What is "writing"? Brett -----Original Message----- From: Richard Tenney [mailto:retenney@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 12:18 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Galileo, time If current events in Israel are any kind of barometer, I would have to agree with Chuck as far as how long we are destined to last as a species... On the topic of Galileo (the man), do any of you know what he considered to be the greatest invention of humankind? (I happen to agree with him, even in the 21st century). Whoever comes up with the correct answer gets a gold star for the day. Rich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ _______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
On the topic of Galileo (the man), do any of you know what he considered to be the greatest invention of humankind? (I happen to agree with him, even in the 21st century).
Let's see...Galileo.....I'd say.. Separation of church and state! (Just kidding....I agree with Brett) C. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Brett gets the gold star. It is rather amazing to think that with only 26 letters and a smattering of punctuation, any thought, idea, feeling, emotion, sentiment or discovery can be set down for ALL future generations to consider, possibly enjoy, and hopefully benefit from (assuming the paper/papyrus/magnetic medium/etc. manages to survive until that red-giant phase happens along... :-) Rich --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
On the topic of Galileo (the man), do any of you know what he considered to be the greatest invention of humankind? (I happen to agree with him, even in the 21st century).
Let's see...Galileo.....I'd say.. Separation of church and state!
(Just kidding....I agree with Brett)
C.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
_______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
I've read somewhere that English is one of the most "efficient" of written languages...more data can be expressed with fewer letters. The language seems to be adapted well to science and technical ideas. A common English word like "airplane" must be expressed in some languages descriptively, something like "machine that flies carrying people". Don't even start thinking about Welsh, for instance. Some simple words can be a hundred letters or more long, and utterly unpronouncable by anyone but a native. I also heard on NPR recently that archivists are worrying about data recording since the advent of the digital age. Magnetically-stored data only has a lifetime of perhaps fifteen to twenty years, and only a small portion of magnetically-archived data is being either printed-out on paper or converted to optical or other permanent storage media. They think that we may lose a large portion of humanities contemporary records as a result. Fascinating post, Rich. Chuck Rich wrote:
It is rather amazing to think that with only 26 letters and a smattering of punctuation, any thought, idea, feeling, emotion, sentiment or discovery can be set down for ALL future generations to consider, possibly enjoy, and hopefully benefit from (assuming the paper/papyrus/magnetic medium/etc. manages to survive until that red-giant phase happens along... :-) Rich
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
I hsve long predicted that our generation would be the generation that becomes unknown in the future. Magnetic media has a long lifetime, but not that long. Magnetic records can last for a hundred years, but other circumstances make it a poor choice for archiving. Among these are the materials used in and near the magnetic medium. These things include adhesives used to hold hubs on media, plastic cases outgasing, etc. Of even more concern is the availability of machines to read back the data. We have all seen this already. Are there drives to read an 8" floppy disk back? (Yes, they did exist. I have several.) How about a 5-1/4 inch floppy? This same problem will affect optical storage as well. Even if the drive exists, how about the computer to go along with it, or the operating system or other software that made the files? Now we are storing our photos digitally also. It is for this reason that I use black and white film and real paper to make photos I am interested in saving. Most everyone has color photos that are already fading. The only real long term storage that will be readable in the next century is acid free paper and permanent ink. Brent --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've read somewhere that English is one of the most "efficient" of written languages...more data can be expressed with fewer letters. The language seems to be adapted well to science and technical ideas. A common English word like "airplane" must be expressed in some languages descriptively, something like "machine that flies carrying people". Don't even start thinking about Welsh, for instance. Some simple words can be a hundred letters or more long, and utterly unpronouncable by anyone but a native.
I also heard on NPR recently that archivists are worrying about data recording since the advent of the digital age. Magnetically-stored data only has a lifetime of perhaps fifteen to twenty years, and only a small portion of magnetically-archived data is being either printed-out on paper or converted to optical or other permanent storage media. They think that we may lose a large portion of humanities contemporary records as a result.
Fascinating post, Rich.
Chuck
Rich wrote:
It is rather amazing to think that with only 26 letters and a smattering of punctuation, any thought, idea, feeling, emotion, sentiment or discovery can be set down for ALL future generations to consider, possibly enjoy, and hopefully benefit from (assuming the paper/papyrus/magnetic medium/etc. manages to survive until that red-giant phase happens along... :-) Rich
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
A few years back I corresponded with a former NASA employee who had a bunch of magnetic tapes from a NASA 60's era mission and was trying to put together a machine to read the data since the ones at NASA were no longer working. Last I heard, he had still not been able to assemble a functioning machine. So much for long term storage. Patrick Brent Watson wrote:
I hsve long predicted that our generation would be the generation that becomes unknown in the future. Magnetic media has a long lifetime, but not that long. Magnetic records can last for a hundred years, but other circumstances make it a poor choice for archiving. Among these are the materials used in and near the magnetic medium. These things include adhesives used to hold hubs on media, plastic cases outgasing, etc.
I have heard that some color processes have relatively good shelflife, notably Ciabachrome. Also, my experience with Extachrome film that I developed myself nearly 40 years ago is that if it's stored in the dark and not projected, the colors seem about the same. Thanks, Joe
Actually, the transience of magnetic data and color prints spell good news for some of us...it means there will always be a need for artists! As far as data-reading devices falling into obsolescence quickly, how about those programs you bought only six or seven years ago, that won't run on the OS you currently have? Everyone is still singing from a different page of sheet music! Chuck --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
I have heard that some color processes have relatively good shelflife, notably Ciabachrome. Also, my experience with Extachrome film that I developed myself nearly 40 years ago is that if it's stored in the dark and not projected, the colors seem about the same. Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
I recently helped a friend recover (and translate to Word and WP) some ancient Wordstar files from 5.25 inch floppies from his old Kaypro computer; chapters of a book he wrote almost 20 years ago; thankfully he didn't wait too long (I found some shareware on the 'net that did the trick, as well as having kept an old 5.25 drive around at home that I was able to temporarily put in my PC). Even optical drives don't last long; those CD's you burn today may only last you a dozen years or so, depending on the quality of the medium. I guess what I'm getting at is, if you have digital stuff that you want to preserve well into the future, it's kinda like food storage; you have to bring it up to date every so often, especially before it "expires" completely, or is no longer cost effective to do so. Rich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
One tactic I use with journal material that has been accumulating, usually daily, on my computer for nearly 20 years is to shift everything to a new drive from time to time. That refreshes it, I think. Also I back everything up onto floppies -- you know, those antique plastic gizmos that are about 3 1/2 inches across. I keep some of the floppies in the basement in a relatively magnet-free environment. As far as I know I haven't lost anything. I try to print out journal entries too, and that is the best strategy for long-term preservation. But I like to go through and correct spelling and punctuation errors when I do so, and that takes a lot of time. So the hard copy version is only current to about 1990. -- Joe Bauman
I'm hoping that eventually our technology will have the 'all around converter'. Just pop anything digital into it, CD, DVD, 5.25 floppy... in any format.. and it'll be able to scan the storage device and pull out the information. LOL.. maybe I'm dreaming. ;) Cynthia Richard Tenney wrote:
I recently helped a friend recover (and translate to Word and WP) some ancient Wordstar files from 5.25 inch floppies from his old Kaypro computer; chapters of a book he wrote almost 20 years ago; thankfully he didn't wait too long (I found some shareware on the 'net that did the trick, as well as having kept an old 5.25 drive around at home that I was able to temporarily put in my PC).
Even optical drives don't last long; those CD's you burn today may only last you a dozen years or so, depending on the quality of the medium. I guess what I'm getting at is, if you have digital stuff that you want to preserve well into the future, it's kinda like food storage; you have to bring it up to date every so often, especially before it "expires" completely, or is no longer cost effective to do so.
Rich
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
-- http://www.xmission.com/~lucyblue http://www.ilsikhaucil.net http://www.utahdogs.com ICQ# 10306498 AIM# OlivLucyBlue
Gee, my old LP's still play great. So do the one's that belonged to my grandparents. (And the analog recordings sound better, too. Sure, there's more noise, but digital music sounds "dead" to my ear. Analog recordings have a "life", a "vitality" to them that CD's don't have. Strangely, not everyone can notice this!) And I don't have to re-copy them every decade or so! Too bad there isn't a "turntable" analog word processor;) (typewriters don't qualify- they can't store data) Joe, you're lucky to get so much life from your floppies. Mine seem to die after only four to six months, even when well away from magnets. Cynthia's going to make us talk astronomy again, sooner or later, but this has been a very interesting thread. Chuck
I'm getting at is, if you have digital stuff that you want to preserve well into the future, it's kinda like food storage; you have to bring it up to date every so often, especially before it "expires" completely, or is no longer cost effective to do so.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
Actually, I'm not so sure my floppies are all in great shape. I have run into bad floppies of other material. But I know the stuff on my hard drive is OK and I periodically copy it over onto new directories, and every day I also add that day's entry to my floppies. Maybe I should do a complete backup periodically onto floppies, not just continue to add floppies to the accumulation. Better, I should get off my butt and run off a paper version, as sooner or later most hard drives crash. Somewhat akin is a trend that absolutely horrifies me, as a newspaper reporter. Some of the world's biggest repositories of bound newspaper volumes have been dumping theirs in favor of microfilm because it takes up less storage space. Microfilm not only deteriorates much faster than old cloth-based paper, but it also can't record details as well. A New Yorker magazine article in 2000 compared a wonderful drawing published in a newspaper around 1900 (if I remember it correctly) with the version on microfilm. Maybe compared isn't the right word, because there was no comparison! The original was crisp, subtle and beautiful while the new version was a muddy mess. A lot of our heritage is being lost. -- Joe
That's what we get for putting bureaucrats in charge of the repositories, instead of Library Science specialists, and trained archivists. EVERYTHING we do these days as a society is based on "cost effectiveness" and short-term savings. What we lose is ultimately much more valuable than the expenses "saved". If we don't preserve our history and learn from it, we are bound to repeat past mistakes over and over again. C. --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
Some of the world's biggest repositories of bound newspaper volumes have been dumping theirs in favor of microfilm because it takes up less storage space. Microfilm not only deteriorates much faster than old cloth-based paper, but it also can't record details as well.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
Floppies are not susceptible to magnetic deteriorization only. The adhesive that holds the little metallic hub on the floppy is many times the weak point. The adhesive can bleed aver the data area, or more commonly just give up and slip or let go. This makes the floppy useless. The universal "pop it in and read it" machine is not terribly practical. In addition to the protocol of the data files on a piece of digital media there are embedded marks on the disks that are proprietary and change sometimes even between versions of the same drive. These marks and the timing associated with them are hard coded into each drive's control system. The information about these marks will also go away. Yes, there are some color photographic processes that are more permanent, but none as good as properly treated black and white. These include Cibachrome and Polaroid instant prints. The words I have heard on Ektachrome are that it lasts longer the more your project it. Still, these media do not work as well as B&W. The best method is IMHO a hard copy from a good source. Ink jet printers are (usually) not even waterproof. My GUESS is that an acid free paper in a xerographic (laser) printer would be the best. It would be interesting to see the numbers on toner and paper. Brent --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's what we get for putting bureaucrats in charge of the repositories, instead of Library Science specialists, and trained archivists.
EVERYTHING we do these days as a society is based on "cost effectiveness" and short-term savings. What we lose is ultimately much more valuable than the expenses "saved".
If we don't preserve our history and learn from it, we are bound to repeat past mistakes over and over again.
C.
--- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
Some of the world's biggest repositories of bound newspaper volumes have been dumping theirs in favor of microfilm because it takes up less storage space. Microfilm not only deteriorates much faster than old cloth-based paper, but it also can't record details as well.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
In case anyone is interested, here is a bit of general data regarding shelf life of photographic & inkjet prints my son and I gathered in conjunction with a science fair project (after our 24 hour a day, 4 week light torture test didn't result in any fading in our test prints). This information is for framed prints protected by glass, but exposed to light for about 12 hours a day. Of course, prints will last much longer if stored in a dark, acid free place. Most of the data comes from Wilhelm Research. Black and White photographs last over 100 years if processed properly. However, Resin Coated papers have some problems over time, that fiber papers do not. Color photographs, on KodakDuraLife paper for example, last about 18 yrs before noticeable fading starts. So this is why many color photographs taken not that long ago are already fading, while our grandparents and great grandparents black and white photos are still in good shape! The current best archival color photographic paper is Fuji's Crystal Archive paper, which lasts about 60 years. Most inkjets use dye based inks for color inks. Some use pigment based ink for their black inks. Pigment based inks have much better archival qualities, and resist water better, but have a more difficult time making color prints look good, than current generation dye based inks. Most inkjet prints using common dye inks will start fading after only 1-3 years. However, the paper used can help a lot. The "Color Fast" or "Archival" papers have coatings to help resist fading due to light exposure, which can make the same ink prints last about 15-25 years. Now that inkjet printers would like to get into, if not take over, the photograph printing markets, inkjet makers are working on archival inks. Epson has the current lead in this field, and now has some new color archival pigment inks, that they claim will last 200 years before fading. Wilhelm Research has said they have so far lasted in over 100 years worth of light in their ongoing tests without showing fading. And, it sounds like they have done a good job at getting these pigment based inks to make good looking color prints. Right now, Epson's printers that use the archival pigment inks are a bit expensive (about $800), but I hope their prices will come down as the awareness and demand for archival inks increases. The inks are currently a little more expensive than regular inks. But it is cool that we are on the verge of having "archival" color prints, that won't fade within just 20 years! Troy
Troy, Great information. Did you run across any information on laser printers, both color and black and white? Brent --- Troy Adair <troyadair@utah-inter.net> wrote:
In case anyone is interested, here is a bit of general data regarding shelf life of photographic & inkjet prints my son and I gathered in conjunction with a science fair project (after our 24 hour a day, 4 week light torture test didn't result in any fading in our test prints). This information is for framed prints protected by glass, but exposed to light for about 12 hours a day. Of course, prints will last much longer if stored in a dark, acid free place. Most of the data comes from Wilhelm Research.
Black and White photographs last over 100 years if processed properly. However, Resin Coated papers have some problems over time, that fiber papers do not.
Color photographs, on KodakDuraLife paper for example, last about 18 yrs before noticeable fading starts. So this is why many color photographs taken not that long ago are already fading, while our grandparents and great grandparents black and white photos are still in good shape! The current best archival color photographic paper is Fuji's Crystal Archive paper, which lasts about 60 years.
Most inkjets use dye based inks for color inks. Some use pigment based ink for their black inks. Pigment based inks have much better archival qualities, and resist water better, but have a more difficult time making color prints look good, than current generation dye based inks. Most inkjet prints using common dye inks will start fading after only 1-3 years. However, the paper used can help a lot. The "Color Fast" or "Archival" papers have coatings to help resist fading due to light exposure, which can make the same ink prints last about 15-25 years. Now that inkjet printers would like to get into, if not take over, the photograph printing markets, inkjet makers are working on archival inks. Epson has the current lead in this field, and now has some new color archival pigment inks, that they claim will last 200 years before fading. Wilhelm Research has said they have so far lasted in over 100 years worth of light in their ongoing tests without showing fading. And, it sounds like they have done a good job at getting these pigment based inks to make good looking color prints. Right now, Epson's printers that use the archival pigment inks are a bit expensive (about $800), but I hope their prices will come down as the awareness and demand for archival inks increases. The inks are currently a little more expensive than regular inks. But it is cool that we are on the verge of having "archival" color prints, that won't fade within just 20 years!
Troy
_______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
I think it's already been proven that stone carvings will last at least two to three thousand years. Get rid of your printers, cameras, enlargers, CD burners, and get yourself some chisels and limestone. Even a mud tablet might last longer than a color print! ;) Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
C.H., Where did I put my "Flintstone Camera". Ya know the one with the bird and the chisel inside who taps out what he sees through the hole (lens) on a stone tablet. And we thought that they didn't know what they were doing back then those sly foxes. 73 de n7zi Gary Liptrot n7zi@attbi.com P.S. Brent W. cud you please send me your email address privately. I want to discuss thing about mirror grinding occasionally. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-admin@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:17 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Galileo, time I think it's already been proven that stone carvings will last at least two to three thousand years. Get rid of your printers, cameras, enlargers, CD burners, and get yourself some chisels and limestone. Even a mud tablet might last longer than a color print! ;) Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Just got this link from Debbie Whitaker; looks like some more useful information on the topic of color filters, FWIW: http://sciastro.net/portia/advice/filters.htm Rich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
No Brent, I "heard" that laser prints last a very long time, but didn't come across any solid data on them being tested for how long they lasted. We did try to find some data on color xerox copies, which I think would be similar to color laser prints since both use toner, but we couldn't find any data on how long they last. Troy At 07:59 AM 2/5/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Troy,
Great information. Did you run across any information on laser printers, both color and black and white?
Brent
I've been reading this thread on the "archiveability" of digital prints and no one has brought up this point on digital photos: Although the prints expire, the digital data does not. As long as you reburn your CDR's every 5 to 10 years and keep more than one copy, your image will never fade, will never lose it's origional quality, and you can always print new prints (with probably even better printer quality with every print). CDR's should last 50 to 100 years, so this is a very conservative approach. That sounds better than any photo print archive method or scheme I've ever heard of and it certainly beats the life expectancy of normal color photos. On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 23:43:23 -0700 Troy Adair <troyadair@utah-inter.net> wrote:
No Brent,
I "heard" that laser prints last a very long time, but didn't come across any solid data on them being tested for how long they lasted. We did try to find some data on color xerox copies, which I think would be similar to color laser prints since both use toner, but we couldn't find any data on how long they last.
Troy
At 07:59 AM 2/5/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Troy,
Great information. Did you run across any information on laser printers, both color and black and white?
Brent
_______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Hi Troy, Yes, the digital data will never be lost - or will it? See the first posts of this thread and you'll understand that 1) the media will deteriorate, 2)players for the media will not be around, 3)computers that understand how to talk to old drives will not be around, and 4) operating systems for the machines to read it will not exist. How long before DVD completely takes over the CD? Will DVD be a "standard" or will something else come along? Compatability cannot be maintained forever. Migrating data to new formats has historically not worked. No one takes the time to do it. Have you migrated all of your data from 5-1/4 inch floppies to CDR, or even all of your 3-1/2 inch floppies? Even if a CDR lasts 50 -200 years (they don't) a good quality black and white print will outlast it. Brent --- Chris Russell <chris@therussells.net> wrote:
I've been reading this thread on the "archiveability" of digital prints and no one has brought up this point on digital photos: Although the prints expire, the digital data does not. As long as you reburn your CDR's every 5 to 10 years and keep more than one copy, your image will never fade, will never lose it's origional quality, and you can always print new prints (with probably even better printer quality with every print). CDR's should last 50 to 100 years, so this is a very conservative approach.
That sounds better than any photo print archive method or scheme I've ever heard of and it certainly beats the life expectancy of normal color photos.
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 23:43:23 -0700 Troy Adair <troyadair@utah-inter.net> wrote:
No Brent,
I "heard" that laser prints last a very long time, but didn't come across any solid data on them being tested for how long they lasted. We did try to find some data on color xerox copies, which I think would be similar to color laser prints since both use toner, but we couldn't find any data on how long they last.
Troy
At 07:59 AM 2/5/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Troy,
Great information. Did you run across any information on laser printers, both color and black and white?
Brent
_______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
_______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
I whole heartedly agree with your points Rich; as well as others you made on this thread. Thanks for making them! (That was Chris who wrote that last email.) Genealogy is another hobby of mine, and to me, it is interesting that I have genealogical papers written by a great, great grandmother, that I can still read fine with my good old plain eyes, and that I can easily share with other members of my family irregardless of if they have a computer, what type of computer and/or drives they have, what programs they have, etc.; but I have computer disks I saved files on within the last 20 years that I can no longer read because I don't have the drives to do read them. I know I should be better about "migrating" my data, but in practice, I'm not very good at doing that. Troy
Chris wrote:
I've been reading this thread on the "archiveability" of digital prints and no one has brought up this point on digital photos: Although the prints expire, the digital data does not. As long as you reburn your CDR's every 5 to 10 years and keep more than one copy, your image will never fade, will never lose it's origional quality, and you can always print new prints (with probably even better printer quality with every print). CDR's should last 50 to 100 years, so this is a very conservative approach.
That sounds better than any photo print archive method or scheme I've ever heard of and it certainly beats the life expectancy of normal color photos.
While that is certainly a solution, for some of us with literally tens of thousands of frames archived, it just isn't practical from a time standpoint. You'd need to set aside a couple of months every 5 to 10 years just to re-burn the entire archive! C.
I think negatives tend to last well if properly processed and then not mishandled. That's a different task than preserving prints. Anyone have ideas about that? Thanks, Joe
I think negatives tend to last well if properly processed and then not mishandled. That's a different task than preserving prints. Anyone have ideas about that? Thanks, Joe
Joe, I was a color-lab tech and printer in a former life. The best thing you can do for your negs is to store them in acid-free sleeves, in darkness and very dry air. They should last for decades. Some color-shift will occur, but a good printer worth his/her salt can get a reasonably-neutral print with a little care and proper filtration. If you wanted to go whole-hog, you could further store them in a neutral gas such as helium. C.
Joe, Once again, you are dealing with the same basic materials as slides. The durability will be better, but still not great. B&W still wins here by a long way. Brent --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
I think negatives tend to last well if properly processed and then not mishandled. That's a different task than preserving prints. Anyone have ideas about that? Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
Well, I can vouch for B&W all right. I own daguerreotypes that have barely deteriorated in 150 years, and negatives that are almost as pristine now as they were 110 years ago. -- Joe
--- Chuck Hards <chuckh@companionsystems.com> wrote:
While that is certainly a solution, for some of us with literally tens of thousands of frames archived, it just isn't practical from a time standpoint. You'd need to set aside a couple of months every 5 to 10 years just to re-burn the entire archive!
Though at least every other time you would do this it would be to media with dramatically higher capacity, which would cut down on the time spent switching media. Anyway, my suspicion is that eventually what we save things on will be solid state (CF,MMC, etc), so copy times will be very much shortened. Lets also bear in mind that the vast majority (IMO) of black and white prints taken in the past no longer exist. Fire, flood, and what not have claimed many a memory from being passed on. If what we store things on isn't taken care of, it won't matter what it is. I would in no way want to discourage making prints. I think thats a good idea. I just think that properly cared for and renewed digital copies can work as well. Yes, I'm old enough to remember 8 inch floppies and reel-to-reel audio. I own many LPs. I think we are in a very difficult time in history, where a fundamental change is taking place. Its entirely possible that in a couple of hundred years they will know more about 1800's than they know about the last few years. My advice? Make good hardcopies of things you absolutely can't lose, and put 'em someplace safe. Then, keep updated digital copies of every thing. You'll be glad you did both, as will your proginy. dave __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
Another thought: Newspapers. It is shocking how poorly modern newspapers meet the test of time. I own bound volumes more than 150 years old that are in better shape than copies of my own articles printed 20 or 30 years ago. The big difference is that old newspapers used rag paper, while modern papers use pulp paper. Apparently, manufacturing paper from wood pulp requires chemicals that make the paper yellow and fragile within a few years. -- Joe
Joe wrote:
Another thought: Newspapers. It is shocking how poorly modern newspapers meet the test of time. I own bound volumes more than 150 years old that are in better shape than copies of my own articles printed 20 or 30 years ago. The big difference is that old newspapers used rag paper, while modern papers use pulp paper. Apparently, manufacturing paper from wood pulp requires chemicals that make the paper yellow and fragile within a few years.
Yep, and that chemical is an ACID. Now you see why acid-free materials are favored by archivists. Rag content is still a benchmark of quality paper. The higher the rag content, the pricier the paper. C.
Joe, I've been told that the best way to preserve newspapers is to Xerox them. If done on good paper the copies are touted to last longer than the original print. I stand by my statement - Our generation will be one of the first in the gap of information as seen by historians of the future. Brent --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
Another thought: Newspapers. It is shocking how poorly modern newspapers meet the test of time. I own bound volumes more than 150 years old that are in better shape than copies of my own articles printed 20 or 30 years ago. The big difference is that old newspapers used rag paper, while modern papers use pulp paper. Apparently, manufacturing paper from wood pulp requires chemicals that make the paper yellow and fragile within a few years. -- Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
Prints and negatives do not need a "viewing device" other than what comes standard equipment - eyes. Brent --- David Moulton <dmoulton@rocketmail.com> wrote:
--- Chuck Hards <chuckh@companionsystems.com> wrote:
While that is certainly a solution, for some of us
with literally
tens of thousands of frames archived, it just isn't practical from a time standpoint. You'd need to set aside a couple of months every 5 to 10 years just to re-burn the entire archive!
Though at least every other time you would do this it would be to media with dramatically higher capacity, which would cut down on the time spent switching media. Anyway, my suspicion is that eventually what we save things on will be solid state (CF,MMC, etc), so copy times will be very much shortened.
Lets also bear in mind that the vast majority (IMO) of black and white prints taken in the past no longer exist. Fire, flood, and what not have claimed many a memory from being passed on. If what we store things on isn't taken care of, it won't matter what it is.
I would in no way want to discourage making prints. I think thats a good idea. I just think that properly cared for and renewed digital copies can work as well. Yes, I'm old enough to remember 8 inch floppies and reel-to-reel audio. I own many LPs.
I think we are in a very difficult time in history, where a fundamental change is taking place. Its entirely possible that in a couple of hundred years they will know more about 1800's than they know about the last few years.
My advice? Make good hardcopies of things you absolutely can't lose, and put 'em someplace safe. Then, keep updated digital copies of every thing. You'll be glad you did both, as will your proginy.
dave
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-astronomy mailing list Utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
participants (12)
-
Brent Watson -
Chris Russell -
Chuck Hards -
Chuck Hards -
Cynthia Blue -
David Moulton -
Gary Liptrot -
Joe Bauman -
Patrick Wiggins -
Richard Tenney -
Steinicke, Brett -
Troy Adair