Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

IP4000-longevity of photos???

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 5:48:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.

We like it.

I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?

Mel
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 6:02:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Let me add to this: I am printing on Kodak Premium Picture Paper (high
gloss) and I intend to keep the photos in an album.

Mel
"MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:UhDBd.47304$ro3.38023@fe06.lga...
> We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
>
> We like it.
>
> I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
>
> Mel
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 2:21:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I use Generic Gloosy 4x6 Paper from the New Zealand Equivulent Of Tandy
Store.."Dick Smith Electronics" and they cost about $15NZ For 50 Sheets..
They claim a life of Fifty Years Plus!!
"MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:hvDBd.47312$GM3.4750@fe06.lga...
> Let me add to this: I am printing on Kodak Premium Picture Paper (high
> gloss) and I intend to keep the photos in an album.
>
> Mel
> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:UhDBd.47304$ro3.38023@fe06.lga...
> > We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
> >
> > We like it.
> >
> > I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
> >
> > Mel
> >
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 2:46:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

>>
>> I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
>>
>>

This may help although it does not mention your printer it does give an idea
of lasting quality of various types of printers.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_prev...

Steve
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:54:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The ink is more of an issue than the paper though. Any decent quality paper
will probably last 50 years. I intend to print at least some of my photos
commercially, as I have experienced the sad effect of faded prints - most
of my childhood was recorded on Polaroid film in the 70's - most of it now
faded into shadowy haze.

I don't believe that the Canon, though I think it's a great printer, has
inks suitable for long term archiving. Your best option in that case is
still commercial print laboratories. There may be some more expensive photo
printers around that offer more stable ink technology, I'm guessing at a
much higher price. The Canon, and most standard inkjet printers no matter
how good the photo quality, don't claim to produce permanent photos. I don't
know what actual length of time they will last though.

"fay10" <faye10@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1104617384.896337@ftpsrv1...
>I use Generic Gloosy 4x6 Paper from the New Zealand Equivulent Of Tandy
> Store.."Dick Smith Electronics" and they cost about $15NZ For 50 Sheets..
> They claim a life of Fifty Years Plus!!
> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:hvDBd.47312$GM3.4750@fe06.lga...
>> Let me add to this: I am printing on Kodak Premium Picture Paper (high
>> gloss) and I intend to keep the photos in an album.
>>
>> Mel
>> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
>> news:UhDBd.47304$ro3.38023@fe06.lga...
>> > We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
>> >
>> > We like it.
>> >
>> > I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to
>> > last?
>> >
>> > Mel
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:54:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Caitlin wrote:
> The ink is more of an issue than the paper though. Any decent quality
> paper will probably last 50 years. I intend to print at least some of
> my photos commercially, as I have experienced the sad effect of
> faded prints - most of my childhood was recorded on Polaroid film in
> the 70's - most of it now faded into shadowy haze.
>
> I don't believe that the Canon, though I think it's a great printer,
> has inks suitable for long term archiving. Your best option in that
> case is still commercial print laboratories. There may be some more
> expensive photo printers around that offer more stable ink
> technology, I'm guessing at a much higher price. The Canon, and most
> standard inkjet printers no matter how good the photo quality, don't
> claim to produce permanent photos. I don't know what actual length of
> time they will last though.

Canon claims their Photo paper Pro (PR-101) is supposely to last over 100
years with their original ink.
But, then again, we discussed this in looong thread "Epson beats them
all"....
read it and make your opinion...
January 2, 2005 9:20:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:

>We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
>
>We like it.
>
>I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
>
>Mel
>

While Canon printers are outstanding in most regards, longevity is not
great.
The best Wilhelm-Research reference I could find was for the Canon
S900 6 cartridge printer. Using Canons longest lasting paper and
Canon ink, the lifespan was 27 years. Another site,
http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d.htm , lists the following
paper tests:

Printer Model: Canon S9000

Canon OEM Inks

Canon Photo Paper Pro, Rated At 2 Years

Kodak Premium Picture Paper, Rated At 4.5 Years

Epson Colorlife Paper, Rated At 11.5 Years

Epson Heavyweight Matte, Rated At 3.75 Years

Office Depot Premium Glossy, Rated At 4.25 Years

Red River Polar Satin, Rated At 5 Years

Red River Polar Gloss #66, Rated At 8 Years

Red River Ultra Pro Glossy, Rated At 2 Years

Red River Ultra Pro Satin, Rated At 2.75 years

Red River Premium Gloss, Rated At 2.5 Years

Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl, Rated At 10.5 Years

Ilford Galerie Classic Gloss, Rated At 12.2 Years
January 2, 2005 10:07:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:

>We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
>
>We like it.
>
>I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
>
>Mel
>
Please forgive me if my other post got through to your server. I
inadvertently sent before editing.

While Canon printers are outstanding in most regards, longevity is not
great.
The only Wilhelm-Research reference I could find was an old report for
the Canon S900 6 cartridge printer. Using Canons longest lasting
paper and Canon ink, the lifespan was estimated at 27 years. After
the "gas fade" debacle of a few years ago, these tests were redone
with added tests including gas fade. These tests produced much more
modest results with some die based prints fading within a few days to
months. I could not find these on his site.

Another site, http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d.htm , lists the
Canon S9000 with various paper tests below. To be fair, none of the
Dye based printers do as well as pigment based printers for any
manufacturer. Fortunately, Epson has several long lasting printer
choices at different price points for those serious about longevity.

Printer Model: Canon S9000

Canon OEM Inks

Canon Photo Paper Pro, Rated At 2 Years

Kodak Premium Picture Paper, Rated At 4.5 Years

Epson Colorlife Paper, Rated At 11.5 Years

Epson Heavyweight Matte, Rated At 3.75 Years

Office Depot Premium Glossy, Rated At 4.25 Years

Red River Polar Satin, Rated At 5 Years

Red River Polar Gloss #66, Rated At 8 Years

Red River Ultra Pro Glossy, Rated At 2 Years

Red River Ultra Pro Satin, Rated At 2.75 years

Red River Premium Gloss, Rated At 2.5 Years

Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl, Rated At 10.5 Years

Ilford Galerie Classic Gloss, Rated At 12.2 Years
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 12:38:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Richard wrote:
> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
>>
>> We like it.
>>
>> I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to
>> last?
>>
>> Mel
>>
> Please forgive me if my other post got through to your server. I
> inadvertently sent before editing.
>
> While Canon printers are outstanding in most regards, longevity is not
> great.
> The only Wilhelm-Research reference I could find was an old report for
> the Canon S900 6 cartridge printer. Using Canons longest lasting
> paper and Canon ink, the lifespan was estimated at 27 years. After
> the "gas fade" debacle of a few years ago, these tests were redone
> with added tests including gas fade. These tests produced much more
> modest results with some die based prints fading within a few days to
> months. I could not find these on his site.
>
> Another site, http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d.htm , lists the
> Canon S9000 with various paper tests below. To be fair, none of the
> Dye based printers do as well as pigment based printers for any
> manufacturer. Fortunately, Epson has several long lasting printer
> choices at different price points for those serious about longevity.
>
> Printer Model: Canon S9000
>
> Canon OEM Inks
>
> Canon Photo Paper Pro, Rated At 2 Years
>
> Kodak Premium Picture Paper, Rated At 4.5 Years
>
> Epson Colorlife Paper, Rated At 11.5 Years
>
> Epson Heavyweight Matte, Rated At 3.75 Years
>
> Office Depot Premium Glossy, Rated At 4.25 Years
>
> Red River Polar Satin, Rated At 5 Years
>
> Red River Polar Gloss #66, Rated At 8 Years
>
> Red River Ultra Pro Glossy, Rated At 2 Years
>
> Red River Ultra Pro Satin, Rated At 2.75 years
>
> Red River Premium Gloss, Rated At 2.5 Years
>
> Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl, Rated At 10.5 Years
>
> Ilford Galerie Classic Gloss, Rated At 12.2 Years

That's more intense info...
BUT
someone is lying...either livick site or Canon...since livick says 2 years
with photo pro, while Canon says 100 years with same paper and same their
inks.
Now, i do believe that canon lies somewhat (it figures, right?) , but i just
DON'T believe that they lie for 98 years...nope...even if they use different
test methods, results whould be the same, if not, whole test procedure is
just a bi gwaste of time.
BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper pro...bastards!
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 4:41:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:07:26 GMT, Richard <rstaples312@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
>>
>>We like it.
>>
>>I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
>>
>>Mel
>>
>Please forgive me if my other post got through to your server. I
>inadvertently sent before editing.
>
>While Canon printers are outstanding in most regards, longevity is not
>great.


Yes. I just r4ead a couple of articles from separate sources, which
did ink fade tests over a 3-6 month period. They found the Canon inks
were the least stable.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 4:42:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:


>That's more intense info...
>BUT
>someone is lying...either livick site or Canon...since livick says 2 years
>with photo pro, while Canon says 100 years with same paper and same their
>inks.
>Now, i do believe that canon lies somewhat (it figures, right?) , but i just
>DON'T believe that they lie for 98 years...nope...even if they use different
>test methods, results whould be the same, if not, whole test procedure is
>just a bi gwaste of time.
>BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper pro...bastards!
>
What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
tests in "real world" conditions.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
January 3, 2005 2:01:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Stevie Boy" <zen20140@zen.co.uk> writes:

> This may help although it does not mention your printer it does give an idea
> of lasting quality of various types of printers.
>
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_prev...

