I wish someone would build a camera produced digital images and film. Reading this thread, I was reminded of an analogous problem that occurred in the early 1950's. Alan B. Dumont, developer of the first useable television cathode ray tube had a small TV network based at his studios in New York City (the flagship station was WABD, channel 5). The time difference between the east and west coast forced NBC and CBS to film the programs off a TV screen (RCA called the TV CRT a kinescope, and the term stuck to the recording process). Faced with the extremely poor quality of the kinescope sound and image, Dumont built TV cameras with optically duplexed film heads. Consequently, the surviving films of the Dumont programs are very high quality, but the kinescopes are painful to watch. Films and kinescopes from the early 1950's are still in useable shape while videotapes from the 1970's and 1980's are seriously deteriorating. For the foreseeable future, I think my preference will be to shoot on film, but scan and print digital images. Bill Bill -----Original Message----- >From: James Schenken <jds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Apr 2, 2007 8:06 AM >To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: Ancestral photos > >At the present level of technology, there is no, repeat no, format or >media that will guarantee the survival of an image or other digital >file over a period of 60 years. > >In the digital arena, the best that one can do is to institute an >"archival process" that will improve the survivability of the images over time. > >There is an excellent article in Layers magazine earlier this year >that deals with digital work flow and this would form a basis for >creating an archival process. > >It starts with making a copy to the hard drive, then to a DVD, then >from that DVD to another DVD, then from that DVD via a conversion >program to a JPEG format on another drive and finally making a copy >onto a second hard drive. ( If I remember the steps properly ) > >That whole sequence of events ensures that the DVD copies are >readable and exactly compare to the original on the digital card. > >Now comes the hard part: > >Use only Gold CDs or DVDs. Not just the ones that are gold colored >but the ones that are actually made with real gold. CDs and DVDs are >subject to leakage between the plastic and the recording metal >film. Metals and other materials that are not gold will react to >moisture and get what is called "CD cancer" that will ruin the media >when it occurs. Gold media doesn't have this property and can resist >much better. > > >But - no media is perfect and perfectly archival since it is made of >plastic after all. > >So ... Now one has to develop a process that will defeat the ravages >of time by periodically copying and verifying the old copy to a new >media copy. Occasionally this will require a software conversion to >move from one format to a newer format that is supported by the >current digital technology of the day. That's the hard part since >the verification of the conversion will be the tricky part. One way >will be to actually look at each image after conversion ( for a >lifetime's work this will be a daunting task.) > >So much for the down side. > >Back to negatives. There is only one for each image and if the >location in which they are stored is destroyed ( fire, flood, >tornado, hurricane, vandalism, etc.) then they are permanently >gone. Mildew can get to them and destroy the image, insects can eat >at them, dampness can glue them together and make them unusable and >so on. For chromogenic and color materials, the dyes can degrade >over time and the images just disappear. As a case in point, the >original Kodacolor prints from the 1950's have for all practical >purposes disappeared for this very reason - the dyes were so unstable >that they didn't last. Most people (excluding the tiny fraction of >the public that keep them in boxes and drawers or in file cabinets, >just discard the negatives once they have the prints in hand. Thus >those images are gone forever. Kodachrome slides, if they evaded >environmental hazards, do survive in excellent condition 60 years later. > >So all is not perfect in the film world either. > >Back to digital: Because it is infinitely reproducible without error >( if you check!!! ), many copies can be made and moved to other >locations to avoid these local environmental hazards and that should >be a part of the "archival process" also. Making high-quality >archival inkjet prints for storage will also help. > >For better or worse, that's where we are and those who care about >archiving their work will have to cope. > >Cheers, >James > > >At 07:53 AM 4/2/2007 -0400, you wrote: >>This is something that has concerned me in our newspaper >>office. Our current system of "archiving" consists of copying the >>raw images to a C.D. each month. Two copies are made, one that we >>use on a daily basis for file photos, reprints and the such, and one >>set that is stored in the company safe. I fear that these photos >>will be unaccessable in a few years, but no one else seems >>concerned. We have boxes and boxes of negatives from pervious >>years. Any ideas for a better, more reliable way to archive? >>Thanks! >>Angi Turnpaugh >> >><snip> >> >>Angi Turnpaugh >>Pharos-Tribune Staff Photographer >>(574)722-5000 ext 5152 > >James Schenken >
