Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Long term archiving??

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 10:32:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
two generations?? Any suggestion ??

AFH

More about : long term archiving

Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:13:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Its a tough call...I backup all work to a second drive....and burn DVD as
well.

--
_________________-
BOCH
________________
A+TECH
_________
"A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de...
> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>
> AFH
>
March 20, 2005 3:25:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A.F. Hobbacher wrote:
> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>
> AFH
>

Good quality prints, passed around to numerous interested parties.

Bob
Related resources
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 4:00:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> writes:

> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
> two generations?? Any suggestion ??

I don't think there is a way at this time. CDs were touted as the way for
awhile, but then they started falling apart and and people started saving
to DVDs.

Even if CDs last for generations, there's no way to know that they'll still
be viable as a resource -- like 5 1/4-inch floppies. Nobody has drives for
those that you've still got laying around.

Another issue is that nobody knows what's on a CD, so if your grandkids
stumble across one, they won't know it's your valued imagery -- same with a
DVD.

Many people who post here swear they'll keep up with changing technology
and convert all their data from CDs to DVDs to keep the images available. I
doubt it, but let's say you do manage to keep your files on a medium that's
current at your death. Who's going to do that for you for the next one or
two generations? Who's going to care?

With film, at least the film is there, maybe prints, so people can see what
the images are without having to have a converter or a computer or whatever
it takes to view the zeros and ones. But who knows whether the means to
create prints will continue to exist? Many archives are scanning their
negatives and prints, so the originals are preserved regardless of what
medium is used to present them digitally.

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 4:00:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> writes:

> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
> two generations?? Any suggestion ??

There's no way to do it that's a one-shot process; nothing you can
write the data to and then reliably count on being able to forget it
for a long time and safely read it later.

CDs will *mostly* last that long. I think it's probable that the
drives you have in your computer in 25-50 years will be able to read a
CD, but it's sure not certain. DVDs ditto. Actually, CDs may outlast
the current DVD format, because the current CD format *is* adequate
for its primary purpose, whereas the current DVD format *isn't*
adequate for HDTV-quality movies.

Also don't use weird proprietary file formats. TIFF and JPEG (with
the usual discussion about JPEG for archiving taken as read) will be
stable that long at least.

Take advantage of the fact that you *can* make multiple copies of
digital media. In addition to protecting you somewhat against media
degradation, it will *also* protect you against fire and loss.

Ideally, the physical media should be read by a program that reports
error levels every few years, so that you can copy to new media
*before* they become unreadable. You should also keep in mind the
changes in file formats and in available drives going on in the world
around you, and copy the data to new formats or new media as seems
wise. A digital archive managed with this level of attention will
outlast any analog media. However, a generation's lapse of attention
may lose all the data if you're unlucky.

The best archival-grade CDs are supposed to be good for over 100
years, unless there's some problem with the writer or a sample defect
or they get damaged or something. Kodak claims 120 years for their
Gold Ultima, for example. I've seen claims as high as 300 years for
some gold-reflector CDs.

All the info I've seen says store them up on edge in jewel cases, keep
them out of bright light, avoid extremes of temperature. There's a
report from NIST that's of relevance, at
<http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/CDandDVDCare...;.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
March 20, 2005 6:34:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> The best archival-grade CDs are supposed to be good for over 100
> years, unless there's some problem with the writer or a sample defect
> or they get damaged or something. Kodak claims 120 years for their
> Gold Ultima, for example.

Under certain conditions, one of which includes that the disc be written
by a Kodak cd burner which is in spec. The first caveat of the study
(quoted below) is interesting. It says that if there are any mechanism
that degrade CDs that aren't affected by heat, then the study is
meaningless.

http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Technology/CD-R/Media/Kodak...

QUOTE:

All lifetime predicitons are subject to the following caveats:

1. This methodology can only predict lifetimes limited by the
failure mechanisms which evident themselves at the temperatures and
times encompassed by the experiment. It is always possible that, at
temperatures closer to those experienced during normal use, a different
mechanism will have a higher rate than the mechanisms we have probed,
leading to a reduced product lifetime. The greater the difference
between ambient temperature and the lowest test temperature, the greater
the likelihood of this occurring. In order to cause change over the 3
months the discs were in the environmental chambers, very high
temperatures were required. ("Clock time", including testing and
analysis, was much longer than 3 months. Three month incubations are
common in the optical media industry.)
2. Poor recording or poor playback equipment can drastically reduce
the apparent lifetime of the media. (The obvious extreme: a broken
recorder can create unreadable discs; lifetime appears to be 0.) It is
very important that the initial BLER be representative of a well written
disc.
3. The prediction is only accurate if the Arrhenius model is valid
over the entire temperature range 100°C to 25°C.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 10:29:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> writes:

> "A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> writes:
>
>> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
>> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>
> I don't think there is a way at this time. CDs were touted as the way for
> awhile, but then they started falling apart and and people started saving
> to DVDs.
>
> Even if CDs last for generations, there's no way to know that they'll still
> be viable as a resource -- like 5 1/4-inch floppies. Nobody has drives for
> those that you've still got laying around.

I've got working 5.25" drives, and professional data transfer services
do too. The problem, at this point, is that the *disks* are probably
not readable any more. Magnetic media are a very poor archiving
choice -- diskette, tape, whatever. Short lifespan. Not very
stable.

> Another issue is that nobody knows what's on a CD, so if your grandkids
> stumble across one, they won't know it's your valued imagery -- same with a
> DVD.

One should label them, certainly. And perhaps the boxes they're
stored in as well.

> Many people who post here swear they'll keep up with changing technology
> and convert all their data from CDs to DVDs to keep the images available. I
> doubt it, but let's say you do manage to keep your files on a medium that's
> current at your death. Who's going to do that for you for the next one or
> two generations? Who's going to care?

Probably nobody, but if so, then it doesn't matter.

*I* have been working to carry forward photo images from my
grandparents' and parents' generations, so it doesn't seem that
inconceivable that somebody might continue to care after me.

> With film, at least the film is there, maybe prints, so people can
> see what the images are without having to have a converter or a
> computer or whatever it takes to view the zeros and ones. But who
> knows whether the means to create prints will continue to exist?
> Many archives are scanning their negatives and prints, so the
> originals are preserved regardless of what medium is used to present
> them digitally.

Color prints from the 1960s are mostly gone, ditto negatives. The
materials have deteriorated. I've had to deal with prints, negs, and
slides that are badly faded in my work preserving family photos.

Modern chromagenic materials aren't nearly as bad as the 1960s stuff,
but you still shouldn't count on them for even 50 years in ordinary
household storage. You *might* get that, but you might not.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:49:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> writes:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:29:54 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Color prints from the 1960s are mostly gone, ditto negatives. The
>>materials have deteriorated.
>
>
> Not necessarily. I've got a few from the mid-sixties
> that still scan well. The slides have fared worse,
> except for the Kodachromes. 15 year old Ektar
> negatives scan perfectly.

