The Digital Elephant

In article <vkgu21lgjki6gd2svlpufj45qus2juuve6 DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
Matthew McGrattan <matthew.mcgrattan DeleteThis @bnc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
 >
 > I suspect most of the prints I get back from labs - from black and
 > white films - are produced by scanning the negative and then printing
 > using the same type of printer used for digital prints onto colour
 > (photographic) paper.
 >
 > The negatives will survive, of course, but I wonder about the
 > prints...
 >
 > Matt

True.

Unless your paying specifically for fiber based prints
or doing them your self in a darkroom your getting RC (Resin Coated
paper) And a lot of labs are using the same color paper by scanning the
image.

To most people it won't matter until they realize there's an issue with
the print, hence there is no incentive for a lab to produce a print that
has a guaranteed life span,...its up to us to care.

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant 

Recently, jjs <john@xstafford.net> posted:

 > "Neil Gould" <neil.RemoveThis@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
 > news:Y0GXd.7803$DW.6281@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
  >> Recently, jjs <john@xstafford.net> posted:
  >>
   >>> We can dispense with speculation regarding the ability to decode
   >>> certain formats, such as JPEG, GIF and TIFF. We will always be able
   >>> to do that because they are _standards_. If the image was made
   >>> according to the standard, it can be unwound. The code is trivial
   >>> and complete.
   >>>
  >> Oh, I wouldn't bet on that, John. There are more flavors of TIFF
  >> files than one might think, and the image editors that used to be
  >> able to open and use them have been beaten out of the marketplace by
  >> Photoshop, which can't.
 >
 > I didn't say it would be easy. As a challenge, I'd like to see a
 > _properly made_ (by the book) made TIFF that I cannot open.
 >
An interesting challenge... why not take a look at the "book"? I'd love
to send you a sample, however, I've converted all of the miscellaneous
flavors that I've had to maintain into "Photoshop compatible" formats
several years ago, since the older software packages don't run on the
newer hardware, either. Yet another issue to deal with.

Regards,

Neil<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant 

In article <112uk47751hekee RemoveThis @news.supernews.com>,
"jjs" <john@xstafford.net> wrote:
 >
 > You really should fix your routing if you want to remain anonymous.

I don't have the need to be that big a loser. Besides most of the
fun is rubbing your fur the wrong way <!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant 

"Neil Gould" <neil.TakeThisOut@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
news:%fJXd.1983$ZB6.1251@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
 > Recently, jjs <john@xstafford.net> posted:

  >> I didn't say it would be easy. As a challenge, I'd like to see a
  >> _properly made_ (by the book) made TIFF that I cannot open.
  >>
 > An interesting challenge... why not take a look at the "book"? I'd love
 > to send you a sample, however, I've converted all of the miscellaneous
 > flavors that I've had to maintain into "Photoshop compatible" formats
 > several years ago, since the older software packages don't run on the
 > newer hardware, either. Yet another issue to deal with.

I know The Book. What I was saying is that we can do nothing about software
that doesn't follow the standard TIFF, for example.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant 

"Inaccessible" <pandemonium.TakeThisOut@pitchedpipes.com> wrote in message
news:pandemonium-02BC7B.16180309032005@news.verizon.net...
 > In article <112uk47751hekee.TakeThisOut@news.supernews.com>,
 > "jjs" <john@xstafford.net> wrote:
  >>
  >> You really should fix your routing if you want to remain anonymous.
 >
 > I don't have the need to be that big a loser. Besides most of the
 > fun is rubbing your fur the wrong way

Aw, you are trying to flatter me. Fur. How cute.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant 

You have been lucky, but also the older color print materials definitely
did better in dark storage where light didn't get at them. If they were
under some sort of polystyrene or plastic film, depending one what was
in it, that might either help or hurt. Older plastics tended to have
plasticizers which vaporized over time to the detriment of photos; I
used to store my slides in some of the early pages, and some of them
lost saturation over time.

