True. If one really knows computer and stores his/her digital files properly,
that should be fine. I am just bothered by some people who does photo
restoration works for others and all they give to their client was a dye-sub
print. I think that is unethical.
>> Also, if you are willing to
drop down to what was called "photo-quality" just a few months ago, the
ALPS MD2010 and MD2300 printers use pigment inks, which are considered
archival. From viewing distance, they can't be distinguished from a
darkroom-processed photograph.
That is why at current stage I always consider them great for
commercial/advertising use but not yet for fine-art use.
>> For your further information, the Fox-Talbot
photohistory museum at Lacock Abbey in England is making computer files of
all the rare and historical photographs for the archives. I'll know more
next month after I have a talk with the curator.
I did some for the Holocaust Memorial Center here. I have nothing against
digital photography. I am a computer engineer and worked a lot with digital
imaging and computer graphics. For a really technical person, I don't think
there is any problem, but for casual user, don't feel too safe that once you
have scanned a photo, you can keep it indefinitely. Well, you can keep what
you have scanned, but if you are not technical enough to deal with color
information in digital form, you might not even know whether you have lost
information during the scan.
And don't feel safe with any service bureau either. Unless you are dealing
with a large bureau with engineer(s), the operator knows just how to operate
the machine. They are not that knowledgeble yet, and reviews in magazines are
usually just full of errors or not enough information.