawers all this time and NOBODY had to do ANYTHING to
>> update them.   Yet I can pop them into my Nikon Coolscan and read
>> them like they were taken yesterday.
>>
> Taken yesterday??
> My father was a professional photographer about 50 years ago. His
> filmrolls were typically stored in drawers, each roll wrapped in paper.
> I tried to scan some of them on my Nikon 4000ED. I also tried to scan
> some slides with snapshots from when I was a kid - I am now 42. Those
> were typically stored in the pouches that came from the lab. All scan
> results were simple horrible. All the slides from the family trips I
> made with my parent are all fading fast up to the point of being
> completely useless. And I am not even mentioning the hundreds of
> photographs were I can't find a single negative from.
> -- 
>
> Hans Van Rafelghem
> http://www.vanrafelghem.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-23 by Steve Kale

There is absolutely no way that all those thousands of people with all those
millions of dollars at stake will allow today's population of digital images
to be unreadable in the future.  That is not to say that you won't have to
convert them at some point, perhaps either to a new storage medium or to a
different data format.  To do so will be your responsibility.  BUT such a
path will always be available for RAW digital image data.  Think about it,
do you think Adobe or its successor would allow this to happen - no - there
is too much at stake.  If anything the risk is the other way around.
Digital data is very mutable.  You might rather find that in 25 years they
no longer make scanners and you will be digging in the antique shops to find
one so you can play catch up.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Robert Damon <robert.damon@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:30:23 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies
> elsewhere
> 
> 
> I'm getting excellent results scanning Kodachrome (and Ektachrome)
> slides taken in the late 70's. So 25 year old Kodachrome slides are
> holding up well in my hands. The slides look good visually and they
> produce nice images via my Nikon 4000 ED scanner. The overwhelming
> majority of them do not appeare to have visually deteriorated at all.
> I'm not confident any of my digital images will be easily readable 25
> years from now. Long term storage of digital data (not just images) is
> a major issue for many of the reasons outlined by Peter Nelson (and
> others). I've got lots (probably hundreds) of 3.5" floppy disks with
> data (documents, etc.) prepared on a Macintosh IIx or IIci back in the
> late 80s-early 90s. I doubt if I could read much of it anymore. The OS
> has changed, software has changed or disappeared, floppy disk drives
> are no longer standard equipment (on Macs, anyway), etc.  Most of them
> will simply be discarded -- not worth the time or trouble anymore to
> even figure out what's on them.
> 
> On the other hand, I have talked to some friends who, during that time
> period (late 70's) bought cheap film (repackaged inexpensive movie
> film, I think it was) thinking they were saving money vs. buying
> Kodachrome. Their images have all but disappeared, and are now useless.
> So not all film will last. Kodachrome is apparently among the best of
> the color films in this regard. Properly processed and stored high
> quality B&W film is probably the best for long term storage.
> 
> Regards,
> Bob Damon

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-23 by sinwen

Peter,

I fully agree with you. More ... I bet sometime from now there will be a big come back from digital to negatives.
Digital is probably a fantastic media for certain professionals, reporters, architects etc... but for mister Nobody, pictures mean family "souvenir", he won't have any, digital is a big mistake. 
First he will have to transfer the pictures to his computer, in a file well kept and organised in the hard drive, that's already a challenge, I know I teach that every day.
When he manage to find out how to transfer from the camera, he usually erase half of the pictures and do not know where he stores the rest on his computer. 
Along the way he has many chances to screw up a bunch or lost all of them, we all know too well that computers don't behave exactly the way we would like sometimes. A virus, or the well known "somebody else mistake" and everything is gone or get stuck. 
Then he will have to engrave a CD, that's another challenge giving him plenty of time to give up. Sure enough he won't do all these manipulations every time and will live that X-Mega pixel in the drawer. 
Now suppose he reach the point where he has a stack of twenty CD and he wants to find the picture of "Jovial Joe" after twenty beers two years ago during a vacation somewhere ; he will have to search in each of them and it is obvious that when you look for something you never find it. The game of five guys behind a screen trying to see something isn't going to last very long.
If he realise all this quickly he will get back to neg and as usual will give it to the lab, get it back within an hour, stack both negs and prints into a shoe box, no hassle! Any time from there he has just to open the box, crack open a can and enjoy the prints.
I remember some years ago they were all buying Camrecorders, what's happen then, I don't see them anymore....because that tool was too technical it get back into the drawers, digital cameras will have the same fate.
Just to say, a friend of mine bought one digital cam a year ago, he looked at the manual, fiddle with a bit and never snap a picture with it.... too complicated for him. Remember an old ad from Kodak "clik clak thanks Kodak" to persuade people how easy it was to snap, they seem to have forgotten all about it.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Peter Nelson 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:26 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere



  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Christer 
  Rosewelll <christerart@m...> wrote:
  >  you gotta leave something behind for those who's
  > supposed to dissect you and your work when you're
  > not around anymore - if nothing else - this will 
  > make it a lot easier for 'em...=*^)

  WRONGO!

  It will make it a lot HARDER for 'em!

  Digital technology changes so fast that even 15 years from now there 
  will be no easy way to read those DVD's. 

  Assuming that the shelf life of the media itself isn't an issue, in 
  15 or 20 years we'll be - what - maybe 3 generations of storage 
  technology past DVD's.    Traditionally PC's overlap one generation 
  prior to what's current.   When 3.5" floppies came out most PC's also 
  came with 5.25" floppies, too.   When CD's came out they still 
  shipped with 3.5" floppies but 5.25's were gone.  Now that DVD's are 
  standard, 3.5" floppies are going away (NONE of my last 3 computers 
  came with one) but PC's can still read CD's.

  So say XYZ replaces DVD in 5 years - DVD's will still be around.    
  But 5 years later, when ABC replaces XYZ, DVD's will go and computers 
  will still have old XYZ drives.     

  And nevermind the drives - you would also need DRIVERS, and something 
  that can read the file formats, etc!!    How many PC's today have 
  drivers and display software for hardware and image formats that were 
  in use 20 years ago?

  So your plan forces your heirs and descendants to keep copying your 
  images to whatever is current every few years!   That's a lotta 
  trouble for them to go through!   What makes you think they'll be 
  willing to do that?

  Now *I*, on the other hand, have Kodachrome slides and BW negatives 
  my father took over 60 years ago!!    They have been sitting around 
  in attics and drawers all this time and NOBODY had to do ANYTHING to 
  update them.   Yet I can pop them into my Nikon Coolscan and read 
  them like they were taken yesterday.

  If you want archival images for your descendents, you need to pick a 
  storage medium that does not force them to do constant maintenance.   
  I suggest BW silver-emulsion film.   Even if there are no scanners, 
  because no ones uses film, in the future, there will still be 
  cameras.   And those cameras will be FAR higher-res and wider dynamic 
  range than today.   So your descendants can just "scan" the old film 
  by taking a picture of it, like people do today to copy slides with 
  their cameras.




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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-23 by Steve Kale

