[Leica] Digital image longevity

[don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory)]

Lee,
I can not speak for Kodak products but in the past they were significantly
worse performers regarding color fidelity.  Now, RA-4 is a standard process
so if the lab is in control then Fuji Crystal Archive Paper will last more
than 75 years without significant deteriation under standard display
conditions; not dark storage.  I am trying my own experiment by hanging a
very dark image in full sun with great southern exposure.  It has been up
six week now with no issues; I have kept an identical image in dark storage
to compare peridically.

Now, negatives (color) are a different issue. The dyes in negatives will not
last a half century unless you store them in the proverbial cool, dry, dark,
space.

So, for images you value, print them and scan them to a DVD.  However you
set up your tickler file, every five to ten years see what technology has
changed and update as necessary.  The good news is that as new recording
media comes around, the density gets better.  Remember the old single sided
floppies that had maybe 160K on them?  That was only, what 15-20 years ago.
In that time we have gone from cassette tape storage to floppies to rigid
floppies to CDs to DVDs.  10MB hard drives were expensive to 500MB drives
costing the same before inflation calculations.

Digital will work fine as long as you pay attention, just like negatives
work just fine for people who take care to store them in reasonable places.

Don
don.dory@gmail.com


On 8/14/06, Lee England <Engl6914@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> This is just a question, not an argument since I'm not sure I'm one way or
> the other here.  But is the use of RA-4 paper and archival inks, mentioned
> by Doug, standard processing by, say, Walgreens?  The reason I ask:  my
> mother hauled out a shoe box a few months ago showing me photographs taken
> of her father and his unit of the U.S. Cavalry in south Texas in 1917 on
> maneuvers.  The land surrounding is flat and desolate, and I doubt this
> film
> got any more than the usual processing used by the proletariat at the
> time.
> Not a town or a Walgreens or even a dwelling in sight.  These photos were
> treasures, and I decided at that point to stick to film because I want my
> great great great grandchildren to see what great great great grandpappy
> saw.
>    Again, I'm not arguing, just asking.  To achieve the longevity Doug
> describes, would one be able to get that from Walgreens, or would he need
> to
> get a special printer with special inks and papers?  If longevity requires
> special treatment, then I don't think those photos from the 1st World War,
> had they been shot digitally, would've survived.  And perhaps they might
> not
> have been printed--just emailed.  If that kind of archival processing is
> standard then I might be more inclined toward switching to digital, and
> more
> of the digital prints will survive.
>
> Lee England
> Natchez, Mississippi
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:06:34 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
> > From: Douglas Herr <telyt@earthlink.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] PAW from the Analog Trashheap
> > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> 13706905.1155575194102.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > Phil Swango wrote:
> >
> >> Jim Shulman wrote:
> >>> My biggest complaint about digital imaging is that we will likely lose
> the
> >>> "shoebox" to the ages--no tangible receptacle, like an old shoebox,
> for
> >>> prints or negatives.  What's the likelihood that ephemeral digital
> images
> >>> will survive?  Not bloody likely, unless you're a computer expert like
> >> Brian
> >>> and copy all your work regularly.
> >>
> >> You are so right.  Last week someone in my family drug out a box of
> oldies
> >> and we passed them around over dinner.  What a great experience for my
> >> daughter and the rest of us.  How many stories came to mind.  How many
> >> memories awakened.  Copying all your files to storage won't even begin
> to
> >> fill the role of a few drugstore snaps passed around the
> table.  Pictures
> >> you can hold in your hand and whose physical condition bears witness to
> the
> >> passing of time.
> >
> > A dissenting viewpoint - we don't pass negatives around, and many people
> are
> > as careless with film negative storage as with digital.  As long as
> prints are
> > made from digital negatives with reasonably good technology, i.e., RA-4
> > paper/chem, or archival inks, they'll hold up in a shoebox just as well
> as
> > prints from film negatives
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>