Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/08/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ken, Thank you for commenting on what I actually asked about. Your point about lack of redundancy is very pertinent, but if the print is not going to fail, then redundancy is only needed to guard against loss or damage to the print (but that's not a small concern). Doing both would certainly make sense, but from what Brian presented, the disk storage sounds futile. That's why I was wondering about whether a K3 print might not be a better solution to the problem for the long term. And the long term doesn't have to be 100 or more years for the print to outlast all the forms of storage Brian discussed. Robert On Aug 16, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Ken Carney wrote: > On 8/16/2011 12:22 PM, Robert Meier wrote: >> My Epson printer will make prints that will last 100 to 200 years >> without fading or loss of color with their K3 inks, according to >> independent tests. >> >> Would those prints, then, be the best and safest way to preserve >> images? That is, would they be better than any hard drive or C >> or any other electronic means? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > It seems to me in a time frame that long, the print would be the > only sure way. However, I think that assumes dark storage in > optimum conditions, easier said than done. The disadvantage of a > print, in the nearer term, would be lack of redundancy, unless you > made three or four stored in different locations. As cheap as > disk storage is, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to do both > - a framed print, one in dark storage and one in electrons. My > stuff will probably be headed for a landfill after one generation > anyway. > > Ken > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information