I love how they mention how long these materials are projected to last, as though they have been testing them this long (100-175 years), even though you should check up on them every couple of years. However, they're the scientists, not me. Given the painstaking process of having to replicate old negatives for their continued longevity, we find a distinct advantage of digitial. Perhaps, the advantage of speed of replication will make up for the volume of garbage that builds in direct correlation with the advantages of digital capture.
On a side note, related to storage, I found a website yesterday dedicated to the home epicurean seeking advice about preparing sushi. It was created in 1994, and all of the external links are now obsolete. How much material do you think is out there occupying server space and requiring electricity? What percentage of it is actively used? When you store your digital images, do you store the whole whack, or do you only store the best and finished products? I remember downloading an Ansel Adams ebook, only to find a collection of castaways I doubt he would have liked the public to have seen, unless it was a volume about what is not a good print or negative.
"somewhere between zero and one...everything else is exaggeration" - Anonymous
----- Original Message ----
I am thinking about going to the gold technology with their claim of true achival
storage.
I am thinking about going to the gold technology with their claim of true achival
storage.
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