15 year, sure. And of course there's a range of results from the
1960s materials (as you say, other than Kodachrome), but an awful lot
of the 1960s color consumer photos are gone (note "consumer").

> BTW, I've got pros telling me that DAT and DLT tape
> is good, reliable backup. Drives and media still
> widely available, and very high capacity (eg 20/40 G).

I know that 9-track 1/2" tape wasn't very stable, either. Maybe DAT
and DLT are a heck of a lot better, but I haven't been convinced yet.
Also the drives are darned expensive compared to DVD writers.

> But I used to deal with audio tape in 7" reels, and
> I saw some of that stuff degrade over 10-15 years.

Yep. Consumer 1/4" reel-to-reel, too.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:50:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) writes:

>> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
>> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>
> No one knows yet. I think a good photographic print, using
> time-tested technology, is a good idea for anything you know you want
> to have in a two generations.

Which means B&W silver-gelatine on fiber-base paper. Not color.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:14:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:29:54 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>Color prints from the 1960s are mostly gone, ditto negatives. The
>materials have deteriorated.


Not necessarily. I've got a few from the mid-sixties
that still scan well. The slides have fared worse,
except for the Kodachromes. 15 year old Ektar
negatives scan perfectly.

BTW, I've got pros telling me that DAT and DLT tape
is good, reliable backup. Drives and media still
widely available, and very high capacity (eg 20/40 G).

But I used to deal with audio tape in 7" reels, and
I saw some of that stuff degrade over 10-15 years.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 1:34:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There are a lot of people worrying about this very thing and I believe
that within 5 years there will be a good solution, but it does not
appear to be here yet. It is hard to predict what technology will be
like in 1 to 2 generations, it is very possible that your home computer
will be able to read either CDs or DVD, but there is no guaranty of
this. But I am sure there will be people in the business of reading
CDs and DVD long after they are long gone, like you can get 5.25 floppy
read now. Or supper 8 movies put on to DVD.

I print a selection of my photo from time to time, this is getting
cheaper all the time, at Costco the cost is $0.17 per print. These
prints will last as long as any photographic prints because they are in
fact photographic prints. Here is a photo that is close to 50 years
old that I scanned less then a year ago, it does show some degradation
but it has lasted 50 years fairly well.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/30853013/large.jpg
and Yes I am one of the kids in the photo (I know I am old).
BTW none of the photographic prints that I have inherited come even
close to matching the quality the photos from my Nikon 995 (3.2 MP) and
they don't even come close to the photos from my 20D. And for that
mater printing out at 4 x 6 at Costco loses most of the detail in the
photos, but it could still be a photo worth having if it was the only
copy left.

I keep my two copies of my photos on two separate external hard drives
as well as backup of these photos on DVDs, I make new copies of the
photos every couple of years. I use external drives because the USB
interface to these is likely to be able to more to new computers with
greater ease that the IDE interface the internal drives on my computer
have.

I would say don't fully trust any one technology, they are all so
cheap you don't have to. Prints are good because once you are gone
the people going through you stuff will recognize them and go through
them if they have the interest. Files stored on your computer or a
collection of CDs and DVDs might not do so well.
But the digital files will be the cleanest copies if they are found and
read so by all means keep those as well. A lot depends on who is going
to be looking at your stuff when you are gone and how computer savvy
they are.

Scott
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 1:46:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

One more important thing I forgot to add, make sure you save your photo
as jpegs, it is fine to save the raw files as well but the jpeg
standard will be able to be read by programs for many years to come,
the same can not be said for the current raw formats, you also don't
want to force your relatives to try to figure out how to converter raw
files.
March 21, 2005 2:41:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Print them...
Just like the olden days of film.
JJ
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 2:49:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) writes:

>>> No one knows yet. I think a good photographic print, using
>>> time-tested technology, is a good idea for anything you know you want
>>> to have in a two generations.
>>
>>Which means B&W silver-gelatine on fiber-base paper. Not color.
>
> Fair enough. (I don't know - print out CMYK separately?)

Certainly B&W separation prints would preserve the color -- you only
need three really, RGB like the film layers.

Or you could go to more exotic technologies -- dye transfer (but the
Kodak materials haven't been manufactured in years) is pretty stable
especially in the dark.

Or you could choose to believe the Wilhelm Research testing results on
inkjet inks, and make an Epson Ultrachrome print -- but we started
down this track to avoid relying on accelerated testing results, so
that's probably not the right choice! (I think the Wilhelm results
are the best we have on these new materials, but I still think they're
a long way from well-established fact.)

I've wondered how high a data density you could get in 2-dimensional
barcodes at page size. Could you print the data for say a 1MB jpeg on
an 8.5x11 sheet? You'd need a scanner and software to recover the
data, but those are unlikely to go away. And there's still the
question of the paper+ink stability. But maybe we could agree that a
carbon-based pigment black ink on pure cotton paper was stable enough?
And you can buy such inks for inkjet printers.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 2:54:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:

> By the way, is there a good utility for reading an already written CD-R and
> reporting how error-free the data is???

I'm still using an old copy of CD-R Diagnostic, but I don't think it's
available any more. Seems to me I found a number of programs in this
market segment when I googled around a while ago.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 5:27:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
> two generations?? Any suggestion ??

No one knows yet. I think a good photographic print, using
time-tested technology, is a good idea for anything you know you want
to have in a two generations.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 5:52:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> No one knows yet. I think a good photographic print, using
>> time-tested technology, is a good idea for anything you know you want
>> to have in a two generations.
>
>Which means B&W silver-gelatine on fiber-base paper. Not color.

Fair enough. (I don't know - print out CMYK separately?)

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:34:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:

> Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> writes:
>>SNIP<

> I've got working 5.25" drives, and professional data transfer services
> do too.

Three or four people do, and one of them always posts to point this
out. The people with the diskettes (and in coming generations, the CDs)
don't, though, and they'll just toss the diskettes since they can't read
it.

>SNIP<
> > Another issue is that nobody knows what's on a CD, so if your grandkids
> > stumble across one, they won't know it's your valued imagery -- same with a
> > DVD.
>
> One should label them, certainly. And perhaps the boxes they're
> stored in as well.

Yes, and that creates its own problems -- people are reporting that the
adhesives in the labels and the chemicals in the inks are wrecking CDs, and
the recommendation now appears to write in ink in the clear area in the
center of the CD. Not much room for a full reckoning of the contents, but
that's another story.

>
> > Many people who post here swear they'll keep up with changing technology
> > and convert all their data from CDs to DVDs to keep the images available. I
> > doubt it, but let's say you do manage to keep your files on a medium that's
> > current at your death. Who's going to do that for you for the next one or
> > two generations? Who's going to care?
>
> Probably nobody, but if so, then it doesn't matter.