I am sorry but this is simply stupid.  The individual who said he used DVDs
for backup did not suggest that once the images were on the DVD that was the
end of it.  It is a form of data storage used today and wisely used to
backup and store data.  That doesn't mean that when a new (and probably
better) storage medium becomes available that the data (original or backup)
can't be moved to the new storage medium.  If you don't do so well then it
is simply your own fault but nothing in the earlier posts suggested that
this wouldn't be done.  I would go so far as to say that the world today is
going through a major digitisation process of historical and current data in
all forms of business.  This is because a new medium - digital - now exists
that is more mutable, easily copied for backup and more efficiently stored.
I would worry if I had a pile of negs in the drawer if I had NOT digitised
them.  The risk is you will at some point no longer be able to scan them to
your satisfaction because nobody scans any negs anymore (because film is no
longer made) and companies have stopped making film scanners.  If you have
great negs in the closet, get them scanned, back up the data with sensible
precaution measures and rest easy that you (with appropriate common sense
going forward) have those images for as long as you want them.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Peter Nelson <pnweb@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:26:40 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Christer
> Rosewelll <christerart@m...> wrote:
>>  you gotta leave something behind for those who's
>> supposed to dissect you and your work when you're
>> not around anymore - if nothing else - this will
>> make it a lot easier for 'em...=*^)
> 
> WRONGO!
> 
> It will make it a lot HARDER for 'em!
> 
> Digital technology changes so fast that even 15 years from now there
> will be no easy way to read those DVD's.
> 
> Assuming that the shelf life of the media itself isn't an issue, in
> 15 or 20 years we'll be - what - maybe 3 generations of storage
> technology past DVD's.    Traditionally PC's overlap one generation
> prior to what's current.   When 3.5" floppies came out most PC's also
> came with 5.25" floppies, too.   When CD's came out they still
> shipped with 3.5" floppies but 5.25's were gone.  Now that DVD's are
> standard, 3.5" floppies are going away (NONE of my last 3 computers
> came with one) but PC's can still read CD's.
> 
> So say XYZ replaces DVD in 5 years - DVD's will still be around.
> But 5 years later, when ABC replaces XYZ, DVD's will go and computers
> will still have old XYZ drives.
> 
> And nevermind the drives - you would also need DRIVERS, and something
> that can read the file formats, etc!!    How many PC's today have
> drivers and display software for hardware and image formats that were
> in use 20 years ago?
> 
> So your plan forces your heirs and descendants to keep copying your
> images to whatever is current every few years!   That's a lotta
> trouble for them to go through!   What makes you think they'll be
> willing to do that?
> 
> Now *I*, on the other hand, have Kodachrome slides and BW negatives
> my father took over 60 years ago!!    They have been sitting around
> in attics and drawers all this time and NOBODY had to do ANYTHING to
> update them.   Yet I can pop them into my Nikon Coolscan and read
> them like they were taken yesterday.
> 
> If you want archival images for your descendents, you need to pick a
> storage medium that does not force them to do constant maintenance.
> I suggest BW silver-emulsion film.   Even if there are no scanners,
> because no ones uses film, in the future, there will still be
> cameras.   And those cameras will be FAR higher-res and wider dynamic
> range than today.   So your descendants can just "scan" the old film
> by taking a picture of it, like people do today to copy slides with
> their cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Roger Howard

On Nov 23, 2004, at 2:26 PM, Peter Nelson wrote:

>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Christer
> Rosewelll <christerart@m...> wrote:
>>  you gotta leave something behind for those who's
>> supposed to dissect you and your work when you're
>> not around anymore - if nothing else - this will
>> make it a lot easier for 'em...=*^)
>
> WRONGO!
>
> It will make it a lot HARDER for 'em!
>
> Digital technology changes so fast that even 15 years from now there
> will be no easy way to read those DVD's.
>
> Assuming that the shelf life of the media itself isn't an issue, in
> 15 or 20 years we'll be - what - maybe 3 generations of storage
> technology past DVD's.    Traditionally PC's overlap one generation
> prior to what's current.   When 3.5" floppies came out most PC's also
> came with 5.25" floppies, too.   When CD's came out they still
> shipped with 3.5" floppies but 5.25's were gone.  Now that DVD's are
> standard, 3.5" floppies are going away (NONE of my last 3 computers
> came with one) but PC's can still read CD's.
>
> So say XYZ replaces DVD in 5 years - DVD's will still be around.
> But 5 years later, when ABC replaces XYZ, DVD's will go and computers
> will still have old XYZ drives.

First, CD's have been around a lot longer than 5 years; 3.5" floppies 
have been around about 20 and DVDs will have a retail lifetime for 
consumer media of well over 10 years. That said, when you discuss 
digital preservation, the physical medium issues must be separated from 
the data format issues; they are completely different facets of the 
large digital preservation question. The assumption today *must* be 
that the physical media has to be migrated to avoid erosion 
(delaminating CD-Rs, fading signals on magnetic media, etc); there are 
varying recommendations depending on the media in use, but it's quite 
reasonable to expect even without a major shift in the market that 
today you at least need to assess your physical media every few years, 
and depending on storage conditions will likely have to migrate every 
3-10 years.

> And nevermind the drives - you would also need DRIVERS

This should be moot; no one should be storing physical media beyond 
it's market lifetime. Media must be migrated for two reasons - erosion 
and obsolescence.

> and something
> that can read the file formats, etc!!    How many PC's today have
> drivers and display software for hardware and image formats that were
> in use 20 years ago?

Again, we must separate hardware from software issues. Actually, I 
guarantee you that a CD-ROM drive or even floppy drive I used over 10 
years ago can be used on a modern PC; but let's assume that hardware 
does become obsolete (it will), but that the data is migrated regularly 
to avoid the two key physical issues with digital preservation.

Then we come to the data; I have zero doubt that a well formed JPEG or 
a basic TIFF will be completely readable in 20 years. This is without a 
doubt in my mind. Comparing the insanity of zero standards and no 
market of the earliest days of the PC era to what are two of the most 
common, documented, and well supported file formats on the planet today 
is nonsense. JPEGs will probably still be the bulk of online images in 
5 years, maybe even 10, and will be extremely well supported. The 
formats are open, documented, and understood - unlike that WriteNow 1.0 
word processor file, which is understandable long dead because it was 
never documented, had a market in the few thousands, and had 100 other 
competitors.

Granted, proprietary formats have much less a chance for easy survival, 
though there will likely always be an entrepreneurial market for file 
format conversions. This is where standards are critical; your simple 
ASCII .txt file will be easily supported in the future, due to its 
simple structure. Your Unicode XML file will be tolerable because of 
its broad documentation and consistent, cross-industry, 
cross-application, cross-platform support. A proprietary camera RAW 
file from a small camera manufacturer that went out of business in 2007 
will probably be on very few radars in 20 years, and will require some 
extraordinary efforts to decode.

> So your plan forces your heirs and descendants to keep copying your
> images to whatever is current every few years!   That's a lotta
> trouble for them to go through!   What makes you think they'll be
> willing to do that?

No, his plan requires him to maintain his collection, just as you do 
with analog materials. You don't leave your materials in the sun; you 
put them in quality binder sleeves. You keep the climate reasonable and 
know how to handle them. As the digital preservation issues become more 
pressing, so will the wider world's understanding and awareness of the 
issues; right now it's a few people preaching to huge markets that 
simply don't want to hear it. Backup software, migration processes, 
none of this is rocket science; but so far there have been no market 
forces demanding it be made easier and maintainable by mere mortals. In 
20 years, I expect enough people to have been burned HARD by loss of 
every photo, document, and email they created during this era (~1996 
and on) that preservation technologies and practices will finally take 
a position as a desirable feature of both hard- and software products.

> Now *I*, on the other hand, have Kodachrome slides and BW negatives
> my father took over 60 years ago!!    They have been sitting around
> in attics and drawers all this time and NOBODY had to do ANYTHING to
> update them.   Yet I can pop them into my Nikon Coolscan and read
> them like they were taken yesterday.

And since I don't shoot slides or any kind of film, I'm not sure the 
relevance of this. Do you expect us to all go back to film, or are you 
suggesting we simply archive to slides from our digital files? If the 
former, I have one word for you: no. If the latter, yes, this is a much 
discussed option. I work at a major cultural heritage institution, and 
we do this reverse migration (digital to analog) for many critical 
materials, just like your lawyers likely keep signed paper copies of 
documents that originate electronically.

> If you want archival images for your descendents, you need to pick a
> storage medium that does not force them to do constant maintenance.
> I suggest BW silver-emulsion film.   Even if there are no scanners,
> because no ones uses film, in the future, there will still be
> cameras.   And those cameras will be FAR higher-res and wider dynamic
> range than today.   So your descendants can just "scan" the old film
> by taking a picture of it, like people do today to copy slides with
> their cameras.

I'm not planning to die any time soon; if so, my current will asks that 
all my data be destroyed. However, my career in particular is oriented 
around solving these problems; while there may be a semi-viable analog 
backup medium for digital photographs, most digital data is not 
practically stored in an analog form that would be any less susceptible 
to the tides of time than is digital (in fact, the opposite). 
Photographs and other static (ie, non-interactive) content typically is 
tolerant of some loss - some noise introduced by writing it to analog 
media, or to simple erosion over time - a faded photograph is still 
recognizable as a photograph. Many other data and forms of human 
productivity and creativity - whether interactive pieces, raw numerical 
data, databases, and so on - are not tolerant of digital to analog 
conversions or the introduction of noise. So while it's easy for us in 
a photographer's forum to just say "bah, just print to an archival 
medium and be done with it", this transformation in fact loses so much 
data that it's virtually inapplicable to many other forms of critical 
digital content - so, in other words, the same digital preservation 
challenges must be solved for a variety of other applications, and will 
be.

