Long term archiving??

"A.F. Hobbacher" writes:

What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
two generations?? Any suggestion ??

I don't think there is a way at this time. CDs were touted as the way for
awhile, but then they started falling apart and and people started saving
to DVDs.

Even if CDs last for generations, there's no way to know that they'll still
be viable as a resource -- like 5 1/4-inch floppies. Nobody has drives for
those that you've still got laying around.

Another issue is that nobody knows what's on a CD, so if your grandkids
stumble across one, they won't know it's your valued imagery -- same with a
DVD.

Many people who post here swear they'll keep up with changing technology
and convert all their data from CDs to DVDs to keep the images available. I
doubt it, but let's say you do manage to keep your files on a medium that's
current at your death. Who's going to do that for you for the next one or
two generations? Who's going to care?

With film, at least the film is there, maybe prints, so people can see what
the images are without having to have a converter or a computer or whatever
it takes to view the zeros and ones. But who knows whether the means to
create prints will continue to exist? Many archives are scanning their
negatives and prints, so the originals are preserved regardless of what
medium is used to present them digitally.

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.

Phil Stripling writes:

"A.F. Hobbacher" writes:

What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
two generations?? Any suggestion ??

I don't think there is a way at this time. CDs were touted as the way for
awhile, but then they started falling apart and and people started saving
to DVDs.

Even if CDs last for generations, there's no way to know that they'll still
be viable as a resource -- like 5 1/4-inch floppies. Nobody has drives for
those that you've still got laying around.

I've got working 5.25" drives, and professional data transfer services
do too. The problem, at this point, is that the *disks* are probably
not readable any more. Magnetic media are a very poor archiving
choice -- diskette, tape, whatever. Short lifespan. Not very
stable.

Another issue is that nobody knows what's on a CD, so if your grandkids
stumble across one, they won't know it's your valued imagery -- same with a
DVD.

One should label them, certainly. And perhaps the boxes they're
stored in as well.

Many people who post here swear they'll keep up with changing technology
and convert all their data from CDs to DVDs to keep the images available. I
doubt it, but let's say you do manage to keep your files on a medium that's
current at your death. Who's going to do that for you for the next one or
two generations? Who's going to care?

Probably nobody, but if so, then it doesn't matter.

*I* have been working to carry forward photo images from my
grandparents' and parents' generations, so it doesn't seem that
inconceivable that somebody might continue to care after me.

With film, at least the film is there, maybe prints, so people can
see what the images are without having to have a converter or a
computer or whatever it takes to view the zeros and ones. But who
knows whether the means to create prints will continue to exist?
Many archives are scanning their negatives and prints, so the
originals are preserved regardless of what medium is used to present
them digitally.

Color prints from the 1960s are mostly gone, ditto negatives. The
materials have deteriorated. I've had to deal with prints, negs, and
slides that are badly faded in my work preserving family photos.

Modern chromagenic materials aren't nearly as bad as the 1960s stuff,
but you still shouldn't count on them for even 50 years in ordinary
household storage. You *might* get that, but you might not.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:29:54 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Color prints from the 1960s are mostly gone, ditto negatives. The
materials have deteriorated.


Not necessarily. I've got a few from the mid-sixties
that still scan well. The slides have fared worse,
except for the Kodachromes. 15 year old Ektar
negatives scan perfectly.

BTW, I've got pros telling me that DAT and DLT tape
is good, reliable backup. Drives and media still
widely available, and very high capacity (eg 20/40 G).

But I used to deal with audio tape in 7" reels, and
I saw some of that stuff degrade over 10-15 years.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
two generations?? Any suggestion ??

No one knows yet. I think a good photographic print, using
time-tested technology, is a good idea for anything you know you want
to have in a two generations.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

rafe bustin writes:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:29:54 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Color prints from the 1960s are mostly gone, ditto negatives. The
materials have deteriorated.


Not necessarily. I've got a few from the mid-sixties
that still scan well. The slides have fared worse,
except for the Kodachromes. 15 year old Ektar
negatives scan perfectly.

15 year, sure. And of course there's a range of results from the
1960s materials (as you say, other than Kodachrome), but an awful lot
of the 1960s color consumer photos are gone (note "consumer").

BTW, I've got pros telling me that DAT and DLT tape
is good, reliable backup. Drives and media still
widely available, and very high capacity (eg 20/40 G).

I know that 9-track 1/2" tape wasn't very stable, either. Maybe DAT
and DLT are a heck of a lot better, but I haven't been convinced yet.
Also the drives are darned expensive compared to DVD writers.

But I used to deal with audio tape in 7" reels, and
I saw some of that stuff degrade over 10-15 years.

Yep. Consumer 1/4" reel-to-reel, too.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:49:35 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

rafe bustin writes:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:29:54 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Color prints from the 1960s are mostly gone, ditto negatives. The
materials have deteriorated.


Not necessarily. I've got a few from the mid-sixties
that still scan well. The slides have fared worse,
except for the Kodachromes. 15 year old Ektar
negatives scan perfectly.

15 year, sure. And of course there's a range of results from the
1960s materials (as you say, other than Kodachrome), but an awful lot
of the 1960s color consumer photos are gone (note "consumer").

Color prints, yeah, but they were fairly
crappy to begin with. I was surprised at
how well some color negs scanned from
1965 or so.

BTW, I've got pros telling me that DAT and DLT tape
is good, reliable backup. Drives and media still
widely available, and very high capacity (eg 20/40 G).

I know that 9-track 1/2" tape wasn't very stable, either. Maybe DAT
and DLT are a heck of a lot better, but I haven't been convinced yet.
Also the drives are darned expensive compared to DVD writers.


About $500 for DAT drives, but then the media
holds a lot more data than a DVD. I haven't
sprung for it myself, I'm skeptical just like you.

But this stuff has come up on other fora, and I've
had more than one trustworthy source singing
the praises of DAT/DLT drives and media.

DLT is a wider tape; used DLT drives are found
on eBay for $100-$200.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphto.com

"rafe bustin" wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:49:35 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

BTW, I've got pros telling me that DAT and DLT tape
is good, reliable backup. Drives and media still
widely available, and very high capacity (eg 20/40 G).

I know that 9-track 1/2" tape wasn't very stable, either. Maybe DAT
and DLT are a heck of a lot better, but I haven't been convinced yet.
Also the drives are darned expensive compared to DVD writers.


About $500 for DAT drives, but then the media
holds a lot more data than a DVD. I haven't
sprung for it myself, I'm skeptical just like you.

When I worked for AT&T's Tokyo Unix operaration, we religiously backed up
everything to tape cassettes every week.

The system crashed and the tapes couldn't be read.

Oops.

I'll pass on anything that looks even vaguely resembles tape.

By the way, is there a good utility for reading an already written CD-R and
reporting how error-free the data is???

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

(Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) writes:

No one knows yet. I think a good photographic print, using
time-tested technology, is a good idea for anything you know you want
to have in a two generations.

Which means B&W silver-gelatine on fiber-base paper. Not color.

Fair enough. (I don't know - print out CMYK separately?)

Certainly B&W separation prints would preserve the color -- you only
need three really, RGB like the film layers.

Or you could go to more exotic technologies -- dye transfer (but the
Kodak materials haven't been manufactured in years) is pretty stable
especially in the dark.

Or you could choose to believe the Wilhelm Research testing results on
inkjet inks, and make an Epson Ultrachrome print -- but we started
down this track to avoid relying on accelerated testing results, so
that's probably not the right choice! (I think the Wilhelm results
are the best we have on these new materials, but I still think they're
a long way from well-established fact.)

I've wondered how high a data density you could get in 2-dimensional
barcodes at page size. Could you print the data for say a 1MB jpeg on
an 8.5x11 sheet? You'd need a scanner and software to recover the
data, but those are unlikely to go away. And there's still the
question of the paper+ink stability. But maybe we could agree that a
carbon-based pigment black ink on pure cotton paper was stable enough?
And you can buy such inks for inkjet printers.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

One more important thing I forgot to add, make sure you save your photo
as jpegs, it is fine to save the raw files as well but the jpeg
standard will be able to be read by programs for many years to come,
the same can not be said for the current raw formats, you also don't
want to force your relatives to try to figure out how to converter raw
files.

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
No one knows yet. I think a good photographic print, using
time-tested technology, is a good idea for anything you know you want
to have in a two generations.

Which means B&W silver-gelatine on fiber-base paper. Not color.


Fair enough. (I don't know - print out CMYK separately?)


I've been wondering about color LaserJet prints on acid free paper. They
seem to be very durable. They don't fade on my dashboard; even in the
yard they retain toner for a good while.

Our office has photocopies that are 20 years old and show no signs of
deterioration.

Bob