Well, I'll disagree with that. Someone in this thread has posted about
'old' photos with "Jill and the Ghost," and his assumptions about who is
referred to. Identifying the persons may end up of less interest than the
car, the clothing, or the location. The town I live in has large,
wall-sized blow ups of photos from the teens and twenties of the last
century. Nobody has a clue who the people are, but there's quite a bit of
interest in what buildings still survive, the fact that "B" Street is dirt
in the photos, and so on. Just because we don't know now who Jill and the
Ghost are doesn't mean that the photos won't have an interest that
transcends the individual identies when it's one or two generations later.

>
> *I* have been working to carry forward photo images from my
> grandparents' and parents' generations, so it doesn't seem that
> inconceivable that somebody might continue to care after me.

You're saying 'photo images.' I take it these are prints and maybe
negatives. There likely will be interest, but one of the reasons is that
there is no intermediary required to view the 'photo images.' People pick
up the print and are immediately (or not -- they may not be interested)
drawn to the picture. No need to boot a computer, find an appropriate
access mechanism (CD or DVD or tape drive), launch applications, and so on.

>SNIP<
> Color prints from the 1960s are mostly gone, ditto negatives. The
> materials have deteriorated. I've had to deal with prints, negs, and
> slides that are badly faded in my work preserving family photos.
>
> Modern chromagenic materials aren't nearly as bad as the 1960s stuff,
> but you still shouldn't count on them for even 50 years in ordinary
> household storage. You *might* get that, but you might not.

You've gotten other answers on this, but I refer you to your own
photographs which you are working to carry forward.

Another thing to consider is that the old prints may be folded, torn,
stained, color-shifted or otherwise damages, but those people are still in
there in the frame smiling into the sun with those old black cars with
running boards. Analogue imagery survives, doesn't it? Fold a CD, spill
coffee on a 5 1/4-inch diskette -- the digital media don't quite hold up to
the wears and tears. The pink-cast prints from the 60s are still
recoverable with some scanning and Photoshopping, even in the hands of a
consumer. Recovering data from a broken DVD or coffee-soaked archive tape
may be beyond the capabillities of mere mortals, and without knowing what's
on the recorded medium, I fear the temptation is just to toss it.

I don't think this is an answer to the original question, though. Sure, you
can argue with my points, but answer the original question. That will be
the best refutation of my comments.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
March 21, 2005 12:59:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>>What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
>>two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>
>
> No one knows yet. I think a good photographic print, using
> time-tested technology, is a good idea for anything you know you want
> to have in a two generations.
>


Here's a really good tip though: Label the pictures. There's a plastic
bag of photos in my office that are from the 20's through the 50's. I
was looking at them this AM. I've got no clue who anyone is. There's not
much point to old photos, if you don't know who they are.

It's not enough to lable them with first names either. There's one I saw
that is labeled. It says "Jill and the Ghost." The Ghost is obviously
the big white car Jill is posing next to, but I've got no clue who Jill
is, or if she might be related to my wife.

The pictures came from her parents house, but most of them were acquired
by them from one of her aunts. Keep that in mind as you label -- you
don't know what path your photos will take.

Bob
March 21, 2005 1:02:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>>>No one knows yet. I think a good photographic print, using
>>>time-tested technology, is a good idea for anything you know you want
>>>to have in a two generations.
>>
>>Which means B&W silver-gelatine on fiber-base paper. Not color.
>
>
> Fair enough. (I don't know - print out CMYK separately?)
>

I've been wondering about color LaserJet prints on acid free paper. They
seem to be very durable. They don't fade on my dashboard; even in the
yard they retain toner for a good while.

Our office has photocopies that are 20 years old and show no signs of
deterioration.

Bob
March 21, 2005 1:04:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott W wrote:
> One more important thing I forgot to add, make sure you save your photo
> as jpegs, it is fine to save the raw files as well but the jpeg
> standard will be able to be read by programs for many years to come,
> the same can not be said for the current raw formats, you also don't
> want to force your relatives to try to figure out how to converter raw
> files.
>

I trust Adobe .psd a lot more than .jpg.

There's no reason to believe there will ever be a day when today's
software can't be made to run (in emulation). You can run all of
yesterday's software, with just a tad bit of work.

Bob
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:28:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:49:35 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> BTW, I've got pros telling me that DAT and DLT tape
> >> is good, reliable backup. Drives and media still
> >> widely available, and very high capacity (eg 20/40 G).
> >
> >I know that 9-track 1/2" tape wasn't very stable, either. Maybe DAT
> >and DLT are a heck of a lot better, but I haven't been convinced yet.
> >Also the drives are darned expensive compared to DVD writers.
>
>
> About $500 for DAT drives, but then the media
> holds a lot more data than a DVD. I haven't
> sprung for it myself, I'm skeptical just like you.

When I worked for AT&T's Tokyo Unix operaration, we religiously backed up
everything to tape cassettes every week.

The system crashed and the tapes couldn't be read.

Oops.

I'll pass on anything that looks even vaguely resembles tape.

By the way, is there a good utility for reading an already written CD-R and
reporting how error-free the data is???

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
March 21, 2005 4:18:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>>Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> writes:
>>
>>>SNIP<
>
>
>>I've got working 5.25" drives, and professional data transfer services
>>do too.
>
>
> Three or four people do, and one of them always posts to point this
> out. The people with the diskettes (and in coming generations, the CDs)
> don't, though, and they'll just toss the diskettes since they can't read
> it.

When my wife and I got married, we had an extra CD player (audio). I set
it aside. A few years later I decided to hook it up in another room. It
had quit working. At the office we have a 5.25" drive, but it hasn't
been in a computer in quite some time. I wonder if it actually still
works, or if we all just assume it does because it had been working when
it was removed from equipment.

> the recommendation now appears to write in ink in the clear area in the
> center of the CD. Not much room for a full reckoning of the contents, but
> that's another story.

I've taken to writing only on the paper sleeves. Sometimes I write on
that center spot, to key it to the paper, or to date it, but more often
I just hope I can keep the sleeve with the disc.

>
> Well, I'll disagree with that. Someone in this thread has posted about
> 'old' photos with "Jill and the Ghost," and his assumptions about who is
> referred to. Identifying the persons may end up of less interest than the
> car, the clothing, or the location. The town I live in has large,
> wall-sized blow ups of photos from the teens and twenties of the last
> century. Nobody has a clue who the people are, but there's quite a bit of
> interest in what buildings still survive, the fact that "B" Street is dirt
> in the photos, and so on. Just because we don't know now who Jill and the
> Ghost are doesn't mean that the photos won't have an interest that
> transcends the individual identies when it's one or two generations later.

That's a valid point, but it makes the labels even more important. If
you were doing research on the car, the town, *and* the clothing, I
might have all your answers in my one little picture, but I'd never know
you were looking for it, because I don't know when or where it was taken
(or even what kind of car it is).

[...]