This is only the highest level summary... I'm pragmatic, and realize (I 
deal with it daily) the huge challenges of preservation. But it's not 
impossible, nor unnecessary (by a long shot), and ultimately will 
benefit from many of the same reasons we all use digital technology for 
everything already - it's inherently easier to automate interactions 
with bits than it is with molecules. In the long run, I'd rather manage 
an archive of digital materials than analog.

-R

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by sinwen

Steve,

How many billions of neg & chrome on earth ? To take your way of thinking, do you believe they will stop producing scanners or some other tool to read those negs ? Human memory is in neg and just for you to realise that, why do you think Bill Gates has invested so much in making the most giant pictures storage on earth buying all images banks he could find ?
Up to now films & scanners are still available and I bet they will for a long time still....may be digital will gone by then  :-)

Cheers
Michel
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Kale 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 12:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere


  There is absolutely no way that all those thousands of people with all those
  millions of dollars at stake will allow today's population of digital images
  to be unreadable in the future.  That is not to say that you won't have to
  convert them at some point, perhaps either to a new storage medium or to a
  different data format.  To do so will be your responsibility.  BUT such a
  path will always be available for RAW digital image data.  Think about it,
  do you think Adobe or its successor would allow this to happen - no - there
  is too much at stake.  If anything the risk is the other way around.
  Digital data is very mutable.  You might rather find that in 25 years they
  no longer make scanners and you will be digging in the antique shops to find
  one so you can play catch up.



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

[Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Peter Nelson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Hans Van
Rafelghem <hvr@a...> wrote:

> Taken yesterday??
> My father was a professional photographer about 50 years ago. His 
> filmrolls were typically stored in drawers, each roll wrapped in paper. 
> I tried to scan some of them on my Nikon 4000ED. I also tried to scan 
> some slides with snapshots from when I was a kid - I am now 42. Those 
> were typically stored in the pouches that came from the lab. All scan 
> results were simple horrible.

What kind of film were they?

Kodachrome is a totally different process from the E4 and E6 films
that came along later, and is far more stable.     And the bw film was
all silver emulsion - that stuff is good for a century or more.

[Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Peter Nelson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I am sorry but this is simply stupid.  The individual who said he
used DVDs
> for backup did not suggest that once the images were on the DVD that
was the
> end of it.  It is a form of data storage used today and wisely used to
> backup and store data.  That doesn't mean that when a new (and probably
> better) storage medium becomes available that the data (original or
backup)
> can't be moved to the new storage medium. 

Of course it can.  That was my POINT!!

He said he wants to leave it behind to make it "easy" for people in
the future to see his images.  My point was that he's making it HARD
for them by imposing the burden of HAVING to convert it to newer
formats.   remeber, HE wasn't volunteering to do it; he's going to be
in his grave.  he expects others in the future to do the work.   

What I'm saying is that if he wants to leave his art to posterity he
should be asking what form he can leave it in that will last the
longest with the LEAST amount of ongoing work.

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Steve Kale

And guess what old Bill is doing?  Digitising.  Preserving.  Moving data
from an old, highly perishable and difficult to backup format to a new
format.  Yes I am sure there will be specialists who still require
specialist machines.  But don't count on film scanners being as readily
available to the retail market at today's price point in 25 years time.
They exist because there is demand for the very process you guys are posting
against - to take an old format and convert it to a new format. You don't
need a film scanner in the traditional darkroom.

A case in point:  today the UK's largest retail electronics store announced
that it is to stop selling VCRs.  Now a thoughtful person who had a VCR
cassette collection (either of commercial films or, particularly, precious
family footage etc) would likely have thought already about the issue of
replacing/transforming his/her data from the old medium to a newer one
(digitisation) and done so.  If they haven't then they just got a wake up
call.  

Whether you like it or not, film is trending out.  Not tomorrow.  Not the
day after.  But in the not too distant future it is very likely that 35mm
and 645 film (at least) is no longer broadly commercially manufactured.
35mm/645 film scanners will parallel this decline, albeit likely with a lag
as there will always be those who are late to shift there data from one
format to the next.  The wise will want to look at their precious negative
pile and follow Bill's example....
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: sinwen <sinwen@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:17:38 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies
> elsewhere
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> How many billions of neg & chrome on earth ? To take your way of thinking, do
> you believe they will stop producing scanners or some other tool to read those
> negs ? Human memory is in neg and just for you to realise that, why do you
> think Bill Gates has invested so much in making the most giant pictures
> storage on earth buying all images banks he could find ?
> Up to now films & scanners are still available and I bet they will for a long
> time still....may be digital will gone by then  :-)
> 
> Cheers
> Michel

[Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Peter Nelson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Roger Howard > 
> First, CD's have been around a lot longer than 5 years;

Music CD's, sure, but CD-R/RW technology only became commonplace 5 or
6 years ago.
 
> > So your plan forces your heirs and descendants to keep copying your
> > images to whatever is current every few years!   That's a lotta
> > trouble for them to go through!   What makes you think they'll be
> > willing to do that?
> 
> No, his plan requires him to maintain his collection,

From the grave?   Remember - he wants to leave his stuff for when he's
gone.

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Roger Howard

On Nov 23, 2004, at 4:50 PM, Peter Nelson wrote:

>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Roger Howard >
>> First, CD's have been around a lot longer than 5 years;
>
> Music CD's, sure, but CD-R/RW technology only became commonplace 5 or
> 6 years ago.

Since you only clipped two of the smallest points from my long and 
interconnected post, it's hard to respond tit for tat. However, the 
point was that CD reading compatibility - and that of most media - is a 
lot longer of a lifecycle than 5 years. Even legacy formats that were 
birthed in the infancy of the PC age have been broadly compatible - I 
can plug in a Zip drive from many years ago, or a CD-ROM, and still 
read it. This addresses the driver issues you referenced, more than the 
hardware availability; however, I don't believe a 5 year expectancy for 
modern, ubiquitous formats like CD and DVD is even close to realistic.

However, please note, I'm not defending blind reliance on physical 
media - I mentioned before that this is the real failure point, as 
hardware can and will go obsolete, fail, and so on. And as media 
becomes ever more complex (higher density, exotic encoding methods, 
etc) it becomes less likely that mere mortals in the future could 
reverse engineer these formats enough to build their own reader at home 
without significant resources. Physical media is the weakest link, and 
it takes real discipline to manage migration (but today, migration is 
primarily caused by degradation of the media, *not* format obsolescence 
- at least if we ignore tape, where formats come and go almost yearly).

Btw, I was producing CD-ROMs a lot longer than 5 or 6 years ago (and 
even did some CD-i before that). Those titles are still physically 
compatible with my latest DVD-RW drive, and will be with the next gen 
HD-DVD drives. That's a pretty good lifetime for format compatibility.

My main point is that the lessons learned in the early days of the PC 
revolution aren't entirely relevant to today. We do have real 
standards, meaning a substantial piece of the market implements a 
technology in compatible ways. This does aid significantly in the 
hardware longevity (as evidenced by the fact that I can still pick up a 
3.5" floppy drive, a decade after my earliest 3.5" floppies have 
completely gone dead!).

>>> So your plan forces your heirs and descendants to keep copying your
>>> images to whatever is current every few years!   That's a lotta
>>> trouble for them to go through!   What makes you think they'll be
>>> willing to do that?
>>
>> No, his plan requires him to maintain his collection,
>
> From the grave?   Remember - he wants to leave his stuff for when he's
> gone.

Agreed. And I did give some credence to the notion of archiving on 
analog media; it's not unheard of, and is low-risk; but there's an 
instantaneous loss there, so it really depends on what it is you're 
archiving, and how you intend for it to be used. Again, I agree that 
with a typical photograph, it's pretty portable between analog and 
digital (at least once it's done or "fixed" into a condition you 
consider ideal). If I were giving my grandmother a portfolio of 
photographs today, you can bet it would be in analog form. If I were 
willing my data to a descendant, it would remain in digital form, and 
it would become their property after my passing. My goal - 
professionally, personally - is in part to see the massive 
technological capacity available today leveraged, in part, to assure 
digital longevity. Archive.org and many other institutions are leading 
the way; Library of Congress has a massive new project funding basic 
research and projects to develop this capacity; the problems aren't 
insurmountable, they simply haven't been the focus of an industry that 
has been hell bent on squeezing profit and every last sale from the 
market; at this stage, personal computing is completely ubiquitous and 
the longevity issues are beginning to be felt and have to be dealt 
with, and they will (as other posters have alluded to). Microsoft, 
Adobe, Apple, and virtually every other industry leader is now seeing 
this, finally, as a critical issue - because if they don't, over the 
next decade they'll be left holding the bag in some real disasters - 
and in fact, as I mentioned, I predict this will happen (and in fact 
has to) in order to push us in the right direction.

