Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

where to buy non reflective glass?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 26, 2005 3:01:33 PM

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

I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass
to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
reflective glass. Where do I get that?

And what exactly is it? Is it just regular glass with an antireflective
coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it some of plastic
or polycarbonate?

More about : buy reflective glass

August 26, 2005 5:03:34 PM

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

Beach Bum wrote:
> The glass should /not/ hold the photos flat. The photos should /not/ touch
> the glass. You should mount the photos with non-acidic mat board and back
> them with non-acidic foam core or other archival quality mounting board.

Are we talking about the same thing? By "archiving" I meant that I was
using my digital camera as a scanner to convert previously printed
photos into digital files.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 5:03:35 PM

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

On 26 Aug 2005 11:01:33 -0700, "Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote:

>I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass
>to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
>reflective glass. Where do I get that?
>
>And what exactly is it? Is it just regular glass with an antireflective
>coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it some of plastic
>or polycarbonate?

Glass is Glass not polycarbonate. Go see you local frame shop they
can sell it to you.


******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Related resources
August 26, 2005 6:29:55 PM

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

Beach Bum wrote:
> Doh! Not at all. My bad. :) 

Well, apparently "archive" has a meaning that I was not aware of. I
should have been more specific in the original post. :) 
August 26, 2005 6:50:30 PM

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

kz8rt3 wrote:
> Let us know what equipment you are using and how you are going to light
> it. Ya know, the whole process.

I was surfing around the web for methods to digitally archive my old
photos and documents. I tried my scanner, but it is way too slow. I
don't have the room for a copy stand or any kind of elaborate setup.
I'm just taking pictures of them on a table that is in a well lit room
with a window. I need something to flatten the photos/documents. I
haven't tried glass yet, but I was assuming that I'm going to need the
non reflective kind since I don't have the ideal lighting environment.

> I have a photograph of my great
> grandmother in 1907 holding a pig under her arm. Do you think a hard
> drive or a CD will last that long?

My solution for long-term digital archive is to use HD with a backup
plan. Of course one HD probably won't last over a decade, but when it
fails, you simply buy a new HD and restore the data.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 9:14:37 PM

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

> I have a photograph of my great
> grandmother in 1907 holding a pig under her arm. Do you think a hard
> drive or a CD will last that long? Hmmmm, no.

Bad comparison. Who would want to frame a hard drive or CD? The question is
whether the digital file will last that long. There is no reason to think
that it won't and it won't fade like your print either. It can be
transferred to hard drives, CD's, DVD's, printed on paper, exposed onto film
and stored on whatever other storage medium the future brings. It can also
be stored in PERFECTLY IDENTICAL form in multiple locations adding an easily
achieved level of security that your print can never have. Converting prints
to digital files may result in lower quality than the print from which the
digital file is made, but the information contained in that print can be
safeguarded from further degradation by the conversion in a way that is
probably impossible without the conversion.

Eric Miller
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 9:36:31 PM

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

"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> writes:

> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass
> to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
> reflective glass. Where do I get that?

I don't think shooting through anti-reflective glass is a really good
choice for archiving photos. It reduces resolution, and often adds
some visible graininess.

Depending on the state of the photos, you should make do with holding
the edges down with weighted strips or something. If they're *really*
curly, either straighten them before copying, or else resort to a
vacuum base to hold them flat (non-trivial expense here).

Or use a flatbed scanner instead of a copier. It's slower, but does a
better job usually.
--
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; Much of which is still down
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 10:39:07 PM

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

> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass
> to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
> reflective glass. Where do I get that?

The glass should /not/ hold the photos flat. The photos should /not/ touch
the glass. You should mount the photos with non-acidic mat board and back
them with non-acidic foam core or other archival quality mounting board.
Beware of framing in wood without protecting the papers from it. There's
more to the process than I have time to post - it's worth spending $15 on a
good book or reading up online.