Bob
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 4:18:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob <not@not.not> writes:
[regarding my comment about finding unlabeled photos interesting...]
> That's a valid point, but it makes the labels even more important. If
> you were doing research on the car, the town, *and* the clothing, I
> might have all your answers in my one little picture, but I'd never know
> you were looking for it, because I don't know when or where it was taken
> (or even what kind of car it is).

I wasn't clear, though. It's not that somebody is doing a search for 1963
Dodge Lancers, which the Ghost is (in my hypothetical), it's that someone
happens across the photo and says, OMG, look at that car, that dress, oooh,
that hair style! And then does something creative. Or just scans the photo,
enlarges it, and puts it on the wall in a retro-60s malt shop. Among my
points is that with the print sitting there in a shoebox 150 years from
now, that serendipity is possible. If the image were on a CD, it's not --
at least not without wading through the problems of finding a CD reader, a
computer that the CD reader can attach to (you think USB will still be
around in 150 years?), a readable CD with no clue what's on it (kevlar
sleeve still with the CD in 150 yeasr? Ink on the sleeve still readable?
Sleeve itself still extant?), a program which can mount the CD, a program
which can access and read the data, then display it.

People stumbling across data in analogue form can access it with
wetware. :-> Assuming there's still wetware in 150 years.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 4:18:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Although, of course, there's now
http://www.ourmedia.org/
for lifetime storage or till they go under, whichever sooner occurs.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 5:49:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> writes:
>>>SNIP<
>
>> I've got working 5.25" drives, and professional data transfer services
>> do too.
>
> Three or four people do, and one of them always posts to point this
> out. The people with the diskettes (and in coming generations, the CDs)
> don't, though, and they'll just toss the diskettes since they can't read
> it.

And the professional data transfer services, don't forget them. The
point being that data that's wanted and is stuck on 5.25" floppies
*isn't unrecoverable*.

>>SNIP<
>> > Another issue is that nobody knows what's on a CD, so if your grandkids
>> > stumble across one, they won't know it's your valued imagery -- same with a
>> > DVD.
>>
>> One should label them, certainly. And perhaps the boxes they're
>> stored in as well.
>
> Yes, and that creates its own problems -- people are reporting that the
> adhesives in the labels and the chemicals in the inks are wrecking CDs, and
> the recommendation now appears to write in ink in the clear area in the
> center of the CD. Not much room for a full reckoning of the contents, but
> that's another story.

I'd never dream of adhesive labels on an archival CD. Ink chemicals
are an issue I worry about, I try to pick sensible pens (and CDs with
a good protective layer over the reflector).

>> > Many people who post here swear they'll keep up with changing technology
>> > and convert all their data from CDs to DVDs to keep the images available. I
>> > doubt it, but let's say you do manage to keep your files on a medium that's
>> > current at your death. Who's going to do that for you for the next one or
>> > two generations? Who's going to care?
>>
>> Probably nobody, but if so, then it doesn't matter.
>
> Well, I'll disagree with that. Someone in this thread has posted
> about 'old' photos with "Jill and the Ghost," and his assumptions
> about who is referred to. Identifying the persons may end up of less
> interest than the car, the clothing, or the location. The town I
> live in has large, wall-sized blow ups of photos from the teens and
> twenties of the last century. Nobody has a clue who the people are,
> but there's quite a bit of interest in what buildings still survive,
> the fact that "B" Street is dirt in the photos, and so on. Just
> because we don't know now who Jill and the Ghost are doesn't mean
> that the photos won't have an interest that transcends the
> individual identies when it's one or two generations later.

Some photos will survive; random CDs from various sources. Just like
some tiny percentage of the snapshots from the 1930s survive.

>> *I* have been working to carry forward photo images from my
>> grandparents' and parents' generations, so it doesn't seem that
>> inconceivable that somebody might continue to care after me.
>
> You're saying 'photo images.' I take it these are prints and maybe
> negatives. There likely will be interest, but one of the reasons is
> that there is no intermediary required to view the 'photo images.'
> People pick up the print and are immediately (or not -- they may not
> be interested) drawn to the picture. No need to boot a computer,
> find an appropriate access mechanism (CD or DVD or tape drive),
> launch applications, and so on.

Maybe, but I find that there's much more interest in them since I've
put them on my web site. The family can all find them and all see
them that way.

>>SNIP<
>> Color prints from the 1960s are mostly gone, ditto negatives. The
>> materials have deteriorated. I've had to deal with prints, negs, and
>> slides that are badly faded in my work preserving family photos.
>>
>> Modern chromagenic materials aren't nearly as bad as the 1960s stuff,
>> but you still shouldn't count on them for even 50 years in ordinary
>> household storage. You *might* get that, but you might not.
>
> You've gotten other answers on this, but I refer you to your own
> photographs which you are working to carry forward.

Yes, and my own photos are the ones that have convinced me that
chromagenic materials don't last very well.

> Another thing to consider is that the old prints may be folded,
> torn, stained, color-shifted or otherwise damages, but those people
> are still in there in the frame smiling into the sun with those old
> black cars with running boards. Analogue imagery survives, doesn't
> it? Fold a CD, spill coffee on a 5 1/4-inch diskette -- the digital
> media don't quite hold up to the wears and tears. The pink-cast
> prints from the 60s are still recoverable with some scanning and
> Photoshopping, even in the hands of a consumer. Recovering data from
> a broken DVD or coffee-soaked archive tape may be beyond the
> capabillities of mere mortals, and without knowing what's on the
> recorded medium, I fear the temptation is just to toss it.

Sure, analog degrades more gradually. But, as I've said repeatedly,
I've dealt with 1960s photos where the color was completely
unrecoverable and the image was iffy. That's only 40 years ago. I've
got CDs half that old that are still perfectly readable. The digital
media are getting close to demonstrating longer lives in the real
world than commonly-used color photo materials.

> I don't think this is an answer to the original question,
> though. Sure, you can argue with my points, but answer the original
> question. That will be the best refutation of my comments.

I don't want to completely refute your comments, either. Lots of
people think burning something onto one CD makes it eternal, and
that's nonsense.

You say there isn't a way to preserve digital images for two
generations, which I'll call 50 years just to be more specific. I
think that's overly pessimistic. If you're asking me for an
*absolutely certain* way to accomplish it, I'll freely admit there is
none. But that's true for preserving conventional film and prints,
too; bad processing or manufacturing batches can get you, and those
materials will fade significantly in 50 years in room-temperature
storage. And the house they're in might burn down. If I make CD and
DVD copies on 6 brands of media, test them after burning to be sure
they're good, and distribute those 6 copies among interested people
who agree to test and recopy as necessary, I think the digital results
will have a much better chance of lasting 50 years in perfect
condition than the conventional film and prints. If those 6 disks are
put in boxes in various attics and basements, I think they have an
equal chance of at least one of them lasting 50 years as conventional
film and prints put in boxes in attics and basements (the film and
prints are considerably more sensitive to humidity).

And you're ignoring the possibilty of making prints, of course; which
will last however long the materials will last, but it's no longer
dependent on the source being digital.

Also remember that the RA-4 print materials most commonly used haven't
been around for 50 years either. Our ideas on how long they will last
are based on the same accelerated testing procedures that people
complain so much about with inkjet prints and digital media.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 5:49:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:

> And the professional data transfer services, don't forget them. The
> point being that data that's wanted and is stuck on 5.25" floppies
> *isn't unrecoverable*.

Oh, the point is that data on a 5 1/4-inch floppy is completely unknown and
therefore will _not_ be recoverable. If I find a 5 1/4-inch floppy in my
file drawer where it fell down in between folders who knows how many
decades ago, I'm tossing it. It's trash. I don't know what's on it, but if
I haven't used it in that long, I'm not going to go hire a professional
data service to recover the data at who knows what cost, only to find it's
a real estate financial analysis I did on whatever that spreadsheet was
that ran on my 8088 IBM PC with dual floppy drives.

Whatever is on there is not worth the expense of the recovery, as far as I
can tell.

>SNIP<
> You say there isn't a way to preserve digital images for two
> generations, which I'll call 50 years just to be more specific. I

I'll agree on 50 years being two generations.

> think that's overly pessimistic. If you're asking me for an

Maybe -- I won't object to pessimistic, and I won't strenuously object to
overly, as I think that's a matter of judgment.

> *absolutely certain* way to accomplish it, I'll freely admit there is
> none. But that's true for preserving conventional film and prints,
> too; bad processing or manufacturing batches can get you, and those
> materials will fade significantly in 50 years in room-temperature
> storage. And the house they're in might burn down. If I make CD and
> DVD copies on 6 brands of media, test them after burning to be sure
> they're good, and distribute those 6 copies among interested people
> who agree to test and recopy as necessary, I think the digital results
> will have a much better chance of lasting 50 years in perfect
> condition than the conventional film and prints. If those 6 disks are
> put in boxes in various attics and basements, I think they have an
> equal chance of at least one of them lasting 50 years as conventional
> film and prints put in boxes in attics and basements (the film and
> prints are considerably more sensitive to humidity).

Okay, two things: I am not sure that the digital archives will last 50
years. I'm comfortable that the prints and negatives we have will; we've
already got prints and negatives older than that. I'm less confident in
whatever they're making CDs of. Among the issues: degradation of the
physical medium, failure of the metal that the bits are burned into,
failure in 50 years to have access to the CDs or DVDs in any consumer goods
then being sold (look back 50 years in computers and pick me something from
then (punch cards, tapes, whatever) that I can get hooked up in a device to
my home PC and read).

Second, if you come across a box of photos, you look in and see what's
there. If you come across a box of CDs, you look at the shiny surface (or
corroded, delaminated mess, as the case may be), and say, "Huh." Then you
toss them.

Taking both things into account, I am not confident that CDs will still
result in people looking at the pretty pictures. I am confident that prints
in a shoebox will result in photos being seen by the people who live over
our hypothetical basement two generations from now.

>SNIP<
> Also remember that the RA-4 print materials most commonly used haven't
> been around for 50 years either. Our ideas on how long they will last
> are based on the same accelerated testing procedures that people
> complain so much about with inkjet prints and digital media.

Hence my pessimism about how long so-called archival media will last with
all the bits burned in.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 5:53:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:

> "A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de...
>> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
>> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>>
>> AFH
>>
>
> The BEST way--no kidding--is to print the images on silver halide paper,
> from a source like OFOTO.COM, and to store them in archival albums.
>
> I mean this sincerely, this is not a wisecrack answer.

Wisecrack is a matter of intent, so your claim is definitive. It is,
however, a *wrong* answer.

Color photos printed that way are good for 50 years or so. Color
photos printing with Epson Ultrachrome pigmented inkjet inks are good
for > 200 years in album storage.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
March 21, 2005 6:48:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling wrote:

>
> I wasn't clear, though. It's not that somebody is doing a search for 1963
> Dodge Lancers, which the Ghost is (in my hypothetical), it's that someone
> happens across the photo and says, OMG, look at that car, that dress, oooh,
> that hair style!

That's a good point, but I'd still find the photos more interesting if I
knew what/where/when/why. I agree completely with you that physical
prints are the way to maximize the likelyhood that someone will keep them.

Bob
March 21, 2005 6:50:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

2005-03-21, bob wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
>> One more important thing I forgot to add, make sure you save your photo
>> as jpegs, it is fine to save the raw files as well but the jpeg
>> standard will be able to be read by programs for many years to come,
>> the same can not be said for the current raw formats, you also don't
>> want to force your relatives to try to figure out how to converter raw
>> files.
>>
>
> I trust Adobe .psd a lot more than .jpg.
>
> There's no reason to believe there will ever be a day when today's
> software can't be made to run (in emulation). You can run all of
> yesterday's software, with just a tad bit of work.

There is a very good reason - DRM. Before you know it software will be
tied to processor IDs and I know what not - it will not run in emulation.
For long term storage you really need to use open and free standards.

-peter

--
(format t "~&~{~<~%~1:;~a~>~^,~}.~%"
'(een twee drie vier hoedje van papier))
March 21, 2005 6:50:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter wrote:
> 2005-03-21, bob wrote:
>
>>Scott W wrote:
>>
>>>One more important thing I forgot to add, make sure you save your photo
>>>as jpegs, it is fine to save the raw files as well but the jpeg
>>>standard will be able to be read by programs for many years to come,
>>>the same can not be said for the current raw formats, you also don't
>>>want to force your relatives to try to figure out how to converter raw
>>>files.
>>>
>>
>>I trust Adobe .psd a lot more than .jpg.
>>
>>There's no reason to believe there will ever be a day when today's
>>software can't be made to run (in emulation). You can run all of
>>yesterday's software, with just a tad bit of work.
>
>
> There is a very good reason - DRM. Before you know it software will be
> tied to processor IDs and I know what not - it will not run in emulation.
> For long term storage you really need to use open and free standards.
>

You have a point. All of my "today" softare is actually a few years old.
So far I have resisted buying stuff that requires activation.

But I think you're wrong anyway. The emulation crowd is pretty hard
core. No one has invented a system that can't be broken. A lot of new
coin-op games use encrypted roms.

Bob
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 8:52:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:

> I trust Adobe .psd a lot more than .jpg.
>
> There's no reason to believe there will ever be a day when today's
> software can't be made to run (in emulation). You can run all of
> yesterday's software, with just a tad bit of work.
>
> Bob
jpg files can be read by everything, even my DVD player can show jpgs
on the TV. The code to decode jpg files is in the public domain, see
the independent jpeg group. jpegs are imbedded in millions of web
pages. Why on earth would you trust .psd files before jpeg?

I will point out that there is now no current software that can open
AuotCAD filers that are earlier then about 6 years ago.

Thinking that support for jpeg files will disappear is like worrying
that support for ASCII will disappear, and I will point out that ASCII
has been around for a long time now.