Distributed storage, open file formats, ever increasing bandwidth, and 
the ridiculous processing and storage capacity of modern PCs, all lend 
themselves well to the task of safeguarding data in a way that analog 
media could never hope for. The problem has been the lack of 
engineering resources, and the lack of a market awareness, to 
prioritize longevity/preservation issues, beyond the usual 
admonishments from your IT guy to "backup regularly" (backups are 
purely for disaster recovery, not archival applications).

Anyhow, I don't think it's an either-or scenario. Digital and analog 
will continue to coexist; devices will always be available to digitize 
analog media (even if in the future it's simply a backlit slide holder 
attached to your 100megapix digicam), and devices will always exist to 
push bits back down to analog media (printing, barcoding, punchcards, 
waveforms etched in platinum, etc). There are some massive benefits to 
digital - and not just the instant benefits (easy, low cost, fits your 
workflow)... long-term benefits abound - bits are discrete, we can 
perform error checking and do infinite perfect copies, automation (good 
software) can let a single user scale up to ridiculous power. We're in 
the adolescent era of personal computing - all the power, but the 
brains haven't quite grown in to fit the body yet.

Digital photo preservation may not seem critical or even plausible to 
you; but it's a subset of a much larger, global problem, and there are 
literally billions of dollars on the table now, looking at it - and 
most of the bits concerned aren't so easily transferred to analog media 
as a photograph is. But maintaining a parallel analog collection today 
simply to save your descendants some effort is a bit extreme; if you 
maintain a good collection, a better use of your money otherwise spent 
on writing slides today would be to put it aside as part of the estate, 
to provide some funding to either support the digital collection after 
you die, or to provide funding to migrate it to analog the moment your 
body is cold.

Cheers,

Roger, who never lets a good digital preservation thread go unmolested!

Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Bob Michaels

I agree with Peter (had to happen some day) that any digitial media
and the means to read it will become obsolete. Except I swear by
external hard drives. When they're nearing the end of their technical
life cycle, you just copy the ENTIRE thing at one time over to
whatever media is being used in the future. 

The alternative is to someday look at this HUGE stack of CDs, DVDs, or
whatever and think that you must find time to copy them, one by one,
to the new media. It will probably never happen and their utility will
be lost forever. I know from eventually tossing a big stack of 5 1/4"
floppies. 

As Peter says, saving the original film is a mechanical means and
completely isolated from whatever happens in digital storage. The only
problem is finding the good ones. I have thousands and thousands of
slides from decades ago. I really wish I'd picked out the hundred best
and only saved them. 

Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson"
<pnweb@s...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Christer 
> Rosewelll <christerart@m...> wrote:
> >  you gotta leave something behind for those who's
> > supposed to dissect you and your work when you're
> > not around anymore - if nothing else - this will 
> > make it a lot easier for 'em...=*^)
> 
> WRONGO!
> 
> It will make it a lot HARDER for 'em!
> 
> Digital technology changes so fast that even 15 years from now there 
> will be no easy way to read those DVD's. 
> 
> Assuming that the shelf life of the media itself isn't an issue, in 
> 15 or 20 years we'll be - what - maybe 3 generations of storage 
> technology past DVD's.    Traditionally PC's overlap one generation 
> prior to what's current.   When 3.5" floppies came out most PC's also 
> came with 5.25" floppies, too.   When CD's came out they still 
> shipped with 3.5" floppies but 5.25's were gone.  Now that DVD's are 
> standard, 3.5" floppies are going away (NONE of my last 3 computers 
> came with one) but PC's can still read CD's.
> 
> So say XYZ replaces DVD in 5 years - DVD's will still be around.    
> But 5 years later, when ABC replaces XYZ, DVD's will go and computers 
> will still have old XYZ drives.     
> 
> And nevermind the drives - you would also need DRIVERS, and something 
> that can read the file formats, etc!!    How many PC's today have 
> drivers and display software for hardware and image formats that were 
> in use 20 years ago?
> 
> So your plan forces your heirs and descendants to keep copying your 
> images to whatever is current every few years!   That's a lotta 
> trouble for them to go through!   What makes you think they'll be 
> willing to do that?
> 
> Now *I*, on the other hand, have Kodachrome slides and BW negatives 
> my father took over 60 years ago!!    They have been sitting around 
> in attics and drawers all this time and NOBODY had to do ANYTHING to 
> update them.   Yet I can pop them into my Nikon Coolscan and read 
> them like they were taken yesterday.
> 
> If you want archival images for your descendents, you need to pick a 
> storage medium that does not force them to do constant maintenance.   
> I suggest BW silver-emulsion film.   Even if there are no scanners, 
> because no ones uses film, in the future, there will still be 
> cameras.   And those cameras will be FAR higher-res and wider dynamic 
> range than today.   So your descendants can just "scan" the old film 
> by taking a picture of it, like people do today to copy slides with 
> their cameras.

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Steve Kale

Film is a storage medium.  When you took the photo you captured a small
slither of time on a piece of plastic (or glass).  This medium if properly
maintained had/has a certain longevity.  It could be brought out of storage
and used to make a print.  As we have moved into the digital realm and
particularly that of digital printing, this plastic storage medium has not
been appropriate and so scanners have been made to scan the film and convert
it to a digital storage medium from which digital prints can be made. As the
front end of image capture moves closer and closer to digital capture (note
the increasing capabilities of professional digital cameras, the lower price
points and greater  capabilities of now pervasive consumer digital cameras,
and the withdrawal of many film products from the market) the need for such
converters declines rapidly. They will become less available as a result.

This discussion is about migrating your data from one storage medium to
another in order to preserve your ability to easily use that data in the
future.  (The fact that it began as a simple question as to whether people
actually backed up, ie duplicated, their digital data at another location
seems to have been lost - I should ask how many people, as a matter of
prudence, keep celluloid copies of their film elsewhere?  Not that many I
suspect.) Yes digital storage formats will continue to evolve and at some
point one will have to transfer any data stored on a dying medium to the new
(no need to transfer the backup! just the original digital copy and make a
new backup on the new medium).  The question at hand is whether owners of
precious collections of data in celluloid form should be converting that
data from the celluloid domain to the digital domain (whatever its current
format - hard disk, cd, dvd etc).  I think the answer is a resounding "yes".

Film as a storage medium is subject to two major risks.  The first has
always been the same, the risk of physical damage or decay.  It is extremely
difficult to backup your data when it is in this form.  It is not easily
copied to another piece of film so that film can be stored at another
location.  If you don't want to backup your data or can't (celluloid or
digital) then you take the risk that it is not lost or damaged through
improper care, theft or accident.  This was the original subject matter of
the post and it is pretty clear that it is easier to backup data stored in a
digital format than to backup film.

The other risk is obsolescence. This seems to be the more passionate end of
the debate.  Film has been great - is great.  It can store a massive amount
of data about a scene.  Digital capture systems are only recently beginning
to match this.  But film is not mutable - it is stuck as film on the
original piece of celluloid.  You can't transfer that data to a newer more
advanced piece of celluloid.  As the number of darkrooms declines (this list
is a consistent testament to this trend) and as the percentage of new image
captures recorded on film declines then so too will demand for film and all
those products that have to do with its processing and storage.  Companies
will withdraw from making film and its processing chemicals. Darkroom
suppliers will withdraw products either by their own or via bankruptcy.
Scanner suppliers are at the end of this line of companies.  They make
devices used to take data from one old medium to a new medium.  As less and
less data is captured on film and more and more data on old film has already
been transferred to digital (the new medium), demand for scanners will
decline.  Manufacturers will stop manufacturing them.  They will become at
best specialist products, at worst antique items where one buys a few for
spare parts in order to keep one operating.  If by this stage I hadn't
transferred my precious data stored on celluloid (assuming of course that I
have managed to store my one and only copy of it for this time without loss
or damage) to the then current storage medium I would be very worried.