This paper from the same site does mention the BCI-6 inks from Canon:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/is_t/WIR_ISTpaper_2...
(result: between 6 and 27 years when framed and under glass).
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 5:29:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:5n8ht0lt0kk4qhoingcigm55l64p9477m5@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>
>>That's more intense info...
>>BUT
>>someone is lying...either livick site or Canon...since livick says 2
>>years
>>with photo pro, while Canon says 100 years with same paper and same their
>>inks.
>>Now, i do believe that canon lies somewhat (it figures, right?) , but i
>>just
>>DON'T believe that they lie for 98 years...nope...even if they use
>>different
>>test methods, results whould be the same, if not, whole test procedure is
>>just a bi gwaste of time.
>>BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper
>>pro...bastards!
>>
> What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
> tests in "real world" conditions.
>

I'm afraid I'd agree. Not that Canon are lying necessarily - but it all
depends what they were testing for... I don't know enough about pigment
based inks to know how much better these are, but I'd probably still use a
lab printer to print my most precious prints (I say this - but haven't
actually done it yet!) Digital photography and the use of home printers is
a grave risk to personal photographic history I think that may see a lot of
family photos lost in decades to come.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 5:29:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

>Digital photography and the use of home printers is a grave risk to
personal photographic history I think that may see a lot >of family photos
lost in decades to come.
>

Surely the advantage of Digital photography is that you do not need to worry
about the prints as you will always have a *perfect* copy backed up either
on a memory card, hard drive, cd or some other future storage device for
reference which can in future times be printed of once again and likely due
to advancement be actually a better print than the lovingly saved original
you worry about fading.

Today is not the time for Digital photography to take over, this will take
years like any shift in direction for technology until it does I don't see
photo labs disappearing.

Steve
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:15:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hecate wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>
>> That's more intense info...
>> BUT
>> someone is lying...either livick site or Canon...since livick says
>> 2 years with photo pro, while Canon says 100 years with same paper
>> and same their inks.
>> Now, i do believe that canon lies somewhat (it figures, right?) ,
>> but i just DON'T believe that they lie for 98 years...nope...even if
>> they use different test methods, results whould be the same, if not,
>> whole test procedure is just a bi gwaste of time.
>> BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper
>> pro...bastards!
>>
> What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
> tests in "real world" conditions.

But this is what i was taoling about...first of all, there is no ideal
condition, since in ideal conditions prints would last forever. All testers
test exposing to UV, light etc.... and all then calculate appr. life in real
world. BUT, as i said, there is NOT important HOW they test, results should
be about the same. If not, then all testers doesn't have a clue and they
just test to fool all of us.
It's like you can get from Texas to Ohio directly, or via Europe (around the
world) . At the end, there is not important where yougo, as long you get
there.
All thise just means the noone can even approximately calculate hoe long
prints will last in real world by using test results.

BTW...as Stevie said...i really wonder why all this fuzz abour lifetime, as
you ALWAYS have a perfect backup copy...and that's why i don't really care
too much about life...
January 3, 2005 9:09:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> writes:
> Hecate wrote:
> > What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
> > tests in "real world" conditions.
>
> But this is what i was taoling about...first of all, there is no ideal
> condition, since in ideal conditions prints would last forever. All testers
> test exposing to UV, light etc.... and all then calculate appr. life in real
> world. BUT, as i said, there is NOT important HOW they test, results should
> be about the same. If not, then all testers doesn't have a clue and they
> just test to fool all of us.

Sorry, but your logic is wrong. The fact that somebody does a test
wrong (under overly optimistic conditions) does not imply that a
realistic test cannot be done.

> It's like you can get from Texas to Ohio directly, or via Europe (around the
> world) . At the end, there is not important where yougo, as long you get
> there.

If you want to measure the distance between Texas and Ohio it very
much depends on if you go directly or via Europe. In one case you'll
get an approximately correct result, in the other case your result
will be wrong. The fact that some stupid person chooses to go via
Europe does not imply that the distance between Texas and Ohio cannot
be measured.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 11:50:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

SleeperMan wrote:
> Caitlin wrote:
>
>>The ink is more of an issue than the paper though. Any decent quality
>>paper will probably last 50 years. I intend to print at least some of
>>my photos commercially, as I have experienced the sad effect of
>>faded prints - most of my childhood was recorded on Polaroid film in
>>the 70's - most of it now faded into shadowy haze.
>>
>>I don't believe that the Canon, though I think it's a great printer,
>>has inks suitable for long term archiving. Your best option in that
>>case is still commercial print laboratories. There may be some more
>>expensive photo printers around that offer more stable ink
>>technology, I'm guessing at a much higher price. The Canon, and most
>>standard inkjet printers no matter how good the photo quality, don't
>>claim to produce permanent photos. I don't know what actual length of
>>time they will last though.
>
>
> Canon claims their Photo paper Pro (PR-101) is supposely to last over 100
> years with their original ink.
> But, then again, we discussed this in looong thread "Epson beats them
> all"....
> read it and make your opinion...
>
>

They told me the only claim 25 years.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 2:43:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Stevie Boy" <zen20140@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:33sn40F43buokU1@individual.net...
>
> >Digital photography and the use of home printers is a grave risk to
> personal photographic history I think that may see a lot >of family photos
> lost in decades to come.
>>
>
> Surely the advantage of Digital photography is that you do not need to
> worry about the prints as you will always have a *perfect* copy backed up
> either on a memory card, hard drive, cd or some other future storage
> device for reference which can in future times be printed of once again
> and likely due to advancement be actually a better print than the lovingly
> saved original you worry about fading.
>

I agree that that is true in theory, but there are a couple of risk factors:

* Changes of technology - will the CD-R format or whatever be readable in 50
years? If you stick some disks in a cupboard for 50 years , I think the
chances of them being hard to access will be much higher than an old
fashioned neg. Think of 5.25" floppies, and the storage formats that
predated that. Of course file formats change too. JPG is fairly universal,
but how many computer file formats in use 15 years ago are still used today?

* Peoples laziness - simply because of the ease of use of Digital cameras, a
lot of people do not have the discipline to carefully file their images on
CD etc.

Don't get me wrong - I love digital photography, and the freedom it affords.
I just fear that the average photographer who is not aware of some of the
risk factors may not have the foresight to store those images safely so they
will definitely be accessible to the next generation.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 2:43:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Caitlin wrote:
>
> I agree that that is true in theory, but there are a couple of risk factors:
>
> * Changes of technology - will the CD-R format or whatever be readable in 50
> years? If you stick some disks in a cupboard for 50 years , I think the
> chances of them being hard to access will be much higher than an old
> fashioned neg. Think of 5.25" floppies, and the storage formats that
> predated that. Of course file formats change too. JPG is fairly universal,
> but how many computer file formats in use 15 years ago are still used today?
>
> * Peoples laziness - simply because of the ease of use of Digital cameras, a
> lot of people do not have the discipline to carefully file their images on
> CD etc.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I love digital photography, and the freedom it affords.
> I just fear that the average photographer who is not aware of some of the
> risk factors may not have the foresight to store those images safely so they
> will definitely be accessible to the next generation.
>
>
Fear not. The risks for the average unaware digital Joe are probably
less than for his predecessor who stored his negatives next to the furnace.

As to formats, yes, there are some who today have info on floppy disks,
and yes, in 20 years people may not know what CDs are or were. But even
today, for info you really want, you can go get your 78 rpm record disks
converted to mp4s, AIFFs, mp3s and/or WAVs.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 4:21:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:29:56 +1100, "Caitlin"
<caitlin_online_spamtrap@hotmail.com> wrote:


>> What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
>> tests in "real world" conditions.
>>
>
>I'm afraid I'd agree. Not that Canon are lying necessarily - but it all
>depends what they were testing for... I don't know enough about pigment
>based inks to know how much better these are, but I'd probably still use a
>lab printer to print my most precious prints (I say this - but haven't
>actually done it yet!) Digital photography and the use of home printers is
>a grave risk to personal photographic history I think that may see a lot of
>family photos lost in decades to come.
>
Hi Caitlin,

I don't know where you are, but a UK magazine recently did some
"destruction" tests and found that Epson inks in particular, and the
new HP inks almost as good, lasted very well. And these tests were
under non-ideal conditions (in a window that received sunshine for at
least part of the day, half under glass, half not. The results were
very surprising. These same results showed that even the new Lexmark
(yuk!) pigment inks lasted way better than the Canon inks. Canon
print quality was excellent, but longevity was bad to appalling.

