"How to Preserve Photos for 500 years"
This article was posted on the pure-silver photo mailing's, thought i would past it along, for what it is worth.
wow, how wierd is that ?? !!
After going to all the trouble of engineering a way to digitize images that were much better produced on film, they eventually figure out that the best way to store the digital info is on film.
It's the sort of thing that makes me think there's gotta be a way I can make a lot of money selling shares in a licorice mining operation.
Thanks for posting this link Ann, some great reading on that site!
Originally Posted by ann
Some people are like Slinkies. They're really good for nothing, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
For those that want to make sure that their own negatives last, they should consider at least some selenium toning as part of the regular regimen of making negatives to protect against enviromental contaminents. Proper containers for both prints and negatives are also very important.
I went to a seminar at the smithsonian back in 1997 and they were talking about some group at Cornell that was getting into computer-output microfilm to back up data. I think it's actually been around for quite some time as a preservation strategy.
I work for a historical agency, only I'm in the part that handles 3 dimensional artifact documentation. All the gov't records, newspapers etc--are handled by microfilm labs and they "reformat" onto b&w microfilm, that is toned and stored as a master file, with duplicate copies made that are put to use for access. This is the standard across the board as far as public records go. They believe they can get 500 years LE--life expectancy--out of polyester based b&w microfilm shot & stored just right. So, this is the benchmark that everything is measured against. I mean everything too--acetate based rollfilms, color films, prints, digital everything--is measured back against microfilm.
In fact, they'll actually throw out the originals and use the microfilm because of the storage issues of paper. There's a cut-off of like 150 years for the age of the document,as to whether it's an "artifact" or just a record, or printed textual material. If they'll take a book or a newspaper and shoot it to microfilm and throw the original away, what's so surprising about burning digital media to it?
p.s.--found a link to it:
Last edited by DKT; 04-22-2005 at 05:17 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: add link
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)