I wonder how many people have gone poking around their attic only to find
old 8mm home movies or even family video on VCR tape and wished they had
such data in today's storage mediums eg DVD?
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Bob Michaels <bob@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:09:33 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Peter (had to happen some day) that any digitial media
> and the means to read it will become obsolete. Except I swear by
> external hard drives. When they're nearing the end of their technical
> life cycle, you just copy the ENTIRE thing at one time over to
> whatever media is being used in the future.
> 
> The alternative is to someday look at this HUGE stack of CDs, DVDs, or
> whatever and think that you must find time to copy them, one by one,
> to the new media. It will probably never happen and their utility will
> be lost forever. I know from eventually tossing a big stack of 5 1/4"
> floppies. 
> 
> As Peter says, saving the original film is a mechanical means and
> completely isolated from whatever happens in digital storage. The only
> problem is finding the good ones. I have thousands and thousands of
> slides from decades ago. I really wish I'd picked out the hundred best
> and only saved them.
> 
> Bob Michaels

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by The Wogster

Robert Damon wrote:
> I'm getting excellent results scanning Kodachrome (and Ektachrome) 
> slides taken in the late 70's. So 25 year old Kodachrome slides are 
> holding up well in my hands. The slides look good visually and they 
> produce nice images via my Nikon 4000 ED scanner. The overwhelming 
> majority of them do not appeare to have visually deteriorated at all. 
> I'm not confident any of my digital images will be easily readable 25 
> years from now. Long term storage of digital data (not just images) is 
> a major issue for many of the reasons outlined by Peter Nelson (and 
> others). I've got lots (probably hundreds) of 3.5" floppy disks with 
> data (documents, etc.) prepared on a Macintosh IIx or IIci back in the 
> late 80s-early 90s. I doubt if I could read much of it anymore. The OS 
> has changed, software has changed or disappeared, floppy disk drives 
> are no longer standard equipment (on Macs, anyway), etc.  Most of them 
> will simply be discarded -- not worth the time or trouble anymore to 
> even figure out what's on them.

Most people have the idea, as put forth here, that computer technology 
will continue to be a good application of Moores Law.....  However with 
any technology, what it is capable of, surpasses the requirements of the 
typical user.  For example, to do email, web browsing, and word 
processing, a 500MHz processor, 128MB of memory and a 20GB hard drive 
are enough power. To do photo editing, bump the memory to 512MB and add 
a second hard drive (say 40GB) and your looking at enough resources to 
do 99% of what you want to do, even though the computer is running Win98 
or NT 4.

Now as for storage, CD and DVD are similar technologies, the next 
storage method may be similar again, or completely different, if it's 
similar enough, lets call it HVD (High capacity Versatile Disc) then no 
reason the drive can't support CD/DVD/HVD just like most DVD recorders 
and players support CD now.  Suppose the following technology is the UVD 
  (Ultra-high capacity Versatile Disc) -- capable of storing all of the 
startrek TV shows and movies on a single disc, along with all of the 
commentaries, and bios of all the actors etc.  Those drives can easily 
have the ability to support CD/DVD/HVD/UVD on a single drive....

The problem with CD/DVD recordable media is that it uses dyes to 
represent data, and photographers with large collections of C-22 and E-4 
materials know that dyes can and do fade with time.  So we need a 
storage method that either uses more stable dyes, or a completely 
dye-less process.

W
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> On the other hand, I have talked to some friends who, during that time 
> period (late 70's) bought cheap film (repackaged inexpensive movie 
> film, I think it was) thinking they were saving money vs. buying 
> Kodachrome. Their images have all but disappeared, and are now useless. 
> So not all film will last. Kodachrome is apparently among the best of 
> the color films in this regard. Properly processed and stored high 
> quality B&W film is probably the best for long term storage.
> 
>

Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Peter Nelson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels" 
<bob@b...> wrote:
>  Except I swear by
> external hard drives. When they're nearing the end of their 
technical
> life cycle, you just copy the ENTIRE thing at one time over to
> whatever media is being used in the future. 

Who do you mean by "you"?

Almost everyone is thi discussion is overlooking the first poster's 
PREMISE:

He wants something to leave behind when he's gone so it will 
be "easy" for people in the future to see his images.

I'm saying that any solution requires that someone with technical 
skill have to actively convert his files on a regular basis to some 
new format (AND guess right about what the new format should be!) 
fails the "easy" test.   And what if that custodian huesses WRONG?  
Suppose ha had converted it to a Travan-3 tape or an Iomega Jazz 
drive?   The next person to inherit the data would have to go to a 
computer museum (or at least have nontrivial technical skill) to 
recover it.

Also N.B. that magnetic media such as tape, hard drives, floppies, 
etc, lose half their flux strength every 10 years, if they are stored 
under ideal conditions.   So it's not archival.  (from a published 
study by 3M)

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Steve Kale

The first post simply asked "how many REALLY do store digital copies
elsewhere?" ie how many people keep backups of their data at locations
different from where the originals are stored.  The question has nothing to
do with archiving but rather "backing up data".
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Peter Nelson <pnweb@studio-nelson.com>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:48:52 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels"
> <bob@b...> wrote:
>>  Except I swear by
>> external hard drives. When they're nearing the end of their
> technical
>> life cycle, you just copy the ENTIRE thing at one time over to
>> whatever media is being used in the future.
> 
> Who do you mean by "you"?
> 
> Almost everyone is thi discussion is overlooking the first poster's
> PREMISE:
> 
> He wants something to leave behind when he's gone so it will
> be "easy" for people in the future to see his images.
> 
> I'm saying that any solution requires that someone with technical
> skill have to actively convert his files on a regular basis to some
> new format (AND guess right about what the new format should be!)
> fails the "easy" test.   And what if that custodian huesses WRONG?
> Suppose ha had converted it to a Travan-3 tape or an Iomega Jazz
> drive?   The next person to inherit the data would have to go to a
> computer museum (or at least have nontrivial technical skill) to
> recover it.
> 
> Also N.B. that magnetic media such as tape, hard drives, floppies,
> etc, lose half their flux strength every 10 years, if they are stored
> under ideal conditions.   So it's not archival.  (from a published
> study by 3M)   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

[Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Peter Nelson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, The Wogster 
<wogsterca@y...> wrote:>  So we need a 
> storage method that either uses more stable dyes, or a completely 
> dye-less process.

The problem with this whole discussion is that it focusses on the 
technology - whether it's dyes, file formats, magnetic -vs- optical, 
holographic -vs- linear, etc.    I'm going to guess that 95% of the 
people in this forum are geeks and nerds of one sort or another (I'm 
a hw/sw engineer), and human nature is a common geek/nerd blind spot.

But the PROBLEM isn't TECHNOlogical, it's PSYCHOlogical.   It has 
little to do with technology and lots to do with human nature.   Any 
archival solution that depends on active maintenance or intervention 
on a regular basis will fail because someone will lose interest or 
forget or will hand off a shoebox to someone without telling them 
they have to update it every once in awhile, or they won't have the 
technical skill, or they will dutifully DO the conversion but there 
will be a bug in the conversion program that no one will realize 
until 10 years later when someone else tries to do the NEXT 
conversion, or they will guess wrong about what the next standard 
format will be and convert it to something dead-end. 

Christer thinks someone will be "in charge" of doing this stuff.   
But we're talking FAMILIES here, not banks or hospitals or government 
agencies where there are specialists and bureaucrats to be in charge 
of things.   NO ONE will be in charge.  Someone will inherit an old 
trunk with lots of memorabilia and it will get broken up and 
distributed and stashed away and moved around.

[Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Tom Andrews

Hi Steve,

OK, I'll bite.  I backup my digital files to external hard drives.  I gave up on 
CDs.  I currently have a LaCIE 250GB drive and a 120GB Maxtor.  And I am 
about to buy more drives.  These are in addition to the two 120GB drives on 
my Mac.  With 500 MB master 16bit scans of medium format film, backup to 
CDs became a pain.  If my current scanning project really gets off the ground, 
I will have to get a larger system for backup and base storage.  My studio is 
in a separate building in the backyard.  I keep the external drives in the 
house and carry them back and forth.  Of course if the fire was big enough, 
both buildings would be gone.  So I should probably have additional drives 
stored in a different location.  Cheers,

Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> The first post simply asked "how many REALLY do store digital copies
> elsewhere?" ie how many people keep backups of their data at locations
> different from where the originals are stored.  The question has nothing to
> do with archiving but rather "backing up data".