Scott
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 8:54:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> And the professional data transfer services, don't forget them. The
>> point being that data that's wanted and is stuck on 5.25" floppies
>> *isn't unrecoverable*.
>
> Oh, the point is that data on a 5 1/4-inch floppy is completely
> unknown and therefore will _not_ be recoverable. If I find a 5
> 1/4-inch floppy in my file drawer where it fell down in between
> folders who knows how many decades ago, I'm tossing it. It's
> trash. I don't know what's on it, but if I haven't used it in that
> long, I'm not going to go hire a professional data service to
> recover the data at who knows what cost, only to find it's a real
> estate financial analysis I did on whatever that spreadsheet was
> that ran on my 8088 IBM PC with dual floppy drives.
>
> Whatever is on there is not worth the expense of the recovery, as
> far as I can tell.

I labeled my disks that I thought of as saving anything for posterity,
so a label indicating family photos would definitely catch my
attention.

>>SNIP<
>> You say there isn't a way to preserve digital images for two
>> generations, which I'll call 50 years just to be more specific. I
>
> I'll agree on 50 years being two generations.
>
>> think that's overly pessimistic. If you're asking me for an
>
> Maybe -- I won't object to pessimistic, and I won't strenuously object to
> overly, as I think that's a matter of judgment.
>
>> *absolutely certain* way to accomplish it, I'll freely admit there is
>> none. But that's true for preserving conventional film and prints,
>> too; bad processing or manufacturing batches can get you, and those
>> materials will fade significantly in 50 years in room-temperature
>> storage. And the house they're in might burn down. If I make CD and
>> DVD copies on 6 brands of media, test them after burning to be sure
>> they're good, and distribute those 6 copies among interested people
>> who agree to test and recopy as necessary, I think the digital results
>> will have a much better chance of lasting 50 years in perfect
>> condition than the conventional film and prints. If those 6 disks are
>> put in boxes in various attics and basements, I think they have an
>> equal chance of at least one of them lasting 50 years as conventional
>> film and prints put in boxes in attics and basements (the film and
>> prints are considerably more sensitive to humidity).
>
> Okay, two things: I am not sure that the digital archives will last 50
> years. I'm comfortable that the prints and negatives we have will; we've
> already got prints and negatives older than that. I'm less confident in
> whatever they're making CDs of. Among the issues: degradation of the
> physical medium, failure of the metal that the bits are burned into,
> failure in 50 years to have access to the CDs or DVDs in any consumer goods
> then being sold (look back 50 years in computers and pick me something from
> then (punch cards, tapes, whatever) that I can get hooked up in a device to
> my home PC and read).

Your comfort that prints and negatives will last 50 years is
contradicted quite a lot of evidence, however. I think this is
actually the biggest point of disagreement between us; we both
acknowledge essentially the same plus and minus factors for the
digital archive, though we may weight them differently. But I think
we actually differ on the permanence of consumer snapshot prints.

Consumer snapshot prints have a lifespan *completely unrelated* to
silver-gelatine B&W prints and negatives. We do agree on that, right?

I've dealt with consumer snapshot prints and also slides taken
significantly less than 50 years ago that are badly faded. One print
my mother had was faded to the point where no color was recoverable.

Wilhelm released results for the Kodak Edge Generations silver halide
color paper (commonly used in digital minilabs) giving it a 19 year
rating. The Fuji Crystal Archive paper got 40 years. These ratings
are for fading "significantly", rather than "to nothing", so even the
Kodak might well still be somewhat usable as a picture in 50 years.

> Second, if you come across a box of photos, you look in and see
> what's there. If you come across a box of CDs, you look at the shiny
> surface (or corroded, delaminated mess, as the case may be), and
> say, "Huh." Then you toss them.

You may be right about this importance of seeing an image
immediately. At lest for *some* people, and that will affect the odds
of stuff being salvaged.

However, multiple copies helps with that a lot too. If you can
distribute copies of the family photos to the whole family, somebody
who cares is more likely to have a copy. This is much easier in
digital than with prints.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
March 21, 2005 11:09:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de...
> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>
> AFH
>

The BEST way--no kidding--is to print the images on silver halide paper,
from a source like OFOTO.COM, and to store them in archival albums.

I mean this sincerely, this is not a wisecrack answer.

It is a virtual certainty that CD and DVD technology will be eclipsed, and
if YOU are not around to migrate your images to whatever is in vogue in the
future, your precious CDs may just be chucked into the trashbin by someone
that does not know what is on them.

Hers is a true story:

My elderly aunt went into a nursing home several years ago, when she had no
one left to care for her. The court-appointed social worker arranged to
have her condo cleaned out and sold, as there was no chance that my aunt
would ever be going back to live in it. A professional residential
clean-out service was hired to inventory and sell the furniture and other
effects.

They saw no monetary value in the three photo albums that contained family
photos going back to the late 1930s, so they just checked them into the
trash dumpster in back of the building.

My brother happened to be there to have a look at what was going on at the
condo, and he just happened to walk past the dumpster and he noticed the
photo albums (he did not recognize them as belonging to my aunt). He pulled
them out and, lo and behold, there were hundreds of photos of our parents,
aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc!!! He rescued the albums and
brought them to me so I could scan and preserve the images, and distribute
copies to other family members.

Now, why did I tell you this? Because there is an important truth to be
remembered: the only reason that the images were salvaged was because they
could be VIEWED without any special equipment. Had they been on CDs, they
would have, no doubt, never been taken from the trash heap and they would be
on a landfill somewhere, rather than being safe with me.

While I certainly endorse digital archiving, I do so with the condition that
the digital media be accompanied with some kind of analog print--perhaps
just an index print--but there needs to be SOMETHING that reveals what is
contained on the digital media.

Even with that, I am embarking on a program of having PRINTS made of
important photos, and I am storing those prints in archival sleeves, bound
in albums, and stored in as close to ideal temperature and humidity
conditions as I can. The photos are all labeled, and there are CDs
accompanying them in the albums, in case it becomes necessary to reprint the
images.

I also am distributing copies of the CDs to other family members, with the
objective of having copies in diverse places in case of a fire, flood, theft
or other disaster.

But I am convinced that THE most important part of my archiving project is
the actual prints. I hope this gives you food for thought.
March 21, 2005 11:12:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2y8chd862.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) writes:
>
>
> Which means B&W silver-gelatine on fiber-base paper. Not color.
> --

For the most irreplaceable prints, you are correct--but I got the sense that
the OP was asking about techniques to archive a lot of images. Color
separations, for home users, are not practical if done in large quantities.