All this effort and expense will not mean much if you aren't printing on
archival quality paper with archival quality inks. A tip - prints you get
from Walmart aren't archival quality.

One thing to consider - the actual archival of the digital file is more
valuable than trying to achieve archival quality mounting/framing. You can
always reprint the image, cut a new mat from the dimensions of the old one.
Whole process probably takes 20 minutes per image every 5 years or so. You
probably need to pull the frames to clean out the bugs every 2 or 3 years
anyway.

Now to answer your original question - you should consider getting UV
protective plexi-glass. It's lighter, not very breakable, easier to work
with than glass. The only down side is it can be scratched if not handled
carefully. But if the plexi was going to be scratched, a glass glaze would
probably break - that can scratch or otherwise damage the print. The
ultimate purpose for the glaze is to protect the print and IMO plexi does a
better job than glass.

Michaels has most supplies you'll ever need to get started and their staff
is quite helpful.

http://www.michaels.com/art/online/home

BTW, a book I recommend on framing/matting/archiving:

"Picture Perfect Framing" by Katie DuMont

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/157990165...

or

http://tinyurl.com/7mj9h



Good luck and have fun! :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:28:59 AM

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

> > The glass should /not/ hold the photos flat. The photos should /not/
touch
> > the glass. You should mount the photos with non-acidic mat board and
back
> > them with non-acidic foam core or other archival quality mounting board.
>
> Are we talking about the same thing? By "archiving" I meant that I was
> using my digital camera as a scanner to convert previously printed
> photos into digital files.

Doh! Not at all. My bad. :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:42:19 AM

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

"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote in message
news:1125075898.953663.95830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass
> to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
> reflective glass. Where do I get that?
>
> And what exactly is it? Is it just regular glass with an antireflective
> coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it some of plastic
> or polycarbonate?
>
Are the photos glossy? It might be better to aim two lights in from each
side and darken the rest of the room to avoid refections. You can then use
regular glass or plexi. If you still want AR glass, it is called "museum"
glass at the frame shops. It gives a faint blue-green reflection. Very
expensive stuff and not all stock it.
John
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:10:10 AM

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

"Beach Bum" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:flJPe.66277$Oy2.51818@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass
>> to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
>> reflective glass. Where do I get that?
>
> The glass should /not/ hold the photos flat. The photos should /not/
> touch
> the glass. You should mount the photos with non-acidic mat board and back
> them with non-acidic foam core or other archival quality mounting board.
> Beware of framing in wood without protecting the papers from it. There's
> more to the process than I have time to post - it's worth spending $15 on
> a
> good book or reading up online.
>
> All this effort and expense will not mean much if you aren't printing on
> archival quality paper with archival quality inks. A tip - prints you get
> from Walmart aren't archival quality.
>
> One thing to consider - the actual archival of the digital file is more
> valuable than trying to achieve archival quality mounting/framing. You
> can
> always reprint the image, cut a new mat from the dimensions of the old
> one.
> Whole process probably takes 20 minutes per image every 5 years or so.
> You
> probably need to pull the frames to clean out the bugs every 2 or 3 years
> anyway.
>
> Now to answer your original question - you should consider getting UV
> protective plexi-glass. It's lighter, not very breakable, easier to work
> with than glass. The only down side is it can be scratched if not handled
> carefully. But if the plexi was going to be scratched, a glass glaze
> would
> probably break - that can scratch or otherwise damage the print. The
> ultimate purpose for the glaze is to protect the print and IMO plexi does
> a
> better job than glass.
>
> Michaels has most supplies you'll ever need to get started and their staff
> is quite helpful.
>
> http://www.michaels.com/art/online/home
>
> BTW, a book I recommend on framing/matting/archiving:
>
> "Picture Perfect Framing" by Katie DuMont
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/157990165...
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7mj9h
>
>
>
> Good luck and have fun! :) 
>
> --
> Mark
>
> Photos, Ideas & Opinions
> http://www.marklauter.com
>
>critcher said

think he means where he can get non reflective glass to hold the photos flat
while he re-photographs them.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:10:11 AM

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

critcher wrote:
> "Beach Bum" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in message
> news:flJPe.66277$Oy2.51818@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need
>>> glass to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use
>>> non
>>> reflective glass. Where do I get that?
>>
>> The glass should /not/ hold the photos flat. The photos should
>> /not/
>> touch
>> the glass.