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Roger Howard

On Nov 24, 2004, at 6:48 AM, Peter Nelson wrote:

>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels"
> <bob@b...> wrote:
>>  Except I swear by
>> external hard drives. When they're nearing the end of their
> technical
>> life cycle, you just copy the ENTIRE thing at one time over to
>> whatever media is being used in the future.
>
> Who do you mean by "you"?
>
> Almost everyone is thi discussion is overlooking the first poster's
> PREMISE:
>
> He wants something to leave behind when he's gone so it will
> be "easy" for people in the future to see his images.

And I would agree that if all one wants to leave are impressions of the 
original works, then your suggestions are extremely viable - there is 
loss when migrating to analog, but it will be imperceptible to a family 
member just happy to have your images. Since most people appreciate 
photographs simply as final images, then a quality, archival print is 
hard to beat.

> I'm saying that any solution requires that someone with technical
> skill have to actively convert his files on a regular basis to some
> new format (AND guess right about what the new format should be!)
> fails the "easy" test.   And what if that custodian huesses WRONG?
> Suppose ha had converted it to a Travan-3 tape or an Iomega Jazz
> drive?   The next person to inherit the data would have to go to a
> computer museum (or at least have nontrivial technical skill) to
> recover it.

Again, I agree that digital preservation is a complex discipline right 
now; my responses were to the larger picture issues that were raised by 
others, either doubting or promoting digital preservation.

> Also N.B. that magnetic media such as tape, hard drives, floppies,
> etc, lose half their flux strength every 10 years, if they are stored
> under ideal conditions.   So it's not archival.  (from a published
> study by 3M)

And no one should be recommending offline (unpowered) magnetic media as 
a long term "cold" archival medium. Period.

Best regards,

Roger

[Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Tom Andrews

Hi Peter,

Actually, it will be just as bad for government.  I worked for a number of years 
at the US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and dealt with a 
large number of government agencies.  Information and data and valuable 
records got lost on a regular basis, including the results of people's life work.  
I know this personally because one of my projects was trying to dig up 
baseline ecological data for land condition monitoring projects.  People move 
around alot in government, everyone is way too busy, and systems often 
aren't in place for archiving.  And this has nothing to do with changes in 
technology in the digital world, which will make things much worse in the 
future.  NO ONE will be around to do these conversions in or out of 
government.  However, perhaps some forward thinking corporation will keep 
a room full of historical tecnology and charge you a mint twenty years from 
now to read those old floppies and do all the conversions needed to make 
them readable.  Most of the data will go in the trash.  Cheers,

Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>> Christer thinks someone will be "in charge" of doing this stuff.   
> But we're talking FAMILIES here, not banks or hospitals or government 
> agencies where there are specialists and bureaucrats to be in charge 
> of things.   NO ONE will be in charge.  Someone will inherit an old 
> trunk with lots of memorabilia and it will get broken up and 
> distributed and stashed away and moved around.<<

OT: Samsung 711t vs 173P for graphics

2004-11-24 by Tim Goodwin

Hello

Does anyone know which of these  17" LCD monitors would be best 
suited for graphics applications?

A review at ZDnet dated 11/03 says the 173P is suited for graphics 
professionals but another review at ZDnet dated 11/04 says that the 
711t is suited more for stylish minded small business's.

The only difference I've been able to distinguish between the two 
other than the fact that the 173P is a year older than the 711t and 
about $65. more on the street, is that the 711t boasts a 1000:1 
contrast ratio over the 173P's 700:1.

I'm trying to decide whether or not to spend the extra $65. on 
technology over a year old but "suited for graphics professionals" as 
opposed to newer technology which may or may not outperform the older 
technology as far as graphics applications.

Any insight or personal experiences with either of these monitors 
would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Tim

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Francis Ford

I have maybe 150 photographs over a period of 35 years
that are worth holding on to,maybe 5 of those are not
from film.People who worry about millions of files or
negs have to learn how to edit.Who has a million great
photgraphs? No one.  I had a huge fire 25 years
ago,but my negs were spared.Do you think I would learn
my lesson? Nah,everything is still in one place.I back
stuff up,but its not for posterity,its so I don't have
to play with a file again.Francis Ford
--- Tom Andrews <tandrews@...> wrote:

> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> OK, I'll bite.  I backup my digital files to
> external hard drives.  I gave up on 
> CDs.  I currently have a LaCIE 250GB drive and a
> 120GB Maxtor.  And I am 
> about to buy more drives.  These are in addition to
> the two 120GB drives on 
> my Mac.  With 500 MB master 16bit scans of medium
> format film, backup to 
> CDs became a pain.  If my current scanning project
> really gets off the ground, 
> I will have to get a larger system for backup and
> base storage.  My studio is 
> in a separate building in the backyard.  I keep the
> external drives in the 
> house and carry them back and forth.  Of course if
> the fire was big enough, 
> both buildings would be gone.  So I should probably
> have additional drives 
> stored in a different location.  Cheers,
> 
> Tom Andrews
> http://www.wildlandart.com
> 
> 
> > The first post simply asked "how many REALLY do
> store digital copies
> > elsewhere?" ie how many people keep backups of
> their data at locations
> > different from where the originals are stored. 
> The question has nothing to
> > do with archiving but rather "backing up data".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Roger Howard

On Nov 24, 2004, at 9:33 AM, Francis Ford wrote:

>
> I have maybe 150 photographs over a period of 35 years
> that are worth holding on to,maybe 5 of those are not
> from film.People who worry about millions of files or
> negs have to learn how to edit.Who has a million great
> photgraphs? No one.  I had a huge fire 25 years
> ago,but my negs were spared.Do you think I would learn
> my lesson? Nah,everything is still in one place.I back
> stuff up,but its not for posterity,its so I don't have
> to play with a file again.Francis Ford

People take photos for many reasons; while this group is full of 
professionals, I'm also sure we all shoot snapshots. Sure, in terms of 
numbers of great works of art, I think most of us would be lucky that a 
few percent of the frames we shot met this standard. But I, for one, 
shoot many types of events and subjects; some sentimental, private, 
personal, or just straight documentary. I can confidently say I have 
several thousand - at very least - images which I consider worth 
keeping according to various criteria. You may not find them all art, 
but they are every bit as precious as letters and other sentimental 
items. If we all restricted ourselves to 150 photographs in an archive, 
there would not be much photographic cultural heritage in a hundred 
years.

Archiving is not restricted to "great photographs". It's as broad as 
what an individual finds valuable, and you may be surprised but most 
often the least artistic images are of the most interest to future 
generations. If all we had to remember history by was through contrived 
works of art, we'd have a very short memory.

-R

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Francis Ford

Roger...... I agree with you 100% Archiving is not
restricted to what someone thinks is near and dear the
them,but records of that era.I guess I was just trying
to stir the pot.You make a valid point,I know those 5
digital images will grow and I will feel like I'm in
the same boat.I probably will shoot copy negs of those
files.You guys bring up some reel concerns, that are
scary,but the great thing about the digital world is
that the possibilities are so endless it would be
crazy to go back to film. I just recenty got Mr
Harringtons QuadTone RIP for my Epson 7600 and
2200,its a real turning point for me. Francis Ford
--- Roger Howard <rogerhoward@...> wrote:

> 
> On Nov 24, 2004, at 9:33 AM, Francis Ford wrote:
> 
> >
> > I have maybe 150 photographs over a period of 35
> years
> > that are worth holding on to,maybe 5 of those are
> not
> > from film.People who worry about millions of files
> or
> > negs have to learn how to edit.Who has a million
> great
> > photgraphs? No one.  I had a huge fire 25 years
> > ago,but my negs were spared.Do you think I would
> learn
> > my lesson? Nah,everything is still in one place.I
> back
> > stuff up,but its not for posterity,its so I don't
> have
> > to play with a file again.Francis Ford
> 
> People take photos for many reasons; while this
> group is full of 
> professionals, I'm also sure we all shoot snapshots.
> Sure, in terms of 
> numbers of great works of art, I think most of us
> would be lucky that a 
> few percent of the frames we shot met this standard.
> But I, for one, 
> shoot many types of events and subjects; some
> sentimental, private, 
> personal, or just straight documentary. I can
> confidently say I have 
> several thousand - at very least - images which I
> consider worth 
> keeping according to various criteria. You may not
> find them all art, 
> but they are every bit as precious as letters and
> other sentimental 
> items. If we all restricted ourselves to 150
> photographs in an archive, 
> there would not be much photographic cultural
> heritage in a hundred 
> years.
> 
> Archiving is not restricted to "great photographs".
> It's as broad as 
> what an individual finds valuable, and you may be
> surprised but most 
> often the least artistic images are of the most
> interest to future 
> generations. If all we had to remember history by
> was through contrived 
> works of art, we'd have a very short memory.
> 
> -R
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Bob Michaels

Peter: I have to conceed you are right here. If you're talking about
filing things away for some future generation, hard copy (prints or
negs) is the only way. 