Strangely, tests have shown that Cibachrome (now Ilfochromes)
deteriorate faster in dark storage than in light. Still, they're
expected to be good for 100+ years.

All in all, there isn't any archival color process. B&W properly
processed and stored comes as close as it gets. Get acid-free storage
boxes from Light Impressions to keep your treasures in.

Gregory Blank wrote:

 >In article <s2cu219s6skoks47p8i1l378tttd8qslho.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
 > Matthew McGrattan <matthew.mcgrattan.DeleteThis@bnc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
 >
 >
 >
  >>I'm curious about this claim re: traditional colour prints. Our family
  >>photo album has photographs from the early 70s (me as baby, for
  >>example) that look fine. No apparent fading or damage.
  >>
  >>They are stored in a photo album so not generally exposed to light,
  >>but there's nothing special about them apart from that.
  >>
  >>All of my own photos from school in the mid 80s - the ones I still
  >>have anyway - still look fine too. [Although now that I've been using
  >>decent 35mm and medium format cameras they all look horribly out of
  >>focus and grainy....]
  >>
  >>Do the photographs need to be exposed to light for this damage to
  >>occur?
  >>
  >>Or have we just been lucky?
  >>
  >>Matt
  >>
  >>
 >
 >Because a lot of things factor your probably lucky to an extent,
 >
 >Sunlight largely does contribute to fading, without a doubt
 >in my mind. But also who processed the paper, the type
 >of color paper and ultimately the type of book one stores
 >ones images in will over time effect the prints.
 >
 >From the 70-80's EP2 papers had yellowing problems notable
 >in the white border areas. RA papers have eliminated a lot of those
 >issues,....but the best way to assure the image exists 200 years from now
 >is perhaps to make it using B&W materials.
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant 

"LR Kalajainen" <lrkalajainen DeleteThis @suscom-maine.net> wrote in message
news:sZqdnX5jRoCv7bLfRVn-qA@suscom-maine.net...

 > All in all, there isn't any archival color process. B&W properly
 > processed and stored comes as close as it gets [...]

So shoot three B&W frames, R,G,B respectively. Kinda hell with sports,
though.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant 

Recently, jjs <john@xstafford.net> posted:

 > "Neil Gould" <neil.TakeThisOut@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
  >> Recently, jjs <john@xstafford.net> posted:
 >
   >>> I didn't say it would be easy. As a challenge, I'd like to see a
   >>> _properly made_ (by the book) made TIFF that I cannot open.
   >>>
  >> An interesting challenge... why not take a look at the "book"?
[...]
 >
 > I know The Book. What I was saying is that we can do nothing about
 > software that doesn't follow the standard TIFF, for example.
 >
Agreed. Nor can we do anything about applications that only support a
subset of legitimate variants of a file format.

Regards,

Neil<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant 

In article <sZqdnX5jRoCv7bLfRVn-qA.RemoveThis@suscom-maine.net>,
LR Kalajainen <lrkalajainen.RemoveThis@suscom-maine.net> wrote:

 > All in all, there isn't any archival color process. B&W properly
 > processed and stored comes as close as it gets. Get acid-free storage
 > boxes from Light Impressions to keep your treasures in.

<snip>

Lets put the term in proper context, archival is a misstatement
in general contextual usage . There is no clear cut definition for
archival beyond that which is archived. The methods one uses
for preserving various media have varying criteria and that criteria
itself is somewhat not consistent from the home user standpoint
especially.

That's not to say the advanced photographer can't take precautions
to insure that ones work lasts as long as possible,...but ultimately
there is no guarantee that any imagery will be around after one's
own life.