<snap> <er, snip>

>> critcher said
>
> think he means where he can get non reflective glass to hold the
> photos flat while he re-photographs them.

I had a couple framed by professionals a few years back. They offered
plain non-reflective and non-reflective with anti-UV. I got the
latter. It has worked fine, for both purpose, so far.

The pros operated in the back of a full-service crafts shop. I'd
reckon such a store or supplier in your neigborhood would offer or be
able to contact suppliers of non-reflective glass.

My effort in archiving old prints before scanner was with a copy stand
(two lights at 45-deg from the surface of a frame intended to hold
photo paper under an enlarger. With a large, black posterboard baffle
with a lens cutout, a single switch for the lights, an angle finder,
and a lot of persistence and stamina, I was able to do a couple
hundred in a couple days.

Post-scanner it was less physically demanding, but no less drudgery
for a fourth of the time investment.

--
Frank ess
"I can't sing, but I know how to,
which is quite different."
-- Noel Coward
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:22:05 AM

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

In article <1125075898.953663.95830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass
> to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
> reflective glass. Where do I get that?
>
> And what exactly is it? Is it just regular glass with an antireflective
> coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it some of plastic
> or polycarbonate?

If the glass touches the photos it is no longer archived. Any moisture
will be trapped between them and possible make the glass and the image
stick together. Photos that are not flat should be mounted accordingly.

Non-reflective glass is a glass with a coating of non-reflective
material on both sides. It inhibits direct reflection, allowing a very
clear view of the photograph. In some light, it does cast a blue-green
reflection, but this is minor. The trade name is Denglas.

OH, and make it UV safe as well.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:10:53 AM

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

> > Doh! Not at all. My bad. :) 
>
> Well, apparently "archive" has a meaning that I was not aware of. I
> should have been more specific in the original post. :) 

I thought you were going to make archival quality prints and mount/frame
them according to Library of Congress standards. :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:14:56 AM

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

> I was surfing around the web for methods to digitally archive my old
> photos and documents. I tried my scanner, but it is way too slow. I
> don't have the room for a copy stand or any kind of elaborate setup.
> I'm just taking pictures of them on a table that is in a well lit room
> with a window. I need something to flatten the photos/documents. I
> haven't tried glass yet, but I was assuming that I'm going to need the
> non reflective kind since I don't have the ideal lighting environment.

FWIW, I think storing on DVD or CD is a good idea. But IMO photographing
the photos isn't the way to go - archival photography uses special lenses to
avoid distortion. If scanning is too slow, and you're looking at going to
all this trouble to buy glass to photograph them - why not save yourself the
time and just go to a pro lab and have them scan and preserve them - that's
what I'd do.

No, no.. what I'd do is scratch my head and say "damn, I should have
archived those irreplaceable prints before the hurricane blew the roof off
the condo." :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:15:56 AM

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

> > I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass
> > to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
> > reflective glass. Where do I get that?
>
> If the glass touches the photos it is no longer archived. Any moisture
> will be trapped between them and possible make the glass and the image
> stick together. Photos that are not flat should be mounted accordingly.

Whew.. at least I'm not the only one who read that the way I did. I'm not as
crazy as I look. :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:13:24 AM

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

Bucky wrote:
> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass
> to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
> reflective glass. Where do I get that?
>
> And what exactly is it? Is it just regular glass with an
> antireflective coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it
> some of plastic or polycarbonate?

My personal choice is to use clear glass, not non-reflective, but to
arrange the lighting so I am not getting reflections.

Non-reflective glass is not really non-reflective, but it is somewhat
randomly reflective so you will loose contrast and fine detail when using
it.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 5:30:25 AM

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

In article <1125093030.498267.111320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote:


> My solution for long-term digital archive is to use HD with a backup
> plan. Of course one HD probably won't last over a decade, but when it
> fails, you simply buy a new HD and restore the data.

If you want to make God laugh all you have to do is tell him what you
are going to do tomorrow.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 6:26:08 AM

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

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EeOPe.57608$gB.17635@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Bucky wrote:
>> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass
>> to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
>> reflective glass. Where do I get that?
>>
>> And what exactly is it? Is it just regular glass with an
>> antireflective coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it
>> some of plastic or polycarbonate?
>
> My personal choice is to use clear glass, not non-reflective, but to
> arrange the lighting so I am not getting reflections.
>
> Non-reflective glass is not really non-reflective, but it is somewhat
> randomly reflective so you will loose contrast and fine detail when using
> it.
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit
>
I'm not sure, but it seems like you are talking about the hazy looking
non-glare glass used in picture frames. I believe the "invisible" glass the
op refers to is the expensive museum glass that has vacuum deposited
anti-reflective coatings on it, not unlike camera lenses. It has a faint
blue/green reflection to it. It looks nearly the same as a Hoya MC filter I
have. It is a low iron glass which lessens the slight green cast that
regular glass has and it filters UV radiation below about 390nm. (regular
glass passes UV down to around 310nm).

When having a picture framed once, I asked how much it was and the price of
the job nearly doubled!.
John
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 9:57:56 AM

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

In article <PtMPe.3478$7F.415@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"Eric Miller" <millerericnospam@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > I have a photograph of my great
> > grandmother in 1907 holding a pig under her arm. Do you think a hard
> > drive or a CD will last that long? Hmmmm, no.
>
> Bad comparison. Who would want to frame a hard drive or CD?

I do not understand the meaning of that. Oh, you're silly. I was
talking about the physical print. I was talking about the longevity of
the "information".

I am just wondering if you will be able to take out you CD from 2005 and
put it in a device in 2095 and still be able to see it.

> The question is
> whether the digital file will last that long. There is no reason to think
> that it won't

Scratched surfaces and old technology are two reasons I can give you for
thinking it will not last that long.

Scratch a print, you still see the image. Scratch a CD and it's gone.

> and it won't fade like your print either. It can be
> transferred to hard drives, CD's, DVD's, printed on paper, exposed onto film
> and stored on whatever other storage medium the future brings. It can also
> be stored in PERFECTLY IDENTICAL

Uhm, that's wrong. Bits are never transferred perfectly from medium to
medium. Nearly identical would be better.

> form in multiple locations adding an easily
> achieved level of security that your print can never have.

Jeez, that's a lot of effort for an image of something that no longer
exists. (Perfection is the enemy of good)

Anyway, I have a bunch (the pig) that were in a shoebox for 90 years.

> Converting prints
> to digital files may result in lower quality than the print from which the
> digital file is made, but the information contained in that print can be
> safeguarded from further degradation

It is not the print. It is a copy.

> by the conversion in a way that is
> probably impossible without the conversion.

I think it is fine, what he is doing. I don't see any reason to be all
rosey about it.

A lot of people waste a lot of time. The hours he spends trying to save
his IMAGES he misses on time with his family.

>
> Eric Miller
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:10:08 PM

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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:57:56 +0000, kz8rt3 wrote:

>
> I am just wondering if you will be able to take out you CD from 2005 and
> put it in a device in 2095 and still be able to see it.
Very unlikely due to 'plastic rot'. Museums are getting worried about it
although they give it fancy names.
Plastic items from thirty years ago are decaying; if you havething plastic
from a few decades ago have a careful look at it, it could give you a
nasty shock at the deterioration.