I tend to simply think that someday when I'm gone, my children and
grand children probably will have very little interest in the photos I
made other than having a print or two. I'm reasonably confident the
rest of the world won't care. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson"
<pnweb@s...> wrote:
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels" 
> <bob@b...> wrote:
> >  Except I swear by external hard drives. When they're nearing the
end of their technical life cycle, you just copy the ENTIRE thing at
one time over to whatever media is being used in the future. 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> Who do you mean by "you"?
> 
> Almost everyone is thi discussion is overlooking the first poster's 
> PREMISE:
> 
> He wants something to leave behind when he's gone so it will 
> be "easy" for people in the future to see his images.
> 
> I'm saying that any solution requires that someone with technical 
> skill have to actively convert his files on a regular basis to some 
> new format (AND guess right about what the new format should be!) 
> fails the "easy" test.

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by sinwen

Peter,

You are correct all the way through and express it much better than I tried to in my previous post.
Of course big companies or institutions digitilise their negs, for the sake of immediate use only, when they need it, they cannot afford to do it for all of their negs, far too expensive and time consumming. 
Sure enough data storage is a big challenge and the ideal solution is not here yet but between silver gelatine and digital the more reliable and the cheapest is surely the first one.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Peter Nelson 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:35 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere



  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, The Wogster 
  <wogsterca@y...> wrote:>  So we need a 
  > storage method that either uses more stable dyes, or a completely 
  > dye-less process.

  The problem with this whole discussion is that it focusses on the 
  technology - whether it's dyes, file formats, magnetic -vs- optical, 
  holographic -vs- linear, etc.    I'm going to guess that 95% of the 
  people in this forum are geeks and nerds of one sort or another (I'm 
  a hw/sw engineer), and human nature is a common geek/nerd blind spot.

  But the PROBLEM isn't TECHNOlogical, it's PSYCHOlogical.   It has 
  little to do with technology and lots to do with human nature.   Any 
  archival solution that depends on active maintenance or intervention 
  on a regular basis will fail because someone will lose interest or 
  forget or will hand off a shoebox to someone without telling them 
  they have to update it every once in awhile, or they won't have the 
  technical skill, or they will dutifully DO the conversion but there 
  will be a bug in the conversion program that no one will realize 
  until 10 years later when someone else tries to do the NEXT 
  conversion, or they will guess wrong about what the next standard 
  format will be and convert it to something dead-end. 

  Christer thinks someone will be "in charge" of doing this stuff.   
  But we're talking FAMILIES here, not banks or hospitals or government 
  agencies where there are specialists and bureaucrats to be in charge 
  of things.   NO ONE will be in charge.  Someone will inherit an old 
  trunk with lots of memorabilia and it will get broken up and 
  distributed and stashed away and moved around.     
    




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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by sinwen

Francis,

We are not talking nescessarily of grest photographs but of daily life or working pictures as well. Fire, water..etc.. will destroy both digital & negs so it is not an issue. I maintain that archives are better off with negs than hard drives or CD's until some easier, cheaper and better quality solution arise.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Francis Ford 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:33 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere


  I have maybe 150 photographs over a period of 35 years
  that are worth holding on to,maybe 5 of those are not
  from film.People who worry about millions of files or
  negs have to learn how to edit.Who has a million great
  photgraphs? No one.  I had a huge fire 25 years
  ago,but my negs were spared.Do you think I would learn
  my lesson? Nah,everything is still in one place.I back
  stuff up,but its not for posterity,its so I don't have
  to play with a file again.Francis Ford
  --- Tom Andrews <tandrews@...> wrote:



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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Francis Ford

I agree that it is much easier to store negs than hard
drives also.I have only been around the digital world
for about 2 1/2 years.I tend to think some better
solution will come around for digital files,but as I
also said the advantages of digital make it worth the
risk.I was a nay sayer till I realized the great power
of photoshop.I think to many photographers think
unless we jug up a huge 8x10 camera up a mountain its
not photography,thats all dogma.I have used 8x10
cameras for most of my career,but am happy to embrace
the digital world.Francis 
--- sinwen <sinwen@...> wrote:

> Francis,
> 
> We are not talking nescessarily of grest photographs
> but of daily life or working pictures as well. Fire,
> water..etc.. will destroy both digital & negs so it
> is not an issue. I maintain that archives are better
> off with negs than hard drives or CD's until some
> easier, cheaper and better quality solution arise.
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Francis Ford 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:33 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do
> store digital copies elsewhere
> 
> 
>   I have maybe 150 photographs over a period of 35
> years
>   that are worth holding on to,maybe 5 of those are
> not
>   from film.People who worry about millions of files
> or
>   negs have to learn how to edit.Who has a million
> great
>   photgraphs? No one.  I had a huge fire 25 years
>   ago,but my negs were spared.Do you think I would
> learn
>   my lesson? Nah,everything is still in one place.I
> back
>   stuff up,but its not for posterity,its so I don't
> have
>   to play with a file again.Francis Ford
>   --- Tom Andrews <tandrews@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Roger Howard

On Nov 24, 2004, at 2:09 PM, sinwen wrote:

>
> Peter,
>
> You are correct all the way through and express it much better than I 
> tried to in my previous post.
> Of course big companies or institutions digitilise their negs, for the 
> sake of immediate use only, when they need it, they cannot afford to 
> do it for all of their negs, far too expensive and time consumming.

Many major institutions and corporations are digitizing their entire 
catalog of analog media - slides, transparencies, etc - pro-actively. I 
manage these kinds of projects, at a major cultural heritage 
institution - the cost of digitizing and managing digital files is 
certainly not cheaper than managing analog media (at least for the 
first few decades the costs are not substantially different); the 
biggest benefit is especially where there is active use of the imagery 
- it must be preserved, and color transparencies only last so long, 
especially when used (even sporadically) for publications, 
presentations, etc. We've seen massive ROI in some projects within the 
first year; projected out into the future, these savings more than 
offset the costs of implementing and supporting these digital 
collections/archives.

> Sure enough data storage is a big challenge and the ideal solution is 
> not here yet but between silver gelatine and digital the more reliable 
> and the cheapest is surely the first one.

I disagree that the equation is this simple; many times it is not. 
Different institutions use image archives differently; in many cases, 
there are SUBSTANTIAL savings in the short term to be had with digital 
imagery. Stability of digital files is as good as the underlying 
systems - but in the best cases, it is perfect, where transparencies 
and prints are simply never perfectly stable.

Again, I believe there's room for analog media in the archives and will 
be for a long time; but digital is also extremely viable today - it 
simply depends what the needs are, what your infrastructure is like, 
and how savvy you are with one versus the other. I wouldn't trust a 
classical librarian to manage a digital archive, but I'm confident in 
my own ability to mitigate the risks. It's a highly variable process.

At the simplest level, if you're not willing to put any ongoing effort 
or thought into an archive (in which case I'd hesitate to call it an 
archive, but that's a different topic!) then I'd wholeheartedly agree 
your best bet today is with analog media. If you have active uses of 
your collection as well, in many many cases digital is not only more 
manageable, it can be cheaper and ultimately maintain more consistent, 
higher quality over time. There's no one easy answer though.

As for active effort, again I completely agree, and why my assessment 
earlier in the thread was that while the core technology is there today 
- massive storage capacity, highly reliable error resilient distributed 
storage, extreme processing power, and so on - the key to digital 
preservation will be when it is, by default, as easy as the prints in a 
shoebox that my mother maintains with no effort. Fortunately, the one 
true benefit of digital technology (automation) will eventually apply 
to preservation - it simply requires a level of automation and 
commitment by our vendors that isn't there, but will be - right now, 
the engineering efforts are focused on marketable features, and 
preservation is never a very marketable feature *until* disaster hits.

Let's just say that the history of analog photography preservation is 
not exactly devoid of problems; just look at the rocky history of color 
processes, especially with the rise of consumer color photography in 
the middle of the 20th century. It was a disaster from a preservation 
standpoint.

