If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy wrote:
The short answer to your question is to store files in UNCOMPRESSED TIF. It is the format of choice for virtually all libraries. Do not compress the TIF files, because the various compression schemes might become unreadable by editing programs in the future. Already there are reports of old compressed TIF files not being able to be opened by modern editing software. Forget compression on your archived image files. IMHO jpeg (not jpeg 2000) is perfectly safe in that regard. Having become one of the two formats universal on the Web, it is not going away during your or my lifetime. Not a chance. Even after taking all these precautions, you will have to provide for migrating the data to the latest file format and media type as time goes on. Plan on doing this every 7-10 years. This is less and less the case. As computers become more widespread and more adequate, evolution slows. People point out that (for instance) there are only two drives on earth that can read the tapes on which the 1960(?) census were recorded. But how many of those drives were ever manufactured in the first place? Writable CDs have already been the norm for about 7 years, and all new drives are backwards compatible with them, and will be for the forseeable future. 3.5" floppies have been "dying" for almost 10 years now, yet drives are cheap and widely available. And there are far more CDs in curculation than there ever were 3.5" floppies, ensuring an even longer transition. This is the Achilles Heel of digital preservation: you cannot be assured that this migration effort will continue after your demise. But then you won't care. Responding to the rest of your post, as well, I just don't think it's important to worry about hundreds of years. I disagree with the fears of a "digital dark age." If digital information is more easily destroyed, it is also replicated and distributed. Many images will not survive, but billions upon billions will. Given that, it's vanity to imagine that anybody will mourn the loss of your (or my) photographs. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy wrote:
The short answer to your question is to store files in UNCOMPRESSED TIF. It is the format of choice for virtually all libraries. Do not compress the TIF files, because the various compression schemes might become unreadable by editing programs in the future. Already there are reports of old compressed TIF files not being able to be opened by modern editing software. Forget compression on your archived image files. IMHO jpeg (not jpeg 2000) is perfectly safe in that regard. Having become one of the two formats universal on the Web, it is not going away during your or my lifetime. Not a chance. Even after taking all these precautions, you will have to provide for migrating the data to the latest file format and media type as time goes on. Plan on doing this every 7-10 years. This is less and less the case. As computers become more widespread and more adequate, evolution slows. People point out that (for instance) there are only two drives on earth that can read the tapes on which the 1960(?) census were recorded. But how many of those drives were ever manufactured in the first place? Writable CDs have already been the norm for about 7 years, and all new drives are backwards compatible with them, and will be for the forseeable future. 3.5" floppies have been "dying" for almost 10 years now, yet drives are cheap and widely available. And there are far more CDs in curculation than there ever were 3.5" floppies, ensuring an even longer transition. This is the Achilles Heel of digital preservation: you cannot be assured that this migration effort will continue after your demise. But then you won't care. Responding to the rest of your post, as well, I just don't think it's important to worry about hundreds of years. I disagree with the fears of a "digital dark age." If digital information is more easily destroyed, it is also replicated and distributed. Many images will not survive, but billions upon billions will. Given that, it's vanity to imagine that anybody will mourn the loss of your (or my) photographs. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
timeOday wrote:
IMHO jpeg (not jpeg 2000) is perfectly safe in that regard. Having become one of the two formats universal on the Web, it is not going away during your or my lifetime. Not a chance. Hogwash. File formats come and go in a very short period. There's nothing that guarantees the survival of a lossy format like JPG during the course of the next ten years, much less the next fifty. As computers become more widespread and more adequate, evolution slows. More hogwash. You're swimming in it. Writable CDs have already been the norm for about 7 years, and all new drives are backwards compatible with them, and will be for the forseeable future. Utter baloney. DVD-R is standard now for most high-end systems. CD is dying. 3.5" floppies have been "dying" for almost 10 years now, yet drives are cheap and widely available. Yeah right -- the last gasp of a moribund hardware item! you cannot be assured that this migration effort will continue after your demise. But then you won't care. Moronic interpretation of the topic. Ever heard of archival preservation? Family records? The point is to preserve images beyond one's demise. Maybe you don't care, but most folks interested in this topic care deeply. I just don't think it's important to worry about hundreds of years. Then why are you participating in this thread, which is about exactly that? If digital information is more easily destroyed, it is also replicated and distributed. Many images will not survive, but billions upon billions will. Given that, it's vanity to imagine that anybody will mourn the loss of your ... photographs. Duh! Well, you don't have children or grandchildren then, do you? If you don't mind substitution of documents, and just rejoice that "billions" of irrelevant ones "survive," then I guess you don't care if the picture of your mother hanging on the wall is replaced with one of Phyllis Diller, eh? Hey, one pidger's just like another, right? And quantity is important, so we'll give you 100,000 pidgers of Phyllis Diller. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Farga Palenga Jengis wrote: timeOday wrote: IMHO jpeg (not jpeg 2000) is perfectly safe in that regard. Having become one of the two formats universal on the Web, it is not going away during your or my lifetime. Not a chance. Hogwash. File formats come and go in a very short period. There's nothing that guarantees the survival of a lossy format like JPG during the course of the next ten years, much less the next fifty. My goodness; now you have me scared! Is it going to disappear tonight? Next week? Do I have a month? Come on, even IF it were to disappear over the next few years or a decade, those of us who care would simply create new copies in whatever format on whatever media was then current. And even for those of us not smart enough to do so, someone somewhere would provide us with a convertor. snip Utter baloney. DVD-R is standard now for most high-end systems. CD is dying. Yeppers, a long long long slow death. Darn, I'm in trouble again. Don't even have a CD player in my machine. But wait! Somehow magically my DVD burner seems to use them. Writes 'em too. Try it, maybe yours will too. snip again Moronic interpretation of the topic. Ever heard of archival preservation? Family records? The point is to preserve images beyond one's demise. Maybe you don't care, but most folks interested in this topic care deeply. Nothing moronic about it. It's NOT our task to preserve beyond our own lifetimes. I pass mine on to my daughers, then THEY decide if and when they'll maintain them. There's nothing more that can be asked of me, or that I can do. Period. snip again Duh! Well, you don't have children or grandchildren then, do you? If you don't mind substitution of documents, and just rejoice that "billions" of irrelevant ones "survive," then I guess you don't care if the picture of your mother hanging on the wall is replaced with one of Phyllis Diller, eh? Hey, one pidger's just like another, right? And quantity is important, so we'll give you 100,000 pidgers of Phyllis Diller. Sure do. The best in the world. And I hope the future generations remember some of our history; both of us; all of us. But if they're going to do it then they are going to have to take on the responsibility of maintaining those records. No matter how badly we want to, no matter how hard we try, we just can't. Take care. Ken |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Farga Palenga Jengis wrote: timeOday wrote: IMHO jpeg (not jpeg 2000) is perfectly safe in that regard. Having become one of the two formats universal on the Web, it is not going away during your or my lifetime. Not a chance. Hogwash. File formats come and go in a very short period. There's nothing that guarantees the survival of a lossy format like JPG during the course of the next ten years, much less the next fifty. My goodness; now you have me scared! Is it going to disappear tonight? Next week? Do I have a month? Come on, even IF it were to disappear over the next few years or a decade, those of us who care would simply create new copies in whatever format on whatever media was then current. And even for those of us not smart enough to do so, someone somewhere would provide us with a convertor. snip Utter baloney. DVD-R is standard now for most high-end systems. CD is dying. Yeppers, a long long long slow death. Darn, I'm in trouble again. Don't even have a CD player in my machine. But wait! Somehow magically my DVD burner seems to use them. Writes 'em too. Try it, maybe yours will too. snip again Moronic interpretation of the topic. Ever heard of archival preservation? Family records? The point is to preserve images beyond one's demise. Maybe you don't care, but most folks interested in this topic care deeply. Nothing moronic about it. It's NOT our task to preserve beyond our own lifetimes. I pass mine on to my daughers, then THEY decide if and when they'll maintain them. There's nothing more that can be asked of me, or that I can do. Period. snip again Duh! Well, you don't have children or grandchildren then, do you? If you don't mind substitution of documents, and just rejoice that "billions" of irrelevant ones "survive," then I guess you don't care if the picture of your mother hanging on the wall is replaced with one of Phyllis Diller, eh? Hey, one pidger's just like another, right? And quantity is important, so we'll give you 100,000 pidgers of Phyllis Diller. Sure do. The best in the world. And I hope the future generations remember some of our history; both of us; all of us. But if they're going to do it then they are going to have to take on the responsibility of maintaining those records. No matter how badly we want to, no matter how hard we try, we just can't. Take care. Ken |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Weitzel wrote:
