On Wed, September 21, 2011 08:11, Chris Telesca/Telesca Photography wrote: > And while I have every negative and transparency I gave ever shot (unless > I deliberately got rid of them), keeping your digital files is a lot more > time-consuming and expensive no matter how easy it is yo create them. I > predict that even though digital is easier (but more expensive) to shoot > on the front side, the backside risks will mean that 100 years from now > all you'll be able to see of my work is the analog. The digital won't > last! I have all my film work, I think (how can I check? I don't actually have an index). But Jacques Lowe lost some of his most important negatives, even though he stored them in a safe-deposit box at his bank. And the older E6 slides are starting to fade visibly. If my house burns down, I'll lose all my film work--except the parts that have been scanned to digital. My digital collection will survive, because I have off-site backups. In 100 years, who knows? I think that has to do with which of my photos anybody cares about. Currently the highest probability of a photo of mine surviving 100 years is some of my photos of Robert Heinlein at Midamericon in 1976 -- because the ones I released to Wikipedia have been propagating around the net, used multiple places. Those are "film" photos, but if they survive 100 years, it will be the digital forms that survive, and directly because of the Internet. Serious archiving of color film requires temperature- and humidity-controlled storage; this is NOT cheap! Digital archiving is much cheaper. -- 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