However, I think the one safe thing to say is that surely we're way off 
topic by now :)

Cheers,

Roger Howard


>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Peter Nelson
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:35 PM
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies 
> elsewhere
>
>
>
>   --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, The Wogster
>   <wogsterca@y...> wrote:>  So we need a
>> storage method that either uses more stable dyes, or a completely
>> dye-less process.
>
>   The problem with this whole discussion is that it focusses on the
>   technology - whether it's dyes, file formats, magnetic -vs- optical,
>   holographic -vs- linear, etc.    I'm going to guess that 95% of the
>   people in this forum are geeks and nerds of one sort or another (I'm
>   a hw/sw engineer), and human nature is a common geek/nerd blind spot.
>
>   But the PROBLEM isn't TECHNOlogical, it's PSYCHOlogical.   It has
>   little to do with technology and lots to do with human nature.   Any
>   archival solution that depends on active maintenance or intervention
>   on a regular basis will fail because someone will lose interest or
>   forget or will hand off a shoebox to someone without telling them
>   they have to update it every once in awhile, or they won't have the
>   technical skill, or they will dutifully DO the conversion but there
>   will be a bug in the conversion program that no one will realize
>   until 10 years later when someone else tries to do the NEXT
>   conversion, or they will guess wrong about what the next standard
>   format will be and convert it to something dead-end.
>
>   Christer thinks someone will be "in charge" of doing this stuff.
>   But we're talking FAMILIES here, not banks or hospitals or government
>   agencies where there are specialists and bureaucrats to be in charge
>   of things.   NO ONE will be in charge.  Someone will inherit an old
>   trunk with lots of memorabilia and it will get broken up and
>   distributed and stashed away and moved around.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” 
> AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
roger howard
email & im @ <rogerhoward@...>
website @ <http://www.rogerroger.org>
photos @ <http://www.rogerroger.org/gallery>

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-24 by Roger Howard

On Nov 24, 2004, at 2:41 PM, Francis Ford wrote:

>
> I agree that it is much easier to store negs than hard
> drives also.I have only been around the digital world
> for about 2 1/2 years.I tend to think some better
> solution will come around for digital files,but as I
> also said the advantages of digital make it worth the
> risk.I was a nay sayer till I realized the great power
> of photoshop.I think to many photographers think
> unless we jug up a huge 8x10 camera up a mountain its
> not photography,thats all dogma.I have used 8x10
> cameras for most of my career,but am happy to embrace
> the digital world.Francis

Not to denigrate at all, I think you hit on a big point here. Many 
folks were not raised in a digital environment, and it is scary and at 
very best only barely comfortable. Others - and certainly, this is on 
the rise - take the entire digital environment as a given, and it is 
their expectation. Shooting film for them - or printing every file as a 
"backup" - would be as anathema to them as asking you to chisel your 
photos in stone. In part, I guess I'm saying it's a generational thing 
- the comfort with the tools, and the comfort with your most valuable 
possessions being little magnetically charged particles on a spinning 
disk somewhere, is a major generational gap, and it's simply something 
that passes with time. Do what makes you comfortable, I think that's 
the bottom line - I would never be comfortable trying to maintain 
analog archives; and my skills are adapted to deal with huge volumes of 
data easily. Others find it much more natural to deal with binders of 
labelled slides or portfolios of prints.

Cheers!

Bob Michaels and hard drives for preservation.

2004-11-25 by lenzzman44

Bob Michaels wrote: Except I swear by
> external hard drives. When they're nearing the end of their
technical
> life cycle, you just copy the ENTIRE thing ....

I think there might be some confusion here between "back up" and
"archive". While additional external hard drives are dandy back up, I
think they are a terrible choice for archiving. For one thing, the
reason for backing up a hard drive is that hard drives fail! Routinely
and inevitably. And when it goes, it ALL goes. They are a magnetic
medium which always deteriorates with time. If they aren't fired up
periodically, the lubes gunk up.  
   For long term preservation of digital info, the present hands down
choice, IMstudiedO, is DVD, with its data layer robustly sandwiched in
plastic. (And then multiple copies stored in geographically remote
armored hermetic environments<G>, but start with DVDs.)

RE: [Digital BW] Bob Michaels and hard drives for preservation.

2004-11-25 by Paul D. DeRocco

> From: lenzzman44 [mailto:lenzzman44@...]
>
> I think there might be some confusion here between "back up" and
> "archive". While additional external hard drives are dandy back up, I
> think they are a terrible choice for archiving. For one thing, the
> reason for backing up a hard drive is that hard drives fail! Routinely
> and inevitably. And when it goes, it ALL goes. They are a magnetic
> medium which always deteriorates with time. If they aren't fired up
> periodically, the lubes gunk up.
>    For long term preservation of digital info, the present hands down
> choice, IMstudiedO, is DVD, with its data layer robustly sandwiched in
> plastic. (And then multiple copies stored in geographically remote
> armored hermetic environments<G>, but start with DVDs.)

The optimum backup strategy involves making a new copy of _everything_,
including what was already backed up before, and only deleting the old
backup when the new backup has been successfully written. If during the
backup process you discover that your main copy has become corrupted, and
can't be read, you still have the last backup to copy from. Since you always
have at least two copies, the chances of both being corrupted at the same
time is nil.

With DVDs, it makes sense to copy to a fresh set of DVD-R discs, and then
discard (or demote to backup-backup) the previous ones. But on a hard disk,
this can be done on a file-by-file basis, if you have software that copies
each file to a temporary file, and only renames it over the previous backup
when the copy is complete. Since every backup involves the reading of every
file, not just the new ones or modified ones, you get to find out if your
main disk is going bad before it's too late.

The worst kind of backup is an incremental backup, where you only copy new
or modified files each time onto some optical medium. If one day you
discover that your hard disk is dying, and you pull out some five year old
CD to recover an important file, the chance that the CD is also unreadable
is not insignificant. It's happened to me.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Re: [Digital BW] Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere

2004-11-25 by The Wogster

Peter Nelson wrote:
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, The Wogster 
> <wogsterca@y...> wrote:>  So we need a 
> 
>>storage method that either uses more stable dyes, or a completely 
>>dye-less process.
> 
> 
> The problem with this whole discussion is that it focusses on the 
> technology - whether it's dyes, file formats, magnetic -vs- optical, 
> holographic -vs- linear, etc.    I'm going to guess that 95% of the 
> people in this forum are geeks and nerds of one sort or another (I'm 
> a hw/sw engineer), and human nature is a common geek/nerd blind spot.
> 
> But the PROBLEM isn't TECHNOlogical, it's PSYCHOlogical.   It has 
> little to do with technology and lots to do with human nature.   Any 
> archival solution that depends on active maintenance or intervention 
> on a regular basis will fail because someone will lose interest or 
> forget or will hand off a shoebox to someone without telling them 
> they have to update it every once in awhile, or they won't have the 
> technical skill, or they will dutifully DO the conversion but there 
> will be a bug in the conversion program that no one will realize 
> until 10 years later when someone else tries to do the NEXT 
> conversion, or they will guess wrong about what the next standard 
> format will be and convert it to something dead-end. 

This is the key, right here, currently though there are 3 schools of 
thought:

1) People who find it easy to update every few years, yes they find it 
easy, but as you have already stated, future generations may not.  These 
images may not survive the next 50 years.

2) The opposite, people who bemoan and wale that ALL digital media, will 
forever have this problem, technology will never resolve this problem, 
so digital imaging technology should be made illegal.

3) People who expect that within the next 20 years or so, a storage 
media will be discovered that will store digital data, inexpensively 
over the long haul.  There is a permanent method that exists now, take a 
disc made of pure gold, burn holes into the surface with a hot laser. 
Since gold is in it's natural form already, it will not corrode, it's 
just expensive for the amount of information stored.

W

OT: Samsung "Buttonless" LCD monitor on a Mac ?

2004-11-25 by Tim Goodwin

Has anyone been able to get a Samsung "Buttonless" LCD monitor up and 
running on a Mac ?

The reason I am asking is that the Samsung models I am considering 
rely on MagicTune software to make any adjustments. I am hoping that 
the Mac OSX utilities such as Displays and Calibration can handle 
most if not all of the adjustments I would need but I would feel a 
lot better knowing that someone had actually done this.

The only hardware adjustments I've ever made using the buttons on my 
Sony CRT are centering and size. Hopefully these are not an issue on 
LCD monitors.

Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Tim

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.