Farga Palenga Jengis wrote: timeOday wrote: IMHO jpeg (not jpeg 2000) is perfectly safe in that regard. Having become one of the two formats universal on the Web, it is not going away during your or my lifetime. Not a chance. Hogwash. File formats come and go in a very short period. There's nothing that guarantees the survival of a lossy format like JPG during the course of the next ten years, much less the next fifty. My goodness; now you have me scared! Is it going to disappear tonight? Next week? Do I have a month? A little reductio ad absurdem, eh? tOd said JPG would last beyond his lifetime. See on the one hand "tonight" and on the other hand "my lifetime?" Somehow magically my DVD burner seems to use them. Writes 'em too. Try it, maybe yours will too. Yes but that's not the point, is it? Yesterday the standard for optical storage was CD, today it's DVD, tomorrow it might not be optical at all. It's NOT our task to preserve beyond our own lifetimes. I pass mine on to my daughers ... Still missing the point. tOd said that he didn't care if his images were passed on to his daughters, since "billions" of other images would survive. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Weitzel wrote:
Farga Palenga Jengis wrote: timeOday wrote: IMHO jpeg (not jpeg 2000) is perfectly safe in that regard. Having become one of the two formats universal on the Web, it is not going away during your or my lifetime. Not a chance. Hogwash. File formats come and go in a very short period. There's nothing that guarantees the survival of a lossy format like JPG during the course of the next ten years, much less the next fifty. My goodness; now you have me scared! Is it going to disappear tonight? Next week? Do I have a month? A little reductio ad absurdem, eh? tOd said JPG would last beyond his lifetime. See on the one hand "tonight" and on the other hand "my lifetime?" Somehow magically my DVD burner seems to use them. Writes 'em too. Try it, maybe yours will too. Yes but that's not the point, is it? Yesterday the standard for optical storage was CD, today it's DVD, tomorrow it might not be optical at all. It's NOT our task to preserve beyond our own lifetimes. I pass mine on to my daughers ... Still missing the point. tOd said that he didn't care if his images were passed on to his daughters, since "billions" of other images would survive. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
In general, I agree with what you are saying, but would
add a comment here -- when doing the "double copies" thing, use different brands of media for the copies. For, over in the alt.video.dvdr group there have been comments recently of the Ritek G04 and G05 media (which people have been very happy with in the past) "forgetting" what was written within a fairly short period of time ( 6 months ). Use two different manufacturers (not just different brand names which may actually be the same) to do the backups. If one develops read problems, refresh from the other one. Two copies in different locations is great if you have a fire or something, but if they both begin to forget at the same time, you lose. I know -- no simple answer. As to whether or not anyone cares about your pix 50 years from now, I know I have really enjoyed being able to find old B/W pix from when my dad was a kid (but then I am into genealogy stuff too). See the picture at http://home.comcast.net/~mike.fields/genealog.htm for a cute picture of my 87 year old father when he was a little boy on the farm. Glad I found that one. Will my kids care in 50 years I hope so. Will anyone else care? In reality probably not. I would suspect that jpg will be around for quite a while, if not as a primary storage, then at least with converters for whatever is current in the future. The trick is to at least make the attempt to make sure the media is there if anyone wants to look. It is easy to make a copy onto the "new standard" - it is much harder to recover from old corrupted media. mikey "Jeremy" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... First concern is the availability of current file and data format. So what would you guys say is the best file type, media format and media type to use if I want them to be easily accessible for decades? Welcome to the world of digital image preservation! Sorry that you were hit so hard by your experience with your "ancient" 8-year-old image files. Actually, you received a valuable lesson from the School of Hard Knocks, for which you should be grateful. You learned while you were still able to correct the problem. Others will not be so lucky. The short answer to your question is to store files in UNCOMPRESSED TIF. It is the format of choice for virtually all libraries. Do not compress the TIF files, because the various compression schemes might become unreadable by editing programs in the future. Already there are reports of old compressed TIF files not being able to be opened by modern editing software. Forget compression on your archived image files. Use the "Master and Derivative" model for your storage media: in other words, make TWO "Master Disks." Store one off-site (bank safe deposit box, relative or friend's home, etc.) Store it in a jewel box, keep it in a dark place and don't touch it. Store a duplicate "Master Disk" at home, under the same dark/temperature/humidity optimum conditions. These "Master Disks" are used only to make derivative copies. If you work on your images, always work off the expendable Derivative Copy. If the Derivative ever goes bad, use your on-site Master Disk to make a new Derivative Copy, and then return the Master Disk back to hibernation. Never use the Master Disk for any other purpose. If your on-site Master Disk goes bad, or if it is lost in a fire, flood or theft, then make a NEW on-site Master Disk from the one you stored off-site, in the Safe Deposit Box. You might consider including an Index Print along with your Master and Derivative Disks, just so you (or your descendants) can see what is contained on them. This is a far cry from storing negatives in archival plastic pages, and storing prints in albums (or