On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:02:13 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote:
>This is the standard argument and I don't buy it. You have to think of the
>nature of archival preservation. Many are made, few are preserved. The fact
>is, we don't necessarily know what's going to be considered valuable 150
>years from now. So are you going to transfer _all_ or your images from one
>storage medium to another every time the technology changes? I don't know
>about you, but I'm not even a particularly heavy shooter and I've got 80,000
>negatives. I wouldn't want to have to do the work of proofing them all
>again, much less doing whatever might be necessary to transfer them from one
>digital media to another. I think the myth of "infinite transferability" is
>a shibboleth. It amounts to propaganda. It's literally true, but it's not
>useful because it doesn't take into account how images have been made and
>preserved (and lost) since 1839.
I think most of the 'pain' or 'trouble' expressed above lies in the desire to select
the images that are worth saving. This is indeed troublesome.
However, when storing digital images in a structured way on CD's or another
mass-storage medium it is fairly easy to copy the whole lot to a new medium.
So the proofing can be postponed if you want. Also newer media usualy have
a higher storage capacity so you can combine multiple 'old' ones onto a new one.
I have been using digital alongside with analog work the last couple of years and
tend to save all the 'raw' digital metarial on CD. The real good stuff, wich is a
subjective selection of course, will also end up on separate 'goodies' CD's
Regards, JvW
---------------------------------------------------------
Jan van Wijk; www.fsys.demon.nl
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
