<< Computer files DO NOT have an infinite life. Digital media is
surprisingly non-permanent. Magnetic media is subject to deteriorating in
both the magnetic strength and media composition areas. Recordable CD-ROMS
bring their own problems.
Michael, I completely agree with you. I just didn't want to start a new
argument with those who claim that digital media is permanent. They will
argue that by making multiple copies and by duplicating or transferring to
new media when technology changes, they can permanently keep the record. What
they claim is theoretically and statistically (in a sense that it is not
likely that all the multiple copies will not get damaged at the same time)
correct, so I don't want to get into endless argument.
I have worked in an engineering environment and have used digital media to
store data for a long long time. The industry has done that for even longer
time. Some photographers starting to get into digital world don't realize
that the technology is not that new. It is the application in photography
that is new.
>> Is it the dye-sub print that bothers you? Or performing the
restoration on the computer? I love restoring on the computer, I can give
the customer much better results in a shorter time than when I used to do
it by hand. Of course I get a big neg made and then make an "archival"
print afterwards.
No, it is the not telling the client that the restored image is going to fade
soon, probably even sooner than the original, that is bothering you. I am
glad that you do make a copy negative. Many don't.
As far as permanent ink that can give true photographic quality is concerned,
they don't exist yet. There is a physical limitation due to the coarseness of
pigment. They can at most give "near photographic" quality prints which are
perfectly fine to be viewed from a distant or fine for a commercial
advertisement where the photographic quality is not the most important
factor, but for most serious photographers, the quality should probably be
called "way far from photographic quality."
Let's get real, if one is mathematically inclined and knows how to calculate
the trade off between resolution and color depth, he/she can easily tells
that you can't even get a true photographic quality print with a 1200 dpi
color printer. Do you think we are close to getting a 2400 dpi large-format
printer (since real photographers don't just print 8x10) for every
photographer?
PS: This is a general message about this topic. It is not necessarily just
addressed to you, so I'm sorry if I sound like I am arguing with you. I am
not. In fact, I agree with you.