Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dan Cardish wrote: > I don't think it is necessary to keep something for 150 years in order to know > that it will last for 150 years. Yes and no. One can get a fair idea by extrapolating results of experiments. But only a fair idea, because every time around there are so many more factors in real life that lead to deterioration of this or that material, than the testers can think of, or care to think about. I remember very well how CDs were to live forever, when they were introduced. Then they deteriorated after a few years, and were improved. Again the announcement that they would have an infinite lifespan was spread. Not so. But film has a real track record, and so does the Mona Lisa. I recommend purchasing either of those. > And while we are on the subject, what exactly IS the meaning of archival? Is > lasting 150 years OK? What happens then? It's OK for it to turn to crap in > year 151, 160, 170...? > > It's a good thing the Mona Lisa isn't archival..... I don't know why, but I find it a nice thought that the Mona Lisa isn't an Epson print. Bernard > > > Dan C. > > At 11:25 PM 15-04-00 -0400, David Prakel wrote: > >Funny that I read here that "They've got archival inks now" (referring to > >ink for Epson digital inkjet printers). I think it was only last week I read > >that RC paper wasn't considered archival as it hadn't been around for 150 > >years. > > > >My double standard detector just bleeped. > > > > > >-- > >David Prakel > > > >dprakel@rochester.rr.com > > > > > > > >