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:53:07 PM

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

Beach Bum wrote:
>>> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need
>>> glass to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
>>> reflective glass. Where do I get that?
>>
>> If the glass touches the photos it is no longer archived. Any
>> moisture will be trapped between them and possible make the glass
>> and the image stick together. Photos that are not flat should be
>> mounted accordingly.
>
> Whew.. at least I'm not the only one who read that the way I did. I'm
> not as crazy as I look. :) 

Is that even possible? :-)

-Mike
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 2:20:47 AM

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

I have read the thread to date and I think I understand what you are
attempting to do.
Years ago ( 1954) I was copying (digitizing) some color photos (if my memory
serves me they were 4x6 in.) using a hi-8 analog video camera connected to
my computer via a single image capture board. The pictures would not lie
flat for me. Glass on top of them did nothing but cause trouble with
reflections. I decided that I had to have nothing covering the photos. My
daughter came up with the solution for me.
She had obtained someplace, a painted steel 8x10 inch panel, it was about 10
mils thick. Along with that she had 2 or 3 straight strips of magnetized
rubber or flexible plastic. The strips were about 10 inches long, 1/2 inch
wide and about 16 mils thick. By placing a magnetic strip on each curled end
of the photo I got the photo to lie flat. I could then aim and focus the
camera directly at the photo.
Yes, some of the image was lost if there was no margin on the photo but this
normally was only a small acceptable loss for me.
Just a suggestion. You might find the magnetic strips and panel in an art
supply store or a hobby store like Michael's.
Matt D


"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote in message
news:1125075898.953663.95830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass
> to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
> reflective glass. Where do I get that?
>
> And what exactly is it? Is it just regular glass with an antireflective
> coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it some of plastic
> or polycarbonate?
>
>
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 4:50:02 AM

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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:42:30 GMT, kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:

>In article <AvMPe.64012$Yx1.33246@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Beach Bum" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I think storing on DVD or CD is a good idea.
>
>Careful about that.
>
>http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-5
>http://www.melbpc.org.au/pcupdate/2106/2106article14.ht...
>http://www.rense.com/general52/themythofthe100year.htm
>
>Oh, and your CD Burner plays a role in longevity as well.

Archiving any photo takes some work on the part of someone.
Storing copies on CD is not a bad idea just becasue the media won't
last a hundred years. Using multiple copies (the time and expense of
the extra copies is very minimal) and storing them in different places
will work very well. Occasional (every 20 years?) checking or even
re-copying isn't hard to do.
If, perchance, CDs become obsolete, there *will* be years of overlap
between CDs and whatever replaces them.
If, after this sort of 'hectic' pattern of copying, the pictures are
still lost, perhaps they weren't all that important in the first
place. :-)

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 4:58:14 AM

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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:57:56 GMT, kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:

>In article <PtMPe.3478$7F.415@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> "Eric Miller" <millerericnospam@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> > I have a photograph of my great
>> > grandmother in 1907 holding a pig under her arm. Do you think a hard
>> > drive or a CD will last that long? Hmmmm, no.
>>
>> Bad comparison. Who would want to frame a hard drive or CD?
>
>I do not understand the meaning of that. Oh, you're silly. I was
>talking about the physical print. I was talking about the longevity of
>the "information".
>
>I am just wondering if you will be able to take out you CD from 2005 and
>put it in a device in 2095 and still be able to see it.

Why not check the CD every 20 years or so, and see if it's still good?
If it's not, then pull out one of the duplicate CDs, and copy it
again. If you think that's too long, the time period can be shortened
to 10 years. :-)
BYW, ask the people in Florida about the permanance of prints. Five or
six hurricanes a year tend to put a whole new perspective in the
permanance of anything.
>
>> The question is
>> whether the digital file will last that long. There is no reason to think
>> that it won't
>
>Scratched surfaces and old technology are two reasons I can give you for
>thinking it will not last that long.

Then pick your own media.
Finding something wrong with each suggestion will not get any copies
made at all.
>
>Scratch a print, you still see the image. Scratch a CD and it's gone.

Make two; they're cheap.
Don't scratch them. My storage copies manage to not get scratched.
>
>> and it won't fade like your print either. It can be
>> transferred to hard drives, CD's, DVD's, printed on paper, exposed onto film
>> and stored on whatever other storage medium the future brings. It can also
>> be stored in PERFECTLY IDENTICAL
>
>Uhm, that's wrong. Bits are never transferred perfectly from medium to
>medium. Nearly identical would be better.

It's close enough.
>
>> form in multiple locations adding an easily
>> achieved level of security that your print can never have.
>
>Jeez, that's a lot of effort for an image of something that no longer
>exists. (Perfection is the enemy of good)

I don't get this.
If the print exists, a copy of it can be made.
>
>Anyway, I have a bunch (the pig) that were in a shoebox for 90 years.

That's hardly secure storage.
>
>> Converting prints
>> to digital files may result in lower quality than the print from which the
>> digital file is made, but the information contained in that print can be
>> safeguarded from further degradation
>
>It is not the print. It is a copy.
>
>> by the conversion in a way that is
>> probably impossible without the conversion.
>
>I think it is fine, what he is doing. I don't see any reason to be all
>rosey about it.
>
>A lot of people waste a lot of time. The hours he spends trying to save
>his IMAGES he misses on time with his family.

And the time he loses the print will be with him forever.
You argue against making copies, when he wants to make copies.
>
>>
>> Eric Miller

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 7:41:14 AM

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

"Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-bit@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote in
message

> > Whew.. at least I'm not the only one who read that the way I did. I'm
> > not as crazy as I look. :) 
>
> Is that even possible? :-)

LOL!

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 12:12:59 PM

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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:20:47 -0400, SuperPop wrote:

> I have read the thread to date and I think I understand what you are
> attempting to do.
> Years ago ( 1954) I was copying (digitizing) some color photos (if my memory
> serves me they were 4x6 in.) using a hi-8 analog video camera connected to
> my computer via a single image capture board. The pictures would not lie
> flat for me. Glass on top of them did nothing but cause trouble with
> reflections. I decided that I had to have nothing covering the photos. My
> daughter came up with the solution for me.
>
You must have remarkable skills. Hi-8 video cameras had not yet been
invented and the computer must have been something like the one designed
for J.Lyons and co.ltd. It filled a room that I believe was about 20 foot
square and had power of something like 512mb.

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 3:43:45 PM

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

On 26-Aug-05 11:01, Bucky wrote:
> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass
> to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non
> reflective glass. Where do I get that?
>
> And what exactly is it? Is it just regular glass with an antireflective
> coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it some of plastic
> or polycarbonate?
>

Hi,

as it comes in the newsgroup, majority of replies talk about
wide variety of things, but will not reply to the question at hand:
*where* to get it.

Well, one good source is Light Impressions, see their online store
at http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com/. They have a large selection
of glass and diverse acrylite materials, incl. special UV protecting
products.

Someone has also mentioned already Michaels, they have a limited
selection of such glass in their stores, so does Aaron Brothers!

In my humble opinion, nobody should be selling frames with this
horrible plain glass, period. It just causes you additional cost,
labor, and of course, a disposal headache.

Thomas
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 12:01:12 AM

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

You are correct. My typo. Year was 1994. However, the rest of my message
holds true.
I have been working with computers (main frames) since the late 50's and
with personal computers since the early 80's.
Sorry about my blunder.
My suggestion for holding pictures flat for capturing them with a digital
camera may or not help you.
Be my guest.
Matt D


"Neil Ellwood" <carl.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.08.28.08.12.51.90106@btopenworld.com...
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:20:47 -0400, SuperPop wrote:
>
>> I have read the thread to date and I think I understand what you are
>> attempting to do.
>> Years ago ( 1954) I was copying (digitizing) some color photos (if my
>> memory
>> serves me they were 4x6 in.) using a hi-8 analog video camera connected
>> to
>> my computer via a single image capture board. The pictures would not lie
>> flat for me. Glass on top of them did nothing but cause trouble with
>> reflections. I decided that I had to have nothing covering the photos. My
>> daughter came up with the solution for me.
>>
> You must have remarkable skills. Hi-8 video cameras had not yet been
> invented and the computer must have been something like the one designed
> for J.Lyons and co.ltd. It filled a room that I believe was about 20 foot
> square and had power of something like 512mb.
>
> --
> Neil
> Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 7:48:52 PM

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

Hi Thomas,

Any store that sells residential (window and door glass) should also have
nonreflective glass, in any size that you order (and much cheaper than the
specialty stores mentioned). Shop around, I've found almost a fifty percent
difference in prices. Unless you have unusual needs you should just ask for
"single strength" glass which is the normal window pane thickness, and the
depth for which most frames are sized. Good luck,

Bob
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 2:36:05 PM

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

"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kz8rt3-7622AC.01575627082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
....
> I am just wondering if you will be able to take out you CD from 2005 and
> put it in a device in 2095 and still be able to see it.

But why would you not transfer the data forward as new technologies
become available. But your point is taken. Once a picture is printed,
it can always be read.

>
> > The question is
> > whether the digital file will last that long. There is no reason to think
> > that it won't
>
> Scratched surfaces and old technology are two reasons I can give you for
> thinking it will not last that long.
>
> Scratch a print, you still see the image. Scratch a CD and it's gone.

Some of the data may be gone. But why would you make just *one*
copy? With digital data, multiple copies are so easy to make.

>
> > and it won't fade like your print either. It can be
> > transferred to hard drives, CD's, DVD's, printed on paper, exposed onto film
> > and stored on whatever other storage medium the future brings. It can also
> > be stored in PERFECTLY IDENTICAL
>
> Uhm, that's wrong. Bits are never transferred perfectly from medium to
> medium. Nearly identical would be better.

In a properly working system, the bits are transfered perfectly. That's the
whole point of the digital/binary system. Very high signal to noise ratio.
If you do a copy and verify the copy and the verify says the copies are
identical, then the copies *are* identical.

>
> > form in multiple locations adding an easily
> > achieved level of security that your print can never have.
>
> Jeez, that's a lot of effort for an image of something that no longer
> exists. (Perfection is the enemy of good)

First, its not much effort. Second, your whole arguement has been
that preserving pictures (of things that do or don't exit) is a *good*
thing. Do you think it is a lot of effort to properly print, handle, and
store paper photographs so that they will be preserved?

....
> A lot of people waste a lot of time. The hours he spends trying to save
> his IMAGES he misses on time with his family.
....

I think you are really stretching for an arguement, here at the end. Why
do you presume that a digital archiver is wasting a *lot* of time? Or that
the time spent is taken from family time? Or any other such ephemeral
arguement.

Back to the original premis: Are digitally archived photos less likely to
survive and be viewed in the future? As usual, I think it depends. How
well were the photographs archived? How well was the digital data
archived? Did anyone take care to keep the photos with them as the
generations moved from house to house? Did anyone copy the digital
files to newer storage media forms as they became available? Were
the photos strored is a cool, dry place, protected from dust, sun, and
physical wear? What about the digital media?
I suspect that 200 years from now, quite a bit of digital media will
have vanished, just like a lot of paper photos from 100 years ago
have vanished. And quite a few will have been preserved, whether by
accident or intent. Just like paper photos.

Use the method you like best. Others will do as they see fit.


--
Dan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no
space)[com]
===============================
"But you can't jump the track / We're like cars on a cable
And life's like an hourglass glued to the table, / No one can find the rewind
button now
Sing it if you understand...yeah breathe / Just breathe, ohho breathe"
Anonymous
December 17, 2009 7:27:22 AM

We are the manufacturer in processing anti reflective glass, and my company jmt glass is located in China.

for more information please send me to jmtglass01@126.com

All the best,

Jess Hu
!