I'd recommend analog prints, rather than relying on just digital media.
March 21, 2005 11:17:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
news:o kB%d.41101$c72.26776@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Scott W wrote:
> > One more important thing I forgot to add, make sure you save your photo
> > as jpegs, it is fine to save the raw files as well but the jpeg
> > standard will be able to be read by programs for many years to come,
> > the same can not be said for the current raw formats, you also don't
> > want to force your relatives to try to figure out how to converter raw
> > files.
> >
>
> I trust Adobe .psd a lot more than .jpg.
>
> There's no reason to believe there will ever be a day when today's
> software can't be made to run (in emulation). You can run all of
> yesterday's software, with just a tad bit of work.
>
> Bob

The real problem is that one's descendants may not bother to try to decode
the images from whatever media they are stored on, but will just discard the
tapes/CS/DVDs/or whatever.

Whatever strategy one uses to archive their images should include analog
prints, stored under good temperature and humidity conditions (stored in a
bedroom closet rather than in an attic or basement).
March 21, 2005 11:21:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
news:o kB%d.41101$c72.26776@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> I trust Adobe .psd a lot more than .jpg.
>
>

Perhaps *you* trust Adobe's proprietary format, but the majority of
institutions are archiving as uncompressed TIF files. Even TIF is now in
its 6th incarnation, and it may be supplanted by some other format in the
future.

Perhaps you remember some of the extinct word-processor formats from the
1980s, like MultiMate from Ashton-Tate (a computer version of the Wang Word
Processing machine) or WordPerfect for DOS, which at one time was THE
program in use by law firms. How about the original Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet
files? I read several years ago that they are unreadable today, even by
Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows!

If there is one thing that has become apparent, it is that today's shining
star software or format will become tomorrow's extinct dinosaur.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 11:21:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <w1G%d.459$z.117@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

> "bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
> news:o kB%d.41101$c72.26776@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > I trust Adobe .psd a lot more than .jpg.
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps *you* trust Adobe's proprietary format, but the majority of
> institutions are archiving as uncompressed TIF files. Even TIF is now in
> its 6th incarnation, and it may be supplanted by some other format in the
> future.
>
> Perhaps you remember some of the extinct word-processor formats from the
> 1980s, like MultiMate from Ashton-Tate (a computer version of the Wang Word
> Processing machine) or WordPerfect for DOS, which at one time was THE
> program in use by law firms. How about the original Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet
> files? I read several years ago that they are unreadable today, even by
> Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows!
>
> If there is one thing that has become apparent, it is that today's shining
> star software or format will become tomorrow's extinct dinosaur.

I doubt there will ever come a day where jpg or tif aren't recognized.

I also expect that should a new and better format come along that has
wide acceptance - applications will do much as they do today. They will
recognize old files and offer to convert to something "more modern".
Their new storage will be so much more dense and perhaps include better
methods for organizing the images. I think the truly hard part today is
how to gather and store (today) the metadata that future systems will be
able to use well.

The cost of digital archiving is that the formats and media may have to
be updated every 20 years or so. If you come late to a particular
format or choose poorly (.psd) you may end up having to convert in 5 or
ten years - or risk losing everything. Choose wisely and it really can
be something you need only do a few times in a life time and it should
get easier each time.


mgg
--
sig goes here
March 21, 2005 11:21:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeremy wrote:
> "bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
> news:o kB%d.41101$c72.26776@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
>>I trust Adobe .psd a lot more than .jpg.
>
>
> Perhaps *you* trust Adobe's proprietary format, but the majority of
> institutions are archiving as uncompressed TIF files.

It's not proprietary in the way that people typically use the word
though, since third party applications (Irfanview, GIMP & PSP to name
several that I use) will read it. Do you think the Linux community will
abandon .psd?

> Even TIF is now in
> its 6th incarnation, and it may be supplanted by some other format in the
> future.
>
> Perhaps you remember some of the extinct word-processor formats from the
> 1980s, like MultiMate from Ashton-Tate (a computer version of the Wang Word
> Processing machine) or WordPerfect for DOS, which at one time was THE
> program in use by law firms. How about the original Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet
> files? I read several years ago that they are unreadable today, even by
> Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows!

You can still run all that software. You can probably download binaries
of all of it for free if you look. You can put just about all the
software that was ever published (in English) for Apple II comptuers on
a single CD, and you can run it all on a PC today. You can run Macintosh
Quadra vintage code on a PC too. I expect the quality of emulation to
imrpove in coming years, rather that the opposite.

> If there is one thing that has become apparent, it is that today's shining
> star software or format will become tomorrow's extinct dinosaur.

As long as I can run my copy of it I'm not too concerned. When I die my
wife won't know what to do with any of the files anyway, which is why
I've been recommending good quality prints. Is it possible there is a
future where Adobe is not the leading company in imaging. I suppose so,
but it doesn't seem likely.

Bob
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 11:48:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Something I recently read, and then experienced with a cheap CD
(fortunately
just a homemade mp3 disc for work) is that the top surface, where you would
write, is thinner and more fragile than the side it is read from. I
actually
got a small bubble in the foil that with very little coaxing I spread quite
a ways from the top of the CD. There's generally much less protecting the
foil on the top of the CD.

mike

>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>>
>> Yes, and that creates its own problems -- people are reporting that the
>> adhesives in the labels and the chemicals in the inks are wrecking CDs,
>> and
>> the recommendation now appears to write in ink in the clear area in the
>> center of the CD. Not much room for a full reckoning of the contents, but
>> that's another story.
March 22, 2005 12:02:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

2005-03-21, bob wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>>
>> There is a very good reason - DRM. Before you know it software will be
>> tied to processor IDs and I know what not - it will not run in emulation.
>> For long term storage you really need to use open and free standards.
>>
>
> You have a point. All of my "today" softare is actually a few years old.
> So far I have resisted buying stuff that requires activation.
>
> But I think you're wrong anyway. The emulation crowd is pretty hard
> core. No one has invented a system that can't be broken. A lot of new
> coin-op games use encrypted roms.

Maybe, but do you want to rely on other cracking copy protection for your
long-term storage? I think not...

-peter

--
(format t "~&~{~<~%~1:;~a~>~^,~}.~%"
'(een twee drie vier hoedje van papier))
March 22, 2005 12:03:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter wrote:
> 2005-03-21, bob wrote:
>
>>Peter wrote:
>>
>>>There is a very good reason - DRM. Before you know it software will be
>>>tied to processor IDs and I know what not - it will not run in emulation.
>>>For long term storage you really need to use open and free standards.
>>>
>>
>>You have a point. All of my "today" softare is actually a few years old.
>>So far I have resisted buying stuff that requires activation.
>>
>>But I think you're wrong anyway. The emulation crowd is pretty hard
>>core. No one has invented a system that can't be broken. A lot of new
>>coin-op games use encrypted roms.
>
>
> Maybe, but do you want to rely on other cracking copy protection for your
> long-term storage? I think not...
>

But none of my software needs any cracking. That was part of my point. I
just need to rely on someone emulating a windows box, which is already
done in Linux.

Bob
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 12:03:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It is amazing how quickly hardware becomes obsolete. 5.5 inch discs
have been mentioned. I came across some I wanted to read recently and
I am still searching for a friend with an antique computer (g). It's
not something that I really *need* to do but I partially remember that
there is some interesting stuff on the discs. I decided to increase my
machine's memory from 256MB to 512 and I had a devil of a job finding
266MHz memory. All my (once)-favorite store had was 333MHz and they
sneered at my two-year old motherboard!

Silver process black and white prints can have an amazing lifetime but
not everything is suitable for that. I suppose color separation
monochrome prints would work but that's not a thing that is easily
automated. There were some wonderful ancient Russian color photographs
published recently.

I think the best thing to do for archival storage is to use a dynamic
approach: every 2 years, say, copy the data onto the current favorite
medium.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
March 22, 2005 12:07:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

2005-03-21, Michael Gardner wrote:
>>
>> If there is one thing that has become apparent, it is that today's shining
>> star software or format will become tomorrow's extinct dinosaur.
>
> I doubt there will ever come a day where jpg or tif aren't recognized.

But those are not closed formats...

> I also expect that should a new and better format come along that has
> wide acceptance - applications will do much as they do today. They will
> recognize old files and offer to convert to something "more modern".
> Their new storage will be so much more dense and perhaps include better
> methods for organizing the images. I think the truly hard part today is
> how to gather and store (today) the metadata that future systems will be
> able to use well.
>
> The cost of digital archiving is that the formats and media may have to
> be updated every 20 years or so. If you come late to a particular
> format or choose poorly (.psd) you may end up having to convert in 5 or
> ten years - or risk losing everything. Choose wisely and it really can
> be something you need only do a few times in a life time and it should
> get easier each time.

But the problem is also "lost" archives which are found after a number of
years - these will not have been upgraded to the new format/media every
few years and will be unrecoverable.

-peter

--
(format t "~&~{~<~%~1:;~a~>~^,~}.~%"
'(een twee drie vier hoedje van papier))
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 12:07:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter <durians.nomail@gmx.net> writes:

> But the problem is also "lost" archives which are found after a number of
> years - these will not have been upgraded to the new format/media every
> few years and will be unrecoverable.

In my very humble opinion, it's worse than that. It will be completely
unrecognized as an archive. Someone will find a shiny disk and play frisbee
with it or hang from their bathroom window to catch the sun in the
morning. Or, more likely, just toss it.

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 12:22:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:28:21 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

> When I worked for AT&T's Tokyo Unix operaration, we religiously
> backed up everything to tape cassettes every week.
>
> The system crashed and the tapes couldn't be read.
>
> Oops.
>
> I'll pass on anything that looks even vaguely resembles tape.

I've used a number of different types of backup tapes (data
cartridges, 9-track reels, 8mm, DAT) and they've always worked
without any problems. But my first exposure to backups showed how
easy it is for something to go wrong, and this was due to ignorance,
not Murphy. An NCR Unix system used data cartridges for backups
(DC-60's I think, about the size of a paperback, with one side a
solid aluminum plate). The company that was hired to specify the
computer system and install it didn't have much computer experience,
and when I got there, the system had been in use for about a year,
with backups being performed daily. From poking around with the
hardware and reading hardware ads in computer magazines, I realized
that instead of using 60 MB data carts (3 tapes to backup a 150 MB
unix system), they had been provided with data carts only rated for
about 20 MB each. Evidently the backup tapes directories could be
read, so they passed very simple verification tests, but when I
tried several tests to restore actual files, all of the tests
failed. The shop quickly bought several boxes of the proper 60 MB
tapes. The right time to find out if a backup system is any good
should *never* be when it's most needed. That's when Murphy tends
to enter the picture. :) 
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 12:22:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:

> read, so they passed very simple verification tests, but when I
> tried several tests to restore actual files, all of the tests
> failed. The shop quickly bought several boxes of the proper 60 MB
> tapes. The right time to find out if a backup system is any good
> should *never* be when it's most needed. That's when Murphy tends
> to enter the picture. :) 

I've read several stories of this nightmare -- religiously backing up to
tape, then needing to restore, and the backups were screwed up, so no
restoration. This was with tapes, and I back up to CDs, so at least I can
access the files and check to be sure things are readable. I'm not sure how
you verify a tar without actually doing a restore.

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 4:39:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Silverton wrote:

>
> It is amazing how quickly hardware becomes obsolete. 5.5 inch discs
> have been mentioned. I came across some I wanted to read recently and I
> am still searching for a friend with an antique computer (g). It's not

<snip>

Hi James...

I can still read virtually anything; but haven't heard of
5.5 inch disks... perhaps you intended to type 5.25 inch?

If so, more than willing to read them for you if you like,
and send the contents back on a cd or dvd. Only downside might
be that I'm in Canada, so perhaps it'd be less difficult if
a 'merican stepped up.

Nevertheless, I'm here and perfectly willing if you don't
get a closer offer.

Ken
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 12:49:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:

>> "A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de...
>>> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
>>> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>>

>> The BEST way--no kidding--is to print the images on silver halide
>> paper, from a source like OFOTO.COM, and to store them in archival
>> albums.

> Wisecrack is a matter of intent, so your claim is definitive. It is,
> however, a *wrong* answer.

> Color photos printed that way are good for 50 years or so.

Colour prints can fade badly, but Kodak reckon that Endura paper is
good for 200 years in dark conditions.

Anyway, he must have been talking about B&W, not colour, because AFAIK
colour prints aren't silver halide -- they're dye prints. From that
POV he was surely right, but do OFOTO do silver halide prints at all?

Andrew.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 12:51:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21 Mar 2005 19:12:23 -0800, Phil Stripling wrote:

> I've read several stories of this nightmare -- religiously backing up to
> tape, then needing to restore, and the backups were screwed up, so no
> restoration. This was with tapes, and I back up to CDs, so at least I can
> access the files and check to be sure things are readable. I'm not sure how
> you verify a tar without actually doing a restore.

As this was nearly 20 years ago I don't recall the details, but
there was a utility program that scanned the tape, sequentially
displaying the names of the files on the console until the end of
the tape was reached, and it ran much quicker than an actual
restore. There were several ways to backup, but I don't recall that
the one that was chosen used tar. I vaguely recall 'cpio' or
something like that being used. As for CDs being more reliable,
that depends on the program used to write to the CDs. I lost a
number of archived files due to a buggy version of Easy CD Creator
(I think it came with my HP SCSI CD burner). I always performed
spot checks of the backed up files, occasionally catching a small
number (less than 1% or 2%) that couldn't be read back. But the
biggest problem was relying on Easy CD Creator's post-backup message
saying that the backup was successful, only to find out days or
weeks later that a few of the multi-megabyte files had never been
backed up - long after they'd been deleted from the hard drive. At
first I thought it might have been operator error, simply failing to
select all of the files to be backed up. But eventually, with CD
Creator still running after some of these failed backups with the CD
missing selected files, I saw that they *had* been selected for
backup. Where system backups are concerned it's best to trust
nothing and nobody, myself/yourself included.
!