And then... we die...:(. Reply from Chris http://www.chrisspages.co.uk :> -----Original Message----- :> From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- :> photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Dyer-Bennet :> Sent: 01 May 2008 16:11 :> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students :> Subject: Re: photo storage question :> :> :> On Wed, April 30, 2008 15:56, w8imo@xxxxxxxx wrote: :> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:34 PM, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> :> wrote: :> > :> >> :> >> On Mon, April 28, 2008 00:34, Trevor Cunningham wrote: :> >> > Here in lies a reason to prefer film over digital. Magnetic storage :> >> is :> >> > far more unstable than sleeves and notebooks. Burned storage has a :> >> > suprisingly limited shelf life, so we are learning. You can still :> >> play :> >> > your cd's from the early 1980's, but the commerically produced :> >> materials :> >> > are much higher quality than anything you can to make yourself. :> >> > Indeed, digital is less expensive...but, then again, it's cheaper :> >> :> >> Let's see; the first counter-case that comes to mind is the :> photographer :> >> who died in the WTC attack. The film in his film camera was :> >> unrecoverable, but all the images on the flash memory card were :> >> recovered. :> > :> > :> > Fortunately this is not a common occurrence. It is also not an :> example :> > of :> > long term storage. :> :> Fortunate indeed. :> :> And it's definitely not a long-term question, no. But it *is* a question :> of the relative stability of different storage media. Some digital media :> are *better* than analog media at surviving harsh conditions. :> :> :> >> There were also a collection of important negatives of the Kennedy :> >> family :> >> in a safe-deposit vault under the building; you may have seen the :> book, :> >> made from prints and contact sheets sitting around that photographer's :> >> studio. If the data had been digital, there could have been more than :> >> one :> >> copy, and it likely would have survived. :> > :> > :> > How do we know? :> :> Because the total area that was devastated in that catastrophe was :> relatively small compared to the area within which he would have been :> choosing a location for a backup copy. :> :> The same is true of every single other catastrophe on which we have :> information. So if you keep *two* copies in different locations, with :> even minimal thought to avoiding their being involved in the same :> catastrophe, the odds are very good that at least one of them will :> survive. :> :> And I only claimed "likely", I did not make any claim of certainty. :> :> My off-site backups are in my mother's house, 35 miles away from home. :> House fires are moderately common, small floods (and my office is in the :> basement at home) also common, but none of those would involve my :> mother's :> house at the same time. Even a *big* fire that destroyed my whole :> neighborhood wouldn't get my mother's house. And the Minnesota river :> valley is between them so they won't be in the same flood, either. It :> would take quite an unusual disaster -- probably something bigger than :> has :> happened since Krakatoa -- to get both sets of my digital photos. It's :> more likely that a disaster would get one set plus me, since I spend :> considerable time in or close to home. :> :> The Corbis digital archives would be even harder to completely destroy -- :> they have copies more widely separated, and each copy is better :> protected. :> They, of course, are spending lots of money protecting their archives, :> whereas I'm spending relatively little, just the cost of good blank disks :> and the time to burn them (I deliver them on visits I'd make anyway, so :> that doesn't count as a cost of my backup program). :> :> :> >> Digital archives work wonderfully *when competently managed*. They :> are :> >> *horrible* for long-term benign neglect. The ability to store :> multiple :> >> copies in separate locations gives you the ability to protect against :> >> problems that are intractable in analog (where copies are not only :> >> expensive but *inferior*). :> > :> > :> > All archives, digital, film, paper, etc need 'competent management' to :> > remain viable for very long times. :> :> To remain viable reliably, yes. But we have written works that survived :> only because a copy sat in a barn for 400 years at one point, and was :> eventually discovered. :> :> :> >> Analog media degrades constantly over time, but sometimes fairly :> slowly. :> >> The right analog media do pretty well with long-term benign neglect. :> >> :> >> So what I see here is that they have different characteristics, and so :> >> one :> >> is better for some things, the other is better for others. :> > :> > :> > True. But as I saw a few years ago, someone was having difficulty :> getting :> > data off of a 5.25" diskette but was able to print a sixty year old :> > negative. :> > :> > Some time ago I found a box of Kodachromes date stamped by Kodak as :> 1976 :> > that I had lost. Many were dirty but the images, to the best of my :> > abilities are like they were in '76. I haven't louped any of them but :> > when :> > projected after cleaning they still look good. :> :> Yep; but those are both examples of digital media not working at all well :> in a scheme of neglect. While for best long-term results all media need :> careful attention, some analog media do a lot better under benign neglect :> than any digital medium so far developed. So those results aren't :> surprising. :> :> And I have boxes and slide sheets of ektachromes from the early 70s that :> show considerable fading. :> :> :> > :> > This is an interesting thread similar to Canon vs Nikon and Ford vs :> Chevy. :> > :> :> Just as long as it's not like Mac vs. Windows ;-) :> :> -- :> David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ :> Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ :> Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ :> Dragaera: http://dragaera.info :>
