Re: Re: new alt process--gelatin silver

George: Just have not been looking in the right places. Every audiophile
store has bunches of new LP players available. Enjoying the best resurgence
it has had in decades. Not going to be at Best Buy or Fry Brothers,
however. Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: <res1dvao@verizon.net>
To: "Bob Maxey" <written_by@msn.com>; <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: new alt process--gelatin silver

I have not seen a LP player at any of the major electronics stores in years.
About as available as 5 1/4 disc drives.

George

>From: Bob Maxey <written_by@msn.com>
>Date: Fri Apr 08 15:47:42 CDT 2005
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: new alt process--gelatin silver

>>>> Neither does sound exist on an LP but it doesn't take a whole lot to
>>>> figure out how to get sound from those wavy grooves on vinyl! I
>>>> do not see your point. Splitting hairs, I should think. An LP is real.
>>>> It exists. AND, the sound exists on a well proven storage media. No CD
>>>> has been proven. There are many ways to retrieve the sound from a
>>>> record. A high-tech tone arm or a cone of paper with a needle in the
>>>> end. I have seen lasers used to read the grooves, so damage could be
>>>> even less. Records last; there is no degradation unless they are
>>>> played. Even then, the damage can be minimal. When a digital file
>>>> degrades, there goes your sound (I said) " Film and prints are
>>>> different. They are solid. (You said) Yes, but in digital you
>>>> can make a copy of a copy of a copy . . . . and never loose any
>>>> quality>>> I can do the same thing with a negative. I can print
>>>> it over and over and over. Are you making the assumption that the
>>>> negative will become damaged or lost? So can your digital files. I have
>>>> some very old negatives in my collection and I care for them. I know
>>>> they will last at least until I fade. Do not start thinking that
>>>> backups are important. If cared for, materials will be here forever.
>>>> Barring fires or floods, which can happen regardless of the storage
>>>> media. Film has PROVEN longevity. For example, I have some of the
>>>> very first Kodachromes ever made and they still look great. So do many
>>>> other collectors. We can prove the longevity of film; digital files do
>>>> not have the same track record. (I said) "Digital has advantages.
>>>> but in my view, one should never depend on digital files for LT storage
>>>> of our history. " >>>With digital it is practical to store
>>>> multiple copies in widely scattered locations and re-0copy them every
>>>> few years to ensure integrity. Can't do that with a Rembrandt! >>>
>>>> So what? There have probably been very few Rembrandts lost to history.
>>>> Not sure what your point is. By the way, no museum is likely to recopy
>>>> everything every time the technology changes. the budget will probably
>>>> not exist, then we start selecting what to save. (I said) "What
>>>> concerns me is the use of truly cheap digital media. " >>>True,
>>>> but libraries were perfecting "archival disks" 10 years ago to store
>>>> digital images of historic books that are falling apart and will no
>>>> longer exist in a few more decades. Some of these irreplaceable works
>>>> have already been lost to fires, floods, and other natural disasters. I
>>>> am certain that archivists have come along way since I last looked at
>>>> digital archiving.>>> I am certain that there are examples of how
>>>> digital can come to the rescue. HOWEVER, the materials can be copied on
>>>> film, archivally processed, and again, film has a track record and
>>>> digital does not. If these irreplaceable materials are so
>>>> irreplaceable, why take a chance by using unproven media? Standard
>>>> black and white film can be used to separate the colors and archivally
>>>> processed for longevity. This allows us to make absolutely accurate
>>>> color reproductions when we require them. To be crystal clear, I
>>>> have no problem with digital except if it is used to copy something
>>>> like a photograph and make it available to the planet, then trashing
>>>> the original. That would be absolutely inexcusable. I do not care
>>>> what the libraries are perfecting. The claims about the longevity of
>>>> digital media were made when the term "digital media" became part of
>>>> our vocabulary. I truly fear a future that will eventually prove that
>>>> we are making mistakes. Frankly, I have zero faith in digital storage.
>>>> I also believe that the reason digital is so "important" to libraries
>>>> has little or nothing to do with concern over the materials; cost is
>>>> what is driving this. They do not want to restore the materials or pay
>>>> to store them properly, so "let's use digital." I have made copies of
>>>> historical images and I have also restored images such as Calotypes and
>>>> I once cleaned a collection of Tintypes. It takes time and it is
>>>> costly. >>>True security is having multiple copies in various
>>>> formats in widely scattered locations. If security is needed. We
>>>> hear that term bandied about, but nobody ever thinks that perhaps
>>>> sufficient safeguards can be put into place to secure these materials
>>>> so they will last. Bob ... Get more from the Web. FREE MSN
>>>> Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Received on Mon Apr 11 08:52:54 2005