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant 

"Stacey" <fotocord.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:397fueF5scbe4U1@individual.net...
 > David J. Littleboy wrote:
 >
........
 > I'm shooting some digital now and trying to be active about storage, I
 > doubt
 > many casual users are. Most seem to have a hard time even downloading them
 > onto a computer much less archival storing them. They just take the CF
 > card
 > to walmart, have prints made and erase the card.
 > --
 >
 > Stacey

To illustrate your point:

An acquaintance of mine recently had her hard drive crash, she was very
upset because she lost 3 years worth of digital photos, never backed them
up, even though she has a cd burner. She has 2 young kids, had stopped
using film 3 years ago and only had a few of them printed. I'm willing to
bet that she's a typical
case. Another friend thinks I'm crazy for backing up the photos more than
once. I have been lucky though - I've yet to find even one disc that's gone
bad in eight years, some the oldest ones are finicky about what drives
they'll run on, but I've not yet had one "totally" fail.

Tom<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant 

"Matthew McGrattan" <matthew.mcgrattan.DeleteThis@bnc.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:s2cu219s6skoks47p8i1l378tttd8qslho@4ax.com...
 > On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:17:44 GMT, "Shelley" <briansng.DeleteThis@verizon.net>
 > wrote:
 >
   > >> I do think they're being ignored, largely by the general,
   > >> non-technologically-oriented public--the very people whose daily lives
   > >> are of such interest to historians and archaeologists.
  > >
  > >Yes, I agree. I didn't realize you were talking about newspapers, TV, the
  > >general public, etc. when you posted your first message. Since you posted
  > >here I thought you were talking about these things being ignored here and
  > >other photo forums. But I think you're right when it comes to general
  > >consumers, many of them haven't been properly educated about the short
life
  > >of CDs and some digital prints, file deterioration, etc. Of course I
don't
  > >think the general public realized that traditional prints, especially
color,
  > >would be lost in a few decades either so that they should save the
  > >negatives, organize them in a manner such that the negatives could be
  > >matched with the prints and reprints made, store them in a cool, dark
place,
  > >etc.
  > >
 >
 > I'm curious about this claim re: traditional colour prints. Our family
 > photo album has photographs from the early 70s (me as baby, for
 > example) that look fine. No apparent fading or damage.
 >
 > They are stored in a photo album so not generally exposed to light,
 > but there's nothing special about them apart from that.
 >
 > All of my own photos from school in the mid 80s - the ones I still
 > have anyway - still look fine too. [Although now that I've been using
 > decent 35mm and medium format cameras they all look horribly out of
 > focus and grainy....]
 >
 > Do the photographs need to be exposed to light for this damage to
 > occur?
 >
 > Or have we just been lucky?
 >
 > Matt

According to an advertising brochure from Kodak on Professional Endura
papers (traditional RA-4 papers), the photos will last 200 years in
darkness, or 100 years in average room lighting. Prints are affected by
light, temperature and humidity.
More info, including testing procedures, is available at
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.kodak.com/go/endura" target="_blank">www.kodak.com/go/endura</a> . Look for publication PPI-1097, "Kodak Professional
Endura Papers. Defining Print Life: The critical balance of light and
thermal stability"

Ken Hart<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant 

"jjs" <jjs.TakeThisOut@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:112ttm3gpsm4qff@news.supernews.com...
 > The way to preserve a digital image is to beam the digital signal into
space
 > via high-power laser and leave it to posterity to recapitulate the signal
 > later. Much later.
 >
 >
 >

The way I preserve digital data is to email it to a friend and ask them to
forward it to someone else, who forwards it to someone else, etc...
BTW, everyone here should soon be getting a bunch of "How many ___ does it
take to change a lightbulb?" emails shortly! Just forward them to someone
else!

Ken Hart<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant 

In article <sZqdnX5jRoCv7bLfRVn-qA RemoveThis @suscom-maine.net>,
LR Kalajainen <lrkalajainen RemoveThis @suscom-maine.net> wrote:
 >
[snip]
 >All in all, there isn't any archival color process.
[more snip]

What about Kodachrome? Or 3-strip Technicolor imbibition prints (a process
formerly used for motion-picture prints).

(Not like it matters to me...I almost always shoot B&W Tri-X.)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant