Print it or lose it!
Just spotted this on the website of my local lab, there's also more info on the PMA site.
Basically, it's a campaign along the lines of a lot of threads I read around here, prints last and digital doesn't.
(well, to be fair, digital can last, but you gotta know what you're doing and update/backup/etc regularly. Prints can last by doing nothing more than being stored in an attic for 100 years and being not burned down).
but there's one thing about this campaign that piqued my interest:
So they're saying that in order to save our history, we should print (I know they're selling archival-quality inkjet whereas most readers here would prefer 'wet', but the sentiment is the same).
We are currently creating more photographs than ever, and the value of any one image is very low... Just making prints will not help. We will be inundated with forests worth of prints... And because the [old silver-based] prints cost money, only a few were printed, only the most important images have survived. This is now an urgent situation. We are facing a catastrophic loss of our social history.
But we shouldn't just print everything, there's just too many photos taken these days.
In the olden days, people only printed a few photos because of the price (I know it wasn't unheard of for people to save for a year to pay for one portrait session on the daguerrotype).
So the shop, by charging more, are actually helping us to cut down and only print those special few* that we can afford, and because we spent more on it we're going to take care of it better.
Can't argue with that.
Unfortunately you need a PMA membership to download the full sized campaign posters, but I do love these images:
(*except when those who can afford it just print out hundreds of archival-quality lolcats shots. If there are humans around in a hundred years they're going to think we were all a bit nuts. I can just imagine some future archaeologists: "they were destroying their planet and knew about it, but they didn't try stop it. They seemed to be obsessed with cats, was there an epidemic of some contagious mental illness like siphylus going around at the time?")
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
I quite like that, actually. Take really good care of those pictures that are truly special, for whatever reason. Although I must say that in order to arrive at those really special pieces, it takes time and patience to wade through all of the pictures that are not. So in the end it becomes a thing of editing, and showing only your best work.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
Hmm. Doc, didn't realise you were in South Australia (!)
It's true, if it's not printed, you could very well lose it. But disasters happen. Tasmanian photographer Olegas Truchanas lost his life's work in 1969 when his house burnt down. He started again of course, but history was lost (chiefly Lake Pedder before damming). But you've also got to take reasonable care in storing negatives and transparencies, and prints; I think the majority of APUG people here have a good working knowledge of that.
Interesting stuff from a lab. I don't use local labs for cheapie prints because they are digital-centric and frown on the notion of film photographers. But my own prints at pro-level cost anything from $66 to $300 (then add framing cost). The best must, must, must be printed, no exception. They'll be around for a long, long time, much longer than the troves of data masquerading as "photographs" on millions of PCs. None of my early digi pics from around 2001 on CDs are readable now. Not that I care (I remember I kind of looked embarrassingly younger then...)
Wang Computer Co. published a report in the early 1980s warning that digital storage had no proven, established permanence. Working in actuarial administration at the time, it was recommended that we backed up data 3x a day, and "critical" content be copied "multiple times" with one copy established as "hard output" (e.g. printed) for security. This was done, albeit with a huge amount of paper used! I remain unmoved by overtures in digital that it has any degree of permanency because warnings were made many decades ago. But you can't tell today's generation of know-it-alls! Are their photographs ever going to be printed? Ever...?
Cats ARE a contagious mental illness. Talk to the little old lady down the road from me. Last count is 26.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
One moggie here is quite enough. Can't imagine how a little old lady can feed 26 from her pension... catastrophic number, really...
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Heh, I thought someone might post that from the Atkins newsletter. A Fuji campaign to get people to print (and therefore use lots of Crystal Archive ) is at the root of it.
Oh yes, and worse than you probably imagined: Toxoplasma gondii not only causes rats to lose their fear of cats, it seems to cause risk-taking behaviour in humans. While it's not quite as dramatic a mind-control parasite as Ophiocordyceps, don't be under any misapprehensions as to our feline overlords.
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
only stone tablets are proven to be archival.
Only if stored properly and only if the next King does not want to erase what you wrote!
Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
Well, the current so called Prime Minister of Australia wants to re-write our history.....so I suppose you have a point.
Originally Posted by Pioneer
Fancy this coming up after the conversation that was had on Monday night, Polyglot! Don't show this to Steve....
I'm pretty sure this campaign is what got him started! PS he is on here...