For anyone in the UK interested in the article it's in PC Pro Issue
124 Feb 2005.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 10:48:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

SleeperMan wrote:
> There is WAY bigger risk in having analog negative film stored than digital
> CDR. You can't have 10 negatives (originals - there's only one original. If
> you copy it, copies won't be as good), while you can have 10 CDR's - all
> equal originals.
> Now which system has bigger risk? Note that printing a photo is not meant
> for last ages, but simply to show people your shots. You can always make
> another one from intact original, while you can't make equally good one from
> 50 years old negative.
>
>

That is a vey good point, SleeperMan.
There's is only ONE original negative film.
The chances of been lost or destroyed are more than a lot of
digital copies.

We must not worry about longevity.
You do your bit by creating copies, and transferring to
new media, and just hope that your descendants will do the same.

Mike.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 10:48:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Mike Tsakiris wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> There is WAY bigger risk in having analog negative film stored than
>> digital CDR. You can't have 10 negatives (originals - there's only one
>> original. If you copy it, copies won't be as good), while you can have
>> 10 CDR's - all equal originals.
>> Now which system has bigger risk? Note that printing a photo is not
>> meant for last ages, but simply to show people your shots. You can
>> always make another one from intact original, while you can't make
>> equally good one from 50 years old negative.
>>
>
> That is a vey good point, SleeperMan.
> There's is only ONE original negative film.
> The chances of been lost or destroyed are more than a lot of
> digital copies.
>
> We must not worry about longevity.
> You do your bit by creating copies, and transferring to
> new media, and just hope that your descendants will do the same.

I wouldn't be surprised that in 50-100 years that much of anything (i.e.
photographs, documents etc.) will survive in the form of hard copies.
Even today how many of the digital photos we take actually make it to
the print stage? I know in our house it might be 5% of them. IMO,
anyone that wants to make sure their data is saved for future
generations needs to look into on-line data storage services and hope
someone in the family cares enough to maintain the stored data when we
are all taking a dirt nap.

I've never quite seen the need to care too much about print longevity.
Give the client, or family member, a print and a digital copy and they
can get another print done when the need/want one. Anyone can easily
get a print made from a digital file nowadays. I know that when I take
pictures of vacations or family events I pass out CD's with the pictures
saved on them like penny candy. The more people that have a digital
copy the bigger the chance the photographs will survive for future
generations.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 2:25:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hecate wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

> >just a bi gwaste of time.
> >BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper
pro...bastards!
> >
> What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
> tests in "real world" conditions.

Canon's century rating is for album use (a real use I think) and that
means 99.999% of the time it's dark (album closed) and probably under
clear plastic stuff (sealed from gas).
This is how Livick came up with 2-years?

Mike
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 8:53:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Mike Tsakiris wrote:
>> SleeperMan wrote:
>>
>>> There is WAY bigger risk in having analog negative film stored than
>>> digital CDR. You can't have 10 negatives (originals - there's only
>>> one original. If you copy it, copies won't be as good), while you
>>> can have 10 CDR's - all equal originals.
>>> Now which system has bigger risk? Note that printing a photo is not
>>> meant for last ages, but simply to show people your shots. You can
>>> always make another one from intact original, while you can't make
>>> equally good one from 50 years old negative.
>>>
>>
>> That is a vey good point, SleeperMan.
>> There's is only ONE original negative film.
>> The chances of been lost or destroyed are more than a lot of
>> digital copies.
>>
>> We must not worry about longevity.
>> You do your bit by creating copies, and transferring to
>> new media, and just hope that your descendants will do the same.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised that in 50-100 years that much of anything
> (i.e. photographs, documents etc.) will survive in the form of hard
> copies. Even today how many of the digital photos we take actually
> make it to the print stage? I know in our house it might be 5% of
> them. IMO, anyone that wants to make sure their data is saved for
> future generations needs to look into on-line data storage services
> and hope someone in the family cares enough to maintain the stored
> data when we are all taking a dirt nap.
>
> I've never quite seen the need to care too much about print longevity.
> Give the client, or family member, a print and a digital copy and they
> can get another print done when the need/want one. Anyone can easily
> get a print made from a digital file nowadays. I know that when I
> take pictures of vacations or family events I pass out CD's with the
> pictures saved on them like penny candy. The more people that have a
> digital copy the bigger the chance the photographs will survive for
> future generations.

At last a word of wisdom...
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 9:03:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ben Thomas wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>> Caitlin wrote:
>>
>>> The ink is more of an issue than the paper though. Any decent
>>> quality paper will probably last 50 years. I intend to print at
>>> least some of my photos commercially, as I have experienced the sad
>>> effect of faded prints - most of my childhood was recorded on
>>> Polaroid film in the 70's - most of it now faded into shadowy haze.
>>>
>>> I don't believe that the Canon, though I think it's a great printer,
>>> has inks suitable for long term archiving. Your best option in that
>>> case is still commercial print laboratories. There may be some more
>>> expensive photo printers around that offer more stable ink
>>> technology, I'm guessing at a much higher price. The Canon, and most
>>> standard inkjet printers no matter how good the photo quality, don't
>>> claim to produce permanent photos. I don't know what actual length
>>> of time they will last though.
>>
>>
>> Canon claims their Photo paper Pro (PR-101) is supposely to last
>> over 100 years with their original ink.
>> But, then again, we discussed this in looong thread "Epson beats them
>> all"....
>> read it and make your opinion...
>>
>>
>
> They told me the only claim 25 years.
>
> --

look at this page
http://bj.canon.co.jp/english/photopaper/knowpaper/know...

i quote from it:

Canon's continuing research and development of photo papers has led to
enhancement of the ozone tolerance level. Photo Paper Pro offers "image
permanence of up to 100 years (when stored in an album) or 25 years (when
stored in a photo frame)."
January 4, 2005 9:28:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> writes:

> look at this page
> http://bj.canon.co.jp/english/photopaper/knowpaper/know...
>
> i quote from it:
>
> Canon's continuing research and development of photo papers has led to
> enhancement of the ozone tolerance level. Photo Paper Pro offers "image
> permanence of up to 100 years (when stored in an album) or 25 years (when
> stored in a photo frame)."

If a salesperson says "up to" he actually means "guaranteed no
more than".

Interestingly, this new Japanese BCI-7 ChromaLife seems to claim very
similar figures: 100 years album, 30 years light, but only 10 years
gas. Furthermore, for the new inks Canon claims to use the testing
procedures from Wilhelm Research: http://tinylink.com/?G00HBrFn9E
If this isn't an improvement... ;-)
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 9:38:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hecate wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2005 11:25:24 -0800, "Anoni Moose" <gewgle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hecate wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> >> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
> >
> >> >just a bi gwaste of time.
> >> >BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper
> >pro...bastards!
> >> >
> >> What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions.
Livick
> >> tests in "real world" conditions.
> >
> >Canon's century rating is for album use (a real use I think) and
that
> >means 99.999% of the time it's dark (album closed) and probably
under
> >clear plastic stuff (sealed from gas).
> >This is how Livick came up with 2-years?
> >
> Using real lighting for display purposes - or are you assuming
> everybody locks their pictures away and hardly ever uses them? Maybe,

No. Like most people on these lists I assume everybody is
like me! :-) I've taken as many as a thousand or so 35mm
images in as little as a week (on trips, in particular) and
have forty years of picture taking. I don't have even a
significant percentage mounted on walls in the sun for them
to fade. Most are in albums or in piles in dark boxes or
envelopes that one gets from the finishers.

With printer-printed photos, it's true that much fewer of taken
images will go into albums (because most just don't get printed
when they're digital camera ones), but still I tend to have only the
more
recently printed ones out for show and ones done earlier go into
storage. Ones I print for others probably go straight there
in their storage.

But you make a good point. If one only prints three images a year,
then most may 'stay' displayed. Mine get de-displayed not for
fade reasons, but because the images are being replaced by newer
ones. :-)

If I only printed a few a year, buying a Canon i9900 printer
might not have been all that good of a deal cost-per-print wise.

Mike
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 10:53:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Matthias wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> writes:
>
>> look at this page
>> http://bj.canon.co.jp/english/photopaper/knowpaper/know...
>>
>> i quote from it:
>>
>> Canon's continuing research and development of photo papers has led
>> to enhancement of the ozone tolerance level. Photo Paper Pro offers
>> "image permanence of up to 100 years (when stored in an album) or 25
>> years (when stored in a photo frame)."
>
> If a salesperson says "up to" he actually means "guaranteed no
> more than".

Seems logical to me....

>
> Interestingly, this new Japanese BCI-7 ChromaLife seems to claim very
> similar figures: 100 years album, 30 years light, but only 10 years
> gas. Furthermore, for the new inks Canon claims to use the testing
> procedures from Wilhelm Research: http://tinylink.com/?G00HBrFn9E
> If this isn't an improvement... ;-)

i think that if those bci7 carts would be any improvement, they would be
widely available already.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 12:04:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Anoni Moose wrote:
> Hecate wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>>> just a bi gwaste of time.
>>> BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper
>>> pro...bastards!
>>>
>> What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
>> tests in "real world" conditions.
>
> Canon's century rating is for album use (a real use I think) and that
> means 99.999% of the time it's dark (album closed) and probably under
> clear plastic stuff (sealed from gas).
> This is how Livick came up with 2-years?
>
> Mike

True. It does state so.
in any case when photos are in album, most of the people are looking them
very rarely, so this 99 % time is quite reasonable.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 5:08:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On 4 Jan 2005 11:25:24 -0800, "Anoni Moose" <gewgle@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Hecate wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>> >just a bi gwaste of time.
>> >BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper
>pro...bastards!
>> >
>> What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
>> tests in "real world" conditions.
>
>Canon's century rating is for album use (a real use I think) and that
>means 99.999% of the time it's dark (album closed) and probably under
>clear plastic stuff (sealed from gas).
>This is how Livick came up with 2-years?
>
Using real lighting for display purposes - or are you assuming
everybody locks their pictures away and hardly ever uses them? Maybe,
if you're a Christmas tree photographer (one roll of film or
equivalent containing your holiday pictures with this years and the
previous years Christmas tree at either end of the roll).

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:44:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On 4 Jan 2005 18:38:20 -0800, "Anoni Moose" <gewgle@yahoo.com> wrote:


>> Using real lighting for display purposes - or are you assuming
>> everybody locks their pictures away and hardly ever uses them? Maybe,
>
>No. Like most people on these lists I assume everybody is
>like me! :-) I've taken as many as a thousand or so 35mm
>images in as little as a week (on trips, in particular) and
>have forty years of picture taking. I don't have even a
>significant percentage mounted on walls in the sun for them
>to fade. Most are in albums or in piles in dark boxes or
>envelopes that one gets from the finishers.
>
>With printer-printed photos, it's true that much fewer of taken
>images will go into albums (because most just don't get printed
>when they're digital camera ones), but still I tend to have only the
>more
>recently printed ones out for show and ones done earlier go into
>storage. Ones I print for others probably go straight there
>in their storage.
>
>But you make a good point. If one only prints three images a year,
>then most may 'stay' displayed. Mine get de-displayed not for
>fade reasons, but because the images are being replaced by newer
>ones. :-)
>
>If I only printed a few a year, buying a Canon i9900 printer
>might not have been all that good of a deal cost-per-print wise.
>
Hi Mike,

<g> Some of us here (try too <g>) make a living from our work and
printing is an important part of it. Consequently, print longevity is
rather more important ;-)


--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 5:53:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Maybe not so wise.

The one thing that for literally thousands of years that has been
consistent, is our ability to "see" hardcopy, as long as it survived the
forces of nature. We still have good examples of cuneiform, papyrus
scrolls, paper based letter and books, etc. As long as the substrate
and the colorant held up, it is usually at least veiwable, if not
interpretable. The same holds true for silver based photographs (I'm
referring to black and white where real silver is left behind). I have
many images in my family archives that date back over 100 years.

However, I have "digital files" of letters, music, images, etc, that
date back only 5 years are are no longer accessible. Not just because
the media has failed, and in some cases it has, but more often because
the format, the media type or the program needed to interpret it is no
longer functional or available. I have letters and graphics I produced
on my Commodore 64, my Atari 800XL, my Amiga. In some cases, the
equipment might still work, if I could find all the parts and cables,
and set it up to read the disks... now where did I put my version of
Word Perfect for the Amiga? And what the heck was the NAME of the word
processor I used for my C-64??

LUCKILY, I made a habit of almost always printing out a hard copy of a
letter I sent for filing, because i have needed to refer back to some,
and needed copies, which I was able to make from the copy I kept.
Otherwise, I really don't think I would be spending the 4-6 hours to
find and set up my C-64 and hunt down the 5.25" floppy and cross my
fingers that it works.

If you were working with computers as long as I have (my very first
programs were done at university, on punch cards on a mainframe, on a
terminal connected with a telephone coupling modem) you'd rapidly see
the value of having real tangible hard copy. Try to find a microfilm
machine today, even better see how much luck you have locating a
functional microfiche machine. Media changes all the time, I have at
least 8 different storage methods here, not including the hard drives
which changed interfacing half a dozen times. I have some 10" Bernoulli
drives in storage, I have syquest 10, 20, 44meg removable, PD, 8"
floppy, 5.25" floppy (single and double sided and density, 3.5 single
and double sided and density (HD), zip disks, CD-R, CD-RW, and soon
DVD-R and RW (and the dual layer).

And that doesn't even discuss the dozens of compression and archiving
systems that came about and differing file formats. Oh yeah, what about
several dozen operating systems, and computer types. Apple, Atari,
Atari (FM?) 16 bit, Commodore, Amiga, IBM, PC, Mac...

So the supposed "wisdom" is flawed. My film negatives just need a light
source and maybe a lens to view and reproduce, my paper letters the
same. But digital requires the ability for those zeros and ones to be
interpreted into something. A file header is damaged, and you may not
know if you are looking at a midi file, an image, a movie, a word
processing file, part of an old copy of software, or part of a split
file. Even a photo with a scratch and a tear in it, can be pretty well
reconstructed.

So, sorry, but I'll take film and hard copy image over a digital file
for archiving, and that's were it would be "nice" if it didn't fade away
in 5 years or so...

Art




SleeperMan wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

>>I've never quite seen the need to care too much about print longevity.
>>Give the client, or family member, a print and a digital copy and they
>>can get another print done when the need/want one. Anyone can easily
>>get a print made from a digital file nowadays. I know that when I
>>take pictures of vacations or family events I pass out CD's with the
>>pictures saved on them like penny candy. The more people that have a
>>digital copy the bigger the chance the photographs will survive for
>>future generations.
>
>
> At last a word of wisdom...
>
>
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 5:53:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Maybe not so wise.
>
> The one thing that for literally thousands of years that has been
> consistent, is our ability to "see" hardcopy, as long as it survived the
> forces of nature. We still have good examples of cuneiform, papyrus
> scrolls, paper based letter and books, etc. As long as the substrate
> and the colorant held up, it is usually at least veiwable, if not
> interpretable. The same holds true for silver based photographs (I'm
> referring to black and white where real silver is left behind). I have
> many images in my family archives that date back over 100 years.
>
> However, I have "digital files" of letters, music, images, etc, that
> date back only 5 years are are no longer accessible. Not just because
> the media has failed, and in some cases it has, but more often because
> the format, the media type or the program needed to interpret it is no
> longer functional or available. I have letters and graphics I produced
> on my Commodore 64, my Atari 800XL, my Amiga. In some cases, the
> equipment might still work, if I could find all the parts and cables,
> and set it up to read the disks... now where did I put my version of
> Word Perfect for the Amiga? And what the heck was the NAME of the word
> processor I used for my C-64??
>
> LUCKILY, I made a habit of almost always printing out a hard copy of a
> letter I sent for filing, because i have needed to refer back to some,
> and needed copies, which I was able to make from the copy I kept.
> Otherwise, I really don't think I would be spending the 4-6 hours to
> find and set up my C-64 and hunt down the 5.25" floppy and cross my
> fingers that it works.
>
> If you were working with computers as long as I have (my very first
> programs were done at university, on punch cards on a mainframe, on a
> terminal connected with a telephone coupling modem) you'd rapidly see
> the value of having real tangible hard copy. Try to find a microfilm
> machine today, even better see how much luck you have locating a
> functional microfiche machine. Media changes all the time, I have at
> least 8 different storage methods here, not including the hard drives
> which changed interfacing half a dozen times. I have some 10" Bernoulli
> drives in storage, I have syquest 10, 20, 44meg removable, PD, 8"
> floppy, 5.25" floppy (single and double sided and density, 3.5 single
> and double sided and density (HD), zip disks, CD-R, CD-RW, and soon
> DVD-R and RW (and the dual layer).
>
> And that doesn't even discuss the dozens of compression and archiving
> systems that came about and differing file formats. Oh yeah, what about
> several dozen operating systems, and computer types. Apple, Atari,
> Atari (FM?) 16 bit, Commodore, Amiga, IBM, PC, Mac...
>
> So the supposed "wisdom" is flawed. My film negatives just need a light
> source and maybe a lens to view and reproduce, my paper letters the
> same. But digital requires the ability for those zeros and ones to be
> interpreted into something. A file header is damaged, and you may not
> know if you are looking at a midi file, an image, a movie, a word
> processing file, part of an old copy of software, or part of a split
> file. Even a photo with a scratch and a tear in it, can be pretty well
> reconstructed.
>
> So, sorry, but I'll take film and hard copy image over a digital file
> for archiving, and that's were it would be "nice" if it didn't fade away
> in 5 years or so...
>
> Art
>

If we ever get to a point that computers don't exist so we can read a
digital file from a disc then the world has much bigger problems than
saving a few photographs. :)  The CD/DVD format won't be going away
anytime soon as there are way too many of them around for this to occur.
I know we have about 150 movies (and counting) on DVD that I don't
plan on trashing in my remaining lifetime. As long as a market exists
then there will be a supplier. Also, there are quite a few data
extraction companies that can retrieve digital information from just
about any medium.

Also, I would say a CD/DVD would last as long, or maybe longer, than
film if both are stored the same way. In fact, I would tend to think
film is more fragile than digital media when it comes to archiving. You
are right though about not needing anything but a good set of eyes to
evaluate the content of film and print hard copies.

BTW, I have a client that can impose a photograph on a piece of granite
for mounting on a headstone. The images have pretty good clarity and
are supposed to last well over one hundred years even when left outdoors
continuously and in all weather conditions. Now that might be
acceptable longevity to some. ;) 

>
>
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>
>>> I've never quite seen the need to care too much about print longevity.
>>> Give the client, or family member, a print and a digital copy and they
>>> can get another print done when the need/want one. Anyone can easily
>>> get a print made from a digital file nowadays. I know that when I
>>> take pictures of vacations or family events I pass out CD's with the
>>> pictures saved on them like penny candy. The more people that have a
>>> digital copy the bigger the chance the photographs will survive for
>>> future generations.
>>
>>
>>
>> At last a word of wisdom...
>>
>
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 5:55:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I love those words "up to"... reminds me of the after Christmas sales:

EVERYTHING IN STOCK up to 50% OFF!

Art

SleeperMan wrote:


>
> look at this page
> http://bj.canon.co.jp/english/photopaper/knowpaper/know...
>
> i quote from it:
>
> Canon's continuing research and development of photo papers has led to
> enhancement of the ozone tolerance level. Photo Paper Pro offers "image
> permanence of up to 100 years (when stored in an album) or 25 years (when
> stored in a photo frame)."
>
>
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 6:10:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

We now define the difference between display art prints and snapshots.

I agree, most snapshots end up either in a drawer or in a photo album,
although certainly many end up on fridges and display boards, and framed
on desks and pianos ;-)

However, art prints, sometimes selling for hundreds, if not thousands of
dollars, end up on walls, usually framed under glass, but often exposed
to indoor, possibly halogen (high UV content), and some filtered
(through glass) sunlight.

And that's where it is of particular import that the image doesn't fade
away.

Art

SleeperMan wrote:

> Anoni Moose wrote:
>
>>Hecate wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>><SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>
>>>>just a bi gwaste of time.
>>>>BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper
>>>>pro...bastards!
>>>>
>>>
>>>What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
>>>tests in "real world" conditions.
>>
>>Canon's century rating is for album use (a real use I think) and that
>>means 99.999% of the time it's dark (album closed) and probably under
>>clear plastic stuff (sealed from gas).
>>This is how Livick came up with 2-years?
>>
>>Mike
>
>
> True. It does state so.
> in any case when photos are in album, most of the people are looking them
> very rarely, so this 99 % time is quite reasonable.
>
>
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 7:24:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> I love those words "up to"... reminds me of the after Christmas sales:
>
> EVERYTHING IN STOCK up to 50% OFF!
>
> Art
>
yeah, well, if at least 50% is true, it's still 50 years...
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 7:31:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> We now define the difference between display art prints and snapshots.
>
> I agree, most snapshots end up either in a drawer or in a photo album,
> although certainly many end up on fridges and display boards, and
> framed on desks and pianos ;-)
>
> However, art prints, sometimes selling for hundreds, if not thousands
> of dollars, end up on walls, usually framed under glass, but often
> exposed to indoor, possibly halogen (high UV content), and some
> filtered (through glass) sunlight.
>
> And that's where it is of particular import that the image doesn't
> fade away.
>
Yep. you have the point here.
So, at the end, if we want hi quality long lasting print, we must buy
expensive one ... Since Epson has to be R800 if you want pigment ink for
long lasting...
Like i already said a few times...maybe some day my second Canon will force
me to begin to hate it and switch to another brand. THEN i'll bear in mind
Epson. At the end, you can only choose between Canon, HP and Epson...what
else remains? Lexmark...no, thank you, i rahter draw my photos with a
pencil...
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 7:33:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hecate wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2005 18:38:20 -0800, "Anoni Moose" <gewgle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Using real lighting for display purposes - or are you assuming
>>> everybody locks their pictures away and hardly ever uses them?
>>> Maybe,
>>
>> No. Like most people on these lists I assume everybody is
>> like me! :-) I've taken as many as a thousand or so 35mm
>> images in as little as a week (on trips, in particular) and
>> have forty years of picture taking. I don't have even a
>> significant percentage mounted on walls in the sun for them
>> to fade. Most are in albums or in piles in dark boxes or
>> envelopes that one gets from the finishers.
>>
>> With printer-printed photos, it's true that much fewer of taken
>> images will go into albums (because most just don't get printed
>> when they're digital camera ones), but still I tend to have only the
>> more
>> recently printed ones out for show and ones done earlier go into
>> storage. Ones I print for others probably go straight there
>> in their storage.
>>
>> But you make a good point. If one only prints three images a year,
>> then most may 'stay' displayed. Mine get de-displayed not for
>> fade reasons, but because the images are being replaced by newer
>> ones. :-)
>>
>> If I only printed a few a year, buying a Canon i9900 printer
>> might not have been all that good of a deal cost-per-print wise.
>>
> Hi Mike,
>
> <g> Some of us here (try too <g>) make a living from our work and
> printing is an important part of it. Consequently, print longevity is
> rather more important ;-)

Aha,,,so you do this for a living... that makes a difference...first of all,
cost is not primary concern, since your cistomers pay in any case... :-).
I forgot...do you use R800 or any even better?
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 5:15:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:33:24 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:


>> <g> Some of us here (try too <g>) make a living from our work and
>> printing is an important part of it. Consequently, print longevity is
>> rather more important ;-)
>
>Aha,,,so you do this for a living... that makes a difference...first of all,
>cost is not primary concern, since your cistomers pay in any case... :-).
>I forgot...do you use R800 or any even better?
>
Epson 2100 (2200 in the US).

And professional printers where necessary. :) 

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 4:33:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Richard wrote:
>
> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
>
> >We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
> >
> >We like it.
> >
> >I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
> >
> >Mel
> >
>
> While Canon printers are outstanding in most regards, longevity is not
> great.
> The best Wilhelm-Research reference I could find was for the Canon
> S900 6 cartridge printer. Using Canons longest lasting paper and
> Canon ink, the lifespan was 27 years. Another site,
> http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d.htm , lists the following
> paper tests:
>
> Printer Model: Canon S9000
>
> Canon OEM Inks
>
> Canon Photo Paper Pro, Rated At 2 Years

Thanks for thsi excellent ink, it was unknown to me! :-)

I concur. I have a massive fading of prints made with S9000
observed on the barely cheaper glossy Photo Paper Plus!

http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fad...

Similar reports were posted on Steve Digicams forums.

I can only seriously WARN everybody about not making the
same mistake which I made. I was ecstatic about the S9000,
quiet, very fast, reliable, excellent resutls. The S9000
has now two good successor models S9100/i9100 and i9900,
but they still use the same BCI-6 ink and paper. Sinn
expensive and does not last, its a pity.

Do yourself a favor and get printer which uses pigment
inks. The printer price is irrelevant, you will soon spend
a magnitude of this primary cost on paper and ink.

Thomas

>
> Kodak Premium Picture Paper, Rated At 4.5 Years
>
> Epson Colorlife Paper, Rated At 11.5 Years
>
> Epson Heavyweight Matte, Rated At 3.75 Years
>
> Office Depot Premium Glossy, Rated At 4.25 Years
>
> Red River Polar Satin, Rated At 5 Years
>
> Red River Polar Gloss #66, Rated At 8 Years
>
> Red River Ultra Pro Glossy, Rated At 2 Years
>
> Red River Ultra Pro Satin, Rated At 2.75 years
>
> Red River Premium Gloss, Rated At 2.5 Years
>
> Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl, Rated At 10.5 Years
>
> Ilford Galerie Classic Gloss, Rated At 12.2 Years
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 10:40:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Unfortunately, Michael, just about ever account that we have answers for
right now say we are in "big trouble".

I have a huge collection of VHS tapes, I and everyone who bought the
billions of videotapes thought that media would be around for a long
time. Recently, several of my video recorders began failing (they are
all about the same age) and they were all top of the line units at the
time. The rubber parts just fail with time and atmospheric pollution.
These machines were mainly from the mid 1980's and they were extremely
well designed and built, but parts are difficult to come by, and many
"new" parts are as old at the ones in the machines so they are also
failed, and finding a tech to fix them is even harder. You can't get a
"top of the line" VCR anymore. They aren't made. The ones that are
around are stop gap while the transition is occurring. They cost
$50-$150 dollars (my VCRs cost me nearly $2000 each). The new ones are
junk. I don't expect they will last more than one or two years at best,
and by then there will be no more VCRS for the public to buy. So, I
will have to transfer my collection to DVD and soon. It will be very
time consuming to do so.

DVD technology has already goes through several generations. Many DVD
readers will not read newer or older DVDs depending on their own age.
And burned DVD and CD technology is hardly secure. Recent studies show
the newer disks may not last over 2 years. The error rates are much
higher on CDs made today, and the burn speeds only make this worse, as
does the crowding of more and more data on them.

I have some burned CD that I can't even read anymore, just because I
changed versions of the burning software on my computer. They "warned"
this might happen, depending on the formatting used.

I'm not trying to be arrogant or mean by this next statement, but I'll
wager you're a younger man who hasn't quite seen the changes in
technology I have. The process of change is getting faster, not slower.
I assure you CD and DVD technology will pass as do all forms. Apple
removed the floppy drive from their systems several years ago now.
Hundreds of millions of 100 meg Zip disks were sold. People are now
literally giving the drives and disks away.

I haven't "trashed" my video or my record collection. However, last
week for the first time in at least a year, I used my turntable, and it
was so gummed up it would barely turn, because the lubricants have gone
unused so long.

I will agree with you that certain formats have a longer life than
others. Photograph records that used a stylus or some sort lasted in
some form about 100 years before the technology moved to lasers.
However, it started with cylinders and went to platters, and they
changed speeds from 78 rpm to 33 and 45, from monaural to stereo. Some
turntables stopped offering 78 rpm many years before LP went out of
fashion. 35mm camera film has done well. However, it will also pass,
but so what, the film will till be viewable.

When was the last time you found a lab that could commercially print a
"disc" film? However, if necessary, I could print it with a standard
photo enlarger.

And as I said, that only half the battle. Compression systems change,
file formats change, and over time more and more digitally stored
materials will become impossible to comprehend.

And that doesn't even start to deal with what happens when someone like
myself dies and my heirs end up with hundreds if not thousands of disks
of whatever kind and they want to know what to keep and what to toss?
Does that CD contain archives of my poetry and stories, my images,
video, an old copy of Photoshop utilities, letters, old web files... and
how do they figure it out if my computer is gone and the software to
read the files is gone? It used to just be a matter of finding the
photo albums and the shoebox full of snaps.

I think digital is great. I use it almost every day, but there are
major problems ahead for families, and archivists, and for the general
user of this technology and it will get worse before it gets better.

While I love the internet and the web for access to general and specific
non-personal information, damn, it's like having my own library of
congress and more right in my home, the issue of storage of personal
documents and images is a mess. And, I'm afraid you are being naive is
you think you will somehow side step it. History shows that since the
advent of magnetic and now digital storage, nothing has survived very
well. While photos can be located in huge archives, as can many films
(and yes, the very old stock was lost because it either disintegrated,
burst into flames or faded) and indeed newer technology has saved the
butt of many archivists as well, by restoring old damaged materials, the
advantages of things like film and paper have still not been adequately
addressed in the digital realm.

It will eventually come, maybe there will be massive storage centers
where people will pay to maintain and upload this stuff and it will be
password protected and you will pay a fee to have it stored redundantly
in several locations around the world for safety, and your heirs will
get access to it when you die, and the storage company will be
responsible for updating the storage media used. But that hasn't
occurred yet for the most part, or at least it hasn't caught on among
consumers as it may have for some businesses.

All I can say is I am glad I have a collection of slides and film, and
paper correspondence. Although I wish it was better organized, it is
accessible. And although much of it will probably never be of any
interest to a museum or historian, some might matter and as long as
someone has a lamp, they will be able to know exactly what it is right
then and there.

In the meantime, for the "do as I say, not as I do" department, I
suggest people label their storage disks well and make redundant copies,
preferably using different media types and brands, and stored in
different locations and in terms of images, print or have printed,
quality hard copies of digital images using archival materials.

Art

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Maybe not so wise.
>>
>> The one thing that for literally thousands of years that has been
>> consistent, is our ability to "see" hardcopy, as long as it survived
>> the forces of nature. We still have good examples of cuneiform,
>> papyrus scrolls, paper based letter and books, etc. As long as the
>> substrate and the colorant held up, it is usually at least veiwable,
>> if not interpretable. The same holds true for silver based
>> photographs (I'm referring to black and white where real silver is
>> left behind). I have many images in my family archives that date back
>> over 100 years.
>>
>> However, I have "digital files" of letters, music, images, etc, that
>> date back only 5 years are are no longer accessible. Not just because
>> the media has failed, and in some cases it has, but more often because
>> the format, the media type or the program needed to interpret it is no
>> longer functional or available. I have letters and graphics I produced
>> on my Commodore 64, my Atari 800XL, my Amiga. In some cases, the
>> equipment might still work, if I could find all the parts and cables,
>> and set it up to read the disks... now where did I put my version of
>> Word Perfect for the Amiga? And what the heck was the NAME of the
>> word processor I used for my C-64??
>>
>> LUCKILY, I made a habit of almost always printing out a hard copy of a
>> letter I sent for filing, because i have needed to refer back to some,
>> and needed copies, which I was able to make from the copy I kept.
>> Otherwise, I really don't think I would be spending the 4-6 hours to
>> find and set up my C-64 and hunt down the 5.25" floppy and cross my
>> fingers that it works.
>>
>> If you were working with computers as long as I have (my very first
>> programs were done at university, on punch cards on a mainframe, on a
>> terminal connected with a telephone coupling modem) you'd rapidly see
>> the value of having real tangible hard copy. Try to find a microfilm
>> machine today, even better see how much luck you have locating a
>> functional microfiche machine. Media changes all the time, I have at
>> least 8 different storage methods here, not including the hard drives
>> which changed interfacing half a dozen times. I have some 10"
>> Bernoulli drives in storage, I have syquest 10, 20, 44meg removable,
>> PD, 8" floppy, 5.25" floppy (single and double sided and density, 3.5
>> single and double sided and density (HD), zip disks, CD-R, CD-RW, and
>> soon DVD-R and RW (and the dual layer).
>>
>> And that doesn't even discuss the dozens of compression and archiving
>> systems that came about and differing file formats. Oh yeah, what
>> about several dozen operating systems, and computer types. Apple,
>> Atari, Atari (FM?) 16 bit, Commodore, Amiga, IBM, PC, Mac...
>>
>> So the supposed "wisdom" is flawed. My film negatives just need a
>> light source and maybe a lens to view and reproduce, my paper letters
>> the same. But digital requires the ability for those zeros and ones
>> to be interpreted into something. A file header is damaged, and you
>> may not know if you are looking at a midi file, an image, a movie, a
>> word processing file, part of an old copy of software, or part of a
>> split file. Even a photo with a scratch and a tear in it, can be
>> pretty well reconstructed.
>>
>> So, sorry, but I'll take film and hard copy image over a digital file
>> for archiving, and that's were it would be "nice" if it didn't fade
>> away in 5 years or so...
>>
>> Art
>>
>
> If we ever get to a point that computers don't exist so we can read a
> digital file from a disc then the world has much bigger problems than
> saving a few photographs. :)  The CD/DVD format won't be going away
> anytime soon as there are way too many of them around for this to occur.
> I know we have about 150 movies (and counting) on DVD that I don't plan
> on trashing in my remaining lifetime. As long as a market exists then
> there will be a supplier. Also, there are quite a few data extraction
> companies that can retrieve digital information from just about any medium.
>
> Also, I would say a CD/DVD would last as long, or maybe longer, than
> film if both are stored the same way. In fact, I would tend to think
> film is more fragile than digital media when it comes to archiving. You
> are right though about not needing anything but a good set of eyes to
> evaluate the content of film and print hard copies.
>
> BTW, I have a client that can impose a photograph on a piece of granite
> for mounting on a headstone. The images have pretty good clarity and
> are supposed to last well over one hundred years even when left outdoors
> continuously and in all weather conditions. Now that might be
> acceptable longevity to some. ;) 
>
>>
>>
>> SleeperMan wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I've never quite seen the need to care too much about print longevity.
>>>> Give the client, or family member, a print and a digital copy and they
>>>> can get another print done when the need/want one. Anyone can easily
>>>> get a print made from a digital file nowadays. I know that when I
>>>> take pictures of vacations or family events I pass out CD's with the
>>>> pictures saved on them like penny candy. The more people that have a
>>>> digital copy the bigger the chance the photographs will survive for
>>>> future generations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At last a word of wisdom...
>>>
>>
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 1:52:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I'm 44 and have seen some big changes in my lifetime regarding
technology. Back in the late 70's I got involved in 35mm photography
and enjoyed the "art" of taking pictures. I really enjoyed the thought
process of getting a good shot. I think it came from knowing a roll of
film had just so many pictures on it and it cost money to see the
results. After graduating college my career in civil engineering took
off and so many things I enjoyed doing got left behind.

About five or six years ago I bought a digital camera for taking quick
shots of development projects and it rekindled the photography bug in me
again. I now have a fairly respectable digital camera and have been
adding some decent lenses to help get those good shots I see. I have to
admit though that digital photography from a shooting aspect isn't as
satisfying as film shooting. There's just too much instant
gratification. I can preview the shots on the camera, tweak them
further in the computer and then print them out at home and at whatever
size I feel like. The anticipation is all but gone. While I won't go
back to film shooting in a big way, I do think about breaking out the
old Minolta film camera just for old times sake.

I really don't think accessing digital data will ever be impossible. At
least not as long as ebay is around. Even today someone can get their
hands on players that will access the old cylindrical storage media from
the early 20th century. I have old reel audio tapes from the early 60's
and I can still buy players that use that format. As for the digital
file format becoming out dated, that is just a programming issue and is
easily handled. Plus, anything that is that important to you will be
transferred to newer media as it becomes available.

When it comes to storing digital photographic data I think the main
problem is going to be the sheer quantity of pictures one will
accumulate over a few decades of shooting. We have gigabytes of files
we have compiled over the last five years that take forever to rummage
through to find a specific picture. I would wager that the average
digital photographer shoots 10+ pictures for every one that same person
would shoot on film. Just wait until high quality digital video becomes
available to the masses! The challenge will be leaving behind an
ORGANIZED database so someone will want to keep, and build on, the work
we leave behind. I should purge many of the pictures I have but why do
it when storage is so plentiful and cheap. Plus it's only going to get
more plentiful and more cheap as time passes. Anymore I shoot pictures
that I know I will never use or look at but maybe one time. Such is the
world of digital photography.

I like the idea of on-line storage that has open access to the general
public. This would be the modern version of the record books you can
find in about every courthouse. The ones that go back for 150+ years.
This way you are providing a resource for anyone to use. Heck, I
wouldn't mind if it was government funded. Make it so that every
citizen can submit a certain number of megabytes of data every year.
You choose what is submitted based on what you want history to know
about you or your family. It could be graphics, text, a journal, etc.
I bet the cost to run and maintain a national digital archive system
wouldn't be that great.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. :) 

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Unfortunately, Michael, just about ever account that we have answers for
> right now say we are in "big trouble".
>
> I have a huge collection of VHS tapes, I and everyone who bought the
> billions of videotapes thought that media would be around for a long
> time. Recently, several of my video recorders began failing (they are
> all about the same age) and they were all top of the line units at the
> time. The rubber parts just fail with time and atmospheric pollution.
> These machines were mainly from the mid 1980's and they were extremely
> well designed and built, but parts are difficult to come by, and many
> "new" parts are as old at the ones in the machines so they are also
> failed, and finding a tech to fix them is even harder. You can't get a
> "top of the line" VCR anymore. They aren't made. The ones that are
> around are stop gap while the transition is occurring. They cost
> $50-$150 dollars (my VCRs cost me nearly $2000 each). The new ones are
> junk. I don't expect they will last more than one or two years at best,
> and by then there will be no more VCRS for the public to buy. So, I
> will have to transfer my collection to DVD and soon. It will be very
> time consuming to do so.
>
> DVD technology has already goes through several generations. Many DVD
> readers will not read newer or older DVDs depending on their own age.
> And burned DVD and CD technology is hardly secure. Recent studies show
> the newer disks may not last over 2 years. The error rates are much
> higher on CDs made today, and the burn speeds only make this worse, as
> does the crowding of more and more data on them.
>
> I have some burned CD that I can't even read anymore, just because I
> changed versions of the burning software on my computer. They "warned"
> this might happen, depending on the formatting used.
>
> I'm not trying to be arrogant or mean by this next statement, but I'll
> wager you're a younger man who hasn't quite seen the changes in
> technology I have. The process of change is getting faster, not slower.
> I assure you CD and DVD technology will pass as do all forms. Apple
> removed the floppy drive from their systems several years ago now.
> Hundreds of millions of 100 meg Zip disks were sold. People are now
> literally giving the drives and disks away.
>
> I haven't "trashed" my video or my record collection. However, last
> week for the first time in at least a year, I used my turntable, and it
> was so gummed up it would barely turn, because the lubricants have gone
> unused so long.
>
> I will agree with you that certain formats have a longer life than
> others. Photograph records that used a stylus or some sort lasted in
> some form about 100 years before the technology moved to lasers.
> However, it started with cylinders and went to platters, and they
> changed speeds from 78 rpm to 33 and 45, from monaural to stereo. Some
> turntables stopped offering 78 rpm many years before LP went out of
> fashion. 35mm camera film has done well. However, it will also pass,
> but so what, the film will till be viewable.
>
> When was the last time you found a lab that could commercially print a
> "disc" film? However, if necessary, I could print it with a standard
> photo enlarger.
>
> And as I said, that only half the battle. Compression systems change,
> file formats change, and over time more and more digitally stored
> materials will become impossible to comprehend.
>
> And that doesn't even start to deal with what happens when someone like
> myself dies and my heirs end up with hundreds if not thousands of disks
> of whatever kind and they want to know what to keep and what to toss?
> Does that CD contain archives of my poetry and stories, my images,
> video, an old copy of Photoshop utilities, letters, old web files... and
> how do they figure it out if my computer is gone and the software to
> read the files is gone? It used to just be a matter of finding the
> photo albums and the shoebox full of snaps.
>
> I think digital is great. I use it almost every day, but there are
> major problems ahead for families, and archivists, and for the general
> user of this technology and it will get worse before it gets better.
>
> While I love the internet and the web for access to general and specific
> non-personal information, damn, it's like having my own library of
> congress and more right in my home, the issue of storage of personal
> documents and images is a mess. And, I'm afraid you are being naive is
> you think you will somehow side step it. History shows that since the
> advent of magnetic and now digital storage, nothing has survived very
> well. While photos can be located in huge archives, as can many films
> (and yes, the very old stock was lost because it either disintegrated,
> burst into flames or faded) and indeed newer technology has saved the
> butt of many archivists as well, by restoring old damaged materials, the
> advantages of things like film and paper have still not been adequately
> addressed in the digital realm.
>
> It will eventually come, maybe there will be massive storage centers
> where people will pay to maintain and upload this stuff and it will be
> password protected and you will pay a fee to have it stored redundantly
> in several locations around the world for safety, and your heirs will
> get access to it when you die, and the storage company will be
> responsible for updating the storage media used. But that hasn't
> occurred yet for the most part, or at least it hasn't caught on among
> consumers as it may have for some businesses.
>
> All I can say is I am glad I have a collection of slides and film, and
> paper correspondence. Although I wish it was better organized, it is
> accessible. And although much of it will probably never be of any
> interest to a museum or historian, some might matter and as long as
> someone has a lamp, they will be able to know exactly what it is right
> then and there.
>
> In the meantime, for the "do as I say, not as I do" department, I
> suggest people label their storage disks well and make redundant copies,
> preferably using different media types and brands, and stored in
> different locations and in terms of images, print or have printed,
> quality hard copies of digital images using archival materials.
>
> Art
>
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe not so wise.
>>>
>>> The one thing that for literally thousands of years that has been
>>> consistent, is our ability to "see" hardcopy, as long as it survived
>>> the forces of nature. We still have good examples of cuneiform,
>>> papyrus scrolls, paper based letter and books, etc. As long as the
>>> substrate and the colorant held up, it is usually at least veiwable,
>>> if not interpretable. The same holds true for silver based
>>> photographs (I'm referring to black and white where real silver is
>>> left behind). I have many images in my family archives that date
>>> back over 100 years.
>>>
>>> However, I have "digital files" of letters, music, images, etc, that
>>> date back only 5 years are are no longer accessible. Not just
>>> because the media has failed, and in some cases it has, but more
>>> often because the format, the media type or the program needed to
>>> interpret it is no longer functional or available. I have letters and
>>> graphics I produced on my Commodore 64, my Atari 800XL, my Amiga. In
>>> some cases, the equipment might still work, if I could find all the
>>> parts and cables, and set it up to read the disks... now where did I
>>> put my version of Word Perfect for the Amiga? And what the heck was
>>> the NAME of the word processor I used for my C-64??
>>>
>>> LUCKILY, I made a habit of almost always printing out a hard copy of
>>> a letter I sent for filing, because i have needed to refer back to
>>> some, and needed copies, which I was able to make from the copy I
>>> kept. Otherwise, I really don't think I would be spending the 4-6
>>> hours to find and set up my C-64 and hunt down the 5.25" floppy and
>>> cross my fingers that it works.
>>>
>>> If you were working with computers as long as I have (my very first
>>> programs were done at university, on punch cards on a mainframe, on a
>>> terminal connected with a telephone coupling modem) you'd rapidly see
>>> the value of having real tangible hard copy. Try to find a microfilm
>>> machine today, even better see how much luck you have locating a
>>> functional microfiche machine. Media changes all the time, I have at
>>> least 8 different storage methods here, not including the hard drives
>>> which changed interfacing half a dozen times. I have some 10"
>>> Bernoulli drives in storage, I have syquest 10, 20, 44meg removable,
>>> PD, 8" floppy, 5.25" floppy (single and double sided and density, 3.5
>>> single and double sided and density (HD), zip disks, CD-R, CD-RW, and
>>> soon DVD-R and RW (and the dual layer).
>>>
>>> And that doesn't even discuss the dozens of compression and archiving
>>> systems that came about and differing file formats. Oh yeah, what
>>> about several dozen operating systems, and computer types. Apple,
>>> Atari, Atari (FM?) 16 bit, Commodore, Amiga, IBM, PC, Mac...
>>>
>>> So the supposed "wisdom" is flawed. My film negatives just need a
>>> light source and maybe a lens to view and reproduce, my paper letters
>>> the same. But digital requires the ability for those zeros and ones
>>> to be interpreted into something. A file header is damaged, and you
>>> may not know if you are looking at a midi file, an image, a movie, a
>>> word processing file, part of an old copy of software, or part of a
>>> split file. Even a photo with a scratch and a tear in it, can be
>>> pretty well reconstructed.
>>>
>>> So, sorry, but I'll take film and hard copy image over a digital file
>>> for archiving, and that's were it would be "nice" if it didn't fade
>>> away in 5 years or so...
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>
>> If we ever get to a point that computers don't exist so we can read a
>> digital file from a disc then the world has much bigger problems than
>> saving a few photographs. :)  The CD/DVD format won't be going away
>> anytime soon as there are way too many of them around for this to
>> occur. I know we have about 150 movies (and counting) on DVD that I
>> don't plan on trashing in my remaining lifetime. As long as a market
>> exists then there will be a supplier. Also, there are quite a few
>> data extraction companies that can retrieve digital information from
>> just about any medium.
>>
>> Also, I would say a CD/DVD would last as long, or maybe longer, than
>> film if both are stored the same way. In fact, I would tend to think
>> film is more fragile than digital media when it comes to archiving.
>> You are right though about not needing anything but a good set of eyes
>> to evaluate the content of film and print hard copies.
>>
>> BTW, I have a client that can impose a photograph on a piece of
>> granite for mounting on a headstone. The images have pretty good
>> clarity and are supposed to last well over one hundred years even when
>> left outdoors continuously and in all weather conditions. Now that
>> might be acceptable longevity to some. ;) 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> SleeperMan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I've never quite seen the need to care too much about print longevity.
>>>>> Give the client, or family member, a print and a digital copy and they
>>>>> can get another print done when the need/want one. Anyone can easily
>>>>> get a print made from a digital file nowadays. I know that when I
>>>>> take pictures of vacations or family events I pass out CD's with the
>>>>> pictures saved on them like penny candy. The more people that have a
>>>>> digital copy the bigger the chance the photographs will survive for
>>>>> future generations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At last a word of wisdom...
>>>>
>>>
>
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 4:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:31:08 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:


>>>> The best pigment solution is a CIS system, which is what I use with
>>>> my printer. Large initial outlay (my system cost as much as the
>>>> printer). But great running costs and excellent ink (Permajet).
>>>
>>> Sure...all this is somewhat above my price...
>>>
>> Well, you can have cheap or you can have good quality - your choice :) 
>
>how true...damn... :-(((
>
Sorry to rain on your parade ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
January 9, 2005 5:09:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Now you have your job "cut out" for you. Teaching people not only how
> to take good images, but how to edit them to select good images.

I don't believe I have to teach them. There are some books on the market that
will teach you the rile of thirds and even a bit more. And just taking a look
at photo.net exercises the eye.

All I mean is if you're in picture taking, do as you should in any domain of
activity, try to do your best. Lay down on the ground, climb on that ladder,
add a second flash head, play with contrasts, reframe, just don't stand there
shooting snapshots. Try someting else!

GP
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 11:10:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Relying on e-bay to provide ways of reading old data formats sounds
pretty tenuous and costly to me. And you should speak to some people
who do this for a living, and ask them what a headache it is to
determine what format, what machine and what type of file structure was
used on found digital data.

Getting a reel of a mainframe datatape translated today is costly and
difficult. Yes, it can be done, but who will do it for personal
momentos? Do you still access your LP collection regularly? Are all
your LPs replaced with the same content on CDs?

As far as on-line storage goes, I would like to have two versions, one
for permanent public consumption (the ultimate "blog collection?) and
yet another which is passworded only to be available by legal, last will
and testament or password.

Art


Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
> I really don't think accessing digital data will ever be impossible. At
> least not as long as ebay is around. Even today someone can get their
> hands on players that will access the old cylindrical storage media from
> the early 20th century. I have old reel audio tapes from the early 60's
> and I can still buy players that use that format. As for the digital
> file format becoming out dated, that is just a programming issue and is
> easily handled. Plus, anything that is that important to you will be
> transferred to newer media as it becomes available.
>
> When it comes to storing digital photographic data I think the main
> problem is going to be the sheer quantity of pictures one will
> accumulate over a few decades of shooting. We have gigabytes of files
> we have compiled over the last five years that take forever to rummage
> through to find a specific picture. I would wager that the average
> digital photographer shoots 10+ pictures for every one that same person
> would shoot on film. Just wait until high quality digital video becomes
> available to the masses! The challenge will be leaving behind an
> ORGANIZED database so someone will want to keep, and build on, the work
> we leave behind. I should purge many of the pictures I have but why do
> it when storage is so plentiful and cheap. Plus it's only going to get
> more plentiful and more cheap as time passes. Anymore I shoot pictures
> that I know I will never use or look at but maybe one time. Such is the
> world of digital photography.
>
> I like the idea of on-line storage that has open access to the general
> public. This would be the modern version of the record books you can
> find in about every courthouse. The ones that go back for 150+ years.
> This way you are providing a resource for anyone to use. Heck, I
> wouldn't mind if it was government funded. Make it so that every
> citizen can submit a certain number of megabytes of data every year. You
> choose what is submitted based on what you want history to know about
> you or your family. It could be graphics, text, a journal, etc. I bet
> the cost to run and maintain a national digital archive system wouldn't
> be that great.
>
> Anyway, enough of my rambling. :) 
>
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 4:47:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I've found older equipment on ebay that I could never have found else
where. For example, here's an old Edison cylinder type record player:
http://tinyurl.com/64xjc Granted it isn't cheap but it is available and
within the financial reach of most people. My guess is you can buy just
about any outdated media-reading equipment you want on ebay. As for
reels of mainframe tape, I don't know of many people that have personal
data stored on them. I know the company I worked for had all those
tapes transfered to new media when they made the switch to PC's. I
suspect most people/companies did the same that had data they wanted to
access on newer systems.

Although we won't find tape readers etc. on the shelves of the local
electronics stores in the future there will likely be enough surviving
pieces of equipment to fill the demand for most needs.

As for LP's I never got into that media in a big way. I did have quite
a collection of cassettes but have found every old group I wanted
re-recorded on CD's. I have been steadily converting them to MP3 format
and have about 65 gigs of songs on the computer. It won't be long until
my whole collection of CD's is converted.

I do think that on-line storage is probably the best way to make sure
our personal information continues on after we're gone. That is until
the on-line storage company that stores the data goes out of business. ;) 

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Relying on e-bay to provide ways of reading old data formats sounds
> pretty tenuous and costly to me. And you should speak to some people
> who do this for a living, and ask them what a headache it is to
> determine what format, what machine and what type of file structure was
> used on found digital data.
>
> Getting a reel of a mainframe datatape translated today is costly and
> difficult. Yes, it can be done, but who will do it for personal
> momentos? Do you still access your LP collection regularly? Are all
> your LPs replaced with the same content on CDs?
>
> As far as on-line storage goes, I would like to have two versions, one
> for permanent public consumption (the ultimate "blog collection?) and
> yet another which is passworded only to be available by legal, last will
> and testament or password.
>
> Art
>
>
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>>
>> I really don't think accessing digital data will ever be impossible.
>> At least not as long as ebay is around. Even today someone can get
>> their hands on players that will access the old cylindrical storage
>> media from the early 20th century. I have old reel audio tapes from
>> the early 60's and I can still buy players that use that format. As
>> for the digital file format becoming out dated, that is just a
>> programming issue and is easily handled. Plus, anything that is that
>> important to you will be transferred to newer media as it becomes
>> available.
>>
>> When it comes to storing digital photographic data I think the main
>> problem is going to be the sheer quantity of pictures one will
>> accumulate over a few decades of shooting. We have gigabytes of files
>> we have compiled over the last five years that take forever to rummage
>> through to find a specific picture. I would wager that the average
>> digital photographer shoots 10+ pictures for every one that same
>> person would shoot on film. Just wait until high quality digital
>> video becomes available to the masses! The challenge will be leaving
>> behind an ORGANIZED database so someone will want to keep, and build
>> on, the work we leave behind. I should purge many of the pictures I
>> have but why do it when storage is so plentiful and cheap. Plus it's
>> only going to get more plentiful and more cheap as time passes.
>> Anymore I shoot pictures that I know I will never use or look at but
>> maybe one time. Such is the world of digital photography.
>>
>> I like the idea of on-line storage that has open access to the general
>> public. This would be the modern version of the record books you can
>> find in about every courthouse. The ones that go back for 150+ years.
>> This way you are providing a resource for anyone to use. Heck, I
>> wouldn't mind if it was government funded. Make it so that every
>> citizen can submit a certain number of megabytes of data every year.
>> You choose what is submitted based on what you want history to know
>> about you or your family. It could be graphics, text, a journal, etc.
>> I bet the cost to run and maintain a national digital archive system
>> wouldn't be that great.
>>
>> Anyway, enough of my rambling. :) 
>>
>
!