Long term archiving??

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
66 answers Last reply
More about long term archiving
  1. 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
    >
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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/CDandDVDCareandHandlingGuide.pdf>.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  5. 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.html

    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.
  6. 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:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  7. 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:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  8. 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:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Print them...
    Just like the olden days of film.
    JJ
  13. 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:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  14. 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:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  15. 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
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  16. 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
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  26. 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.
  27. 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:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  28. 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
  29. 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))
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
    news:OkB%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).
  36. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
    news:OkB%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.
  37. 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:OkB%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
  38. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Jeremy wrote:
    > "bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
    > news:OkB%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
  39. 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.
  40. 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))
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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))
  44. 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.
  45. 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. :)
  46. 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.
  47. 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
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Cameras Product