| Sandy,
The problem is cost. At $40 a transparency, how many can you afford? Then you'd have to worry about mold that loves slides, especially in the South.
On the other hand, I don't think losing most of what we shoot is a bad thing, unless they have historical value. Reminds me of a beginning art student who insisted on keeping his initial work forever...
Sam
On Jun 9, 2007, at 12:47 AM, Sandy King wrote: Mark,
That may be so. In my own case I have it covered since I use only film.
For others, there is always film. I could think of several types of systems to archive digital on film. I am surprised that none are available commercially.
Might be a good commercial enterprise to set this up? There is absolutely a need, because whatever you are doing digitally will be lost. That you can count on.
Sandy
Sandy,
I haven't yet seen a system that has the resolution, a reasonable price & is artifact free to be able to handle this. Furtunately I do have a lot of 35 mm negatives too.
Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson
Precision Digital Negatives - The System
PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo Groups
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
In a message dated 6/8/07 3:28:24 PM, sanking@clemson.edu writes:
I would suggest that if you fellows want true archival back-up of your digital files you better have them printed on film while film is still available. In some cases you might even save space.
Unless one is very systematic in moving files from one generation storage device to the next, and I suspect that very few of us are, the files are going to eventually be lost. That is one of the major reasons I continue to do all of my work on film, even though I scan and print mostly from digital files.
Sandy King
**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
|