in shoeboxes). Even after taking all these precautions, you will have to provide for migrating the data to the latest file format and media type as time goes on. Plan on doing this every 7-10 years. This is the Achilles Heel of digital preservation: you cannot be assured that this migration effort will continue after your demise. Just think about the proverbial shoebox full of photos found in Grandma's attic: for one thing, people tend to move more often and there is less chance that our historical images will be left undisturbed for generations. And (more importantly) the photos Grandma stored were visible without any special equipment or software. What if those Mac images that you had were just a few years older? You might not have had the means to decode them, and you would have probably discarded them, rather than pay to have them converted onto a current medium. Kodak, on their website, even recommends that you consider long-term storage of your important images by making PRINTS of them, and storing them in archival albums, in appropriate temperature/humidity/darkness conditions. The fact is that, for the typical consumer, the lowly PRINT stands the greatest chance of long-term survival, because it requires little long-term maintenance. If you are starting to have reservations about digital file longevity, you are not alone. I recommend that you have a look at this article, that discusses the issue better than I can. "Digital's Dirty Little Secret" http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm Even large digital libraries are affected by the need to periodically renew their digital assets onto newer file formats and storage media. What makes them different from us consumers is that they have planned for, and budgeted for, this continual file maintenance and renewal. We ordinary folks must rely upon our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren to care for our image files. There is no assurance that they will have any interest in doing so. More likely, the piles of disks will gather dust until somebody decides to throw them out, since they can't read them. At least prints have a chance of surviving, because their historical value is apparent at first glance. Not so with those CDs or DVDs. More photos are being taken than ever before, and I believe that a large number of them will survive. But the question of whether YOUR particular photos will survive in digital format is uncertain. My own solution is to do my important stuff on film. I use digital for short-time-horizons of under 5 years. And on important digital images, I do have OFOTO make prints on silver halide paper, and I keep them in archival albums. I have tons of CDs, with digital images on them, and I have no reason to think that they will survive long-term. It is a pity that this problem has not been solved yet. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message ... "Jeremy" writes: "Joseph Meehan" wrote in message news:bdhyd.11970 Digital storage is not forever. We often fail to appreciate the fact that CDs were NEVER developed to be an archival storage medium! There is an element of Russian Roulette when storing on CD or DVD. We already know that there is a wide variation when it comes to reliability of data (I just read something about "rotting dyes" in some CDs, that apparently degrade over time to the point that the entire disk becomes unreadable). Meanwhile, the guy that has shot film, on his cheap little Point & Shoot camera, and who has carefully stored the prints and negs in archival plastic album pages, ends up keeping his whole library of his life's pictures! Is that ironic, or what? For thirty years, or perhaps even longer sometimes if he's lucky! You are *greatly* over-rating the stability of color photograhic materials. Most of the color snapshots from the 60s are essentially gone now. -- And what about those shots being taken today? Are they going to be gone in 3 decades? I suspect not. But I wouldn't bet the farm on too many of today's CDs being around in 30 years. Time will tell. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message ... "Jeremy" writes: "Joseph Meehan" wrote in message news:bdhyd.11970 Digital storage is not forever. We often fail to appreciate the fact that CDs were NEVER developed to be an archival storage medium! There is an element of Russian Roulette when storing on CD or DVD. We already know that there is a wide variation when it comes to reliability of data (I just read something about "rotting dyes" in some CDs, that apparently degrade over time to the point that the entire disk becomes unreadable). Meanwhile, the guy that has shot film, on his cheap little Point & Shoot camera, and who has carefully stored the prints and negs in archival plastic album pages, ends up keeping his whole library of his life's pictures! Is that ironic, or what? For thirty years, or perhaps even longer sometimes if he's lucky! You are *greatly* over-rating the stability of color photograhic materials. Most of the color snapshots from the 60s are essentially gone now. -- And what about those shots being taken today? Are they going to be gone in 3 decades? I suspect not. But I wouldn't bet the farm on too many of today's CDs being around in 30 years. Time will tell. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NYT article - GPS tagging of digital photos | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 4 | December 22nd 04 07:36 AM |
Top photographers condemn digital age | DM | In The Darkroom | 111 | October 10th 04 04:08 AM |
Photo Preservation for Chemical & Digital Photographs (Product Info) | Steven S. | In The Darkroom | 7 | February 5th 04 11:30 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |