Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> As it is, I have a heck of a time keeping up with current transfers to
> media. I have literally changed storage devices and media a good
> dozen times in the last 15 years, and I would literally have to hire
> someone just to do that work. It is a tremendous waste of time, which
> I am pleased to say my several 100 thousand slide image collection
> doesn't require... well, except for a dozen or so rolls of Agfa slide
> film that is fading).
My Primary backup is to a hard drive. That has not changed in years.
From their I go to DVD. It seems to work for me. Hard Disk media is
the fastest and cheapest. Using a removable hard disk bay will give you
endless capacity. I would double backup. I have this automated every
night when I am sleeping.
>
> I think I went through 4 different versions of Syquest drives and
> disks that didn't have compatible formats. Between the floppies, zips,
> and other optical storage...
>
> I'm now getting ready to more to DVD, but I trust it even less than
> earlier technologies, because each disk hold so much data.
>
> And besides, this is all bogus. My point was simply that the original
> black and white silver photo can last hundreds of years and needs no
> "backup" or methods to up-tech them.
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> As I mentioned earlier, we have images that are several generations
>>> old, and I'm glad we do. Not everyone thinks that way.
>>>
>>> As to the issue of whether the accelerated aging tests are valid,
>>> they are only one part of the data. It isn't like mankind developed
>>> dye and pigment knowledge 4 years ago. There rare literally
>>> thousands of years of historical data to draw from. We have cloth
>>> and paintings from back as far as cave paintings, including
>>> manuscripts, illuminations, oil and water color images, and so on to
>>> provide much of the information.
>>>
>>> Certainly, the atmosphere has had some changes to it, heck, we may
>>> have a nuclear radiation or new molecules floating around in the
>>> environment that will change how all these things respond, but
>>> baring any major disruption, and using the accelerated aging tests
>>> as a back up, we can make some pretty reasonable interpolations
>>> about the relative aging processes of different dyes and pigments.
>>> It isn't perfect, but it also isn't a complete guess.
>>>
>>> What I am pretty sure of, however, is that the electronic storage
>>> data we use currently will not last and the software and reading
>>> devices will become obsolete and difficult, if not impossible, to
>>> procure. That is where the print really shines, because it only
>>> requires light to view.
>>> Not only will DVDs and CD be history long before a good print will
>>> fade away, but the media used for recording will fail. It already
>>> does in a matter of years.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Did you ever hear of backups. I still have 5.25 floppy data that is
>> readable without a floppy device. How you ask? When the 3.5 720
>> came out I transfered the data to that and then to the 1.44 floppy
>> and then to CD and then to DVD. As long as there is electricity
>> there will always be a device to transfer the data to. It will never
>> fade and you can archive it forever.
>>
>>>
>>> How much of anyone's historical documents are significant is hard to
>>> say. They say a person can never truly understand his/her impact in
>>> their own lifetime. Maybe your offspring will burn down your
>>> estate, or shred all your images because they don't want to be
>>> bothered with them.
>>>
>>> However, I'd prefer people have a choice, not limited by the
>>> materials, but more by historic precedence and value.
>>>
>>> In the end, the cost of a bit extra ink needs to be weighed for each
>>> of us in determining what types of documents we believe ourselves to
>>> be generating.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For someone concerned with saving the cost of ink and or paper,
>>>>> not to mention the time and wear involved to the printer, doesn't
>>>>> it just make more sense to buy a printer with ink that doesn't
>>>>> fade for 100 years or so, and be done with it, even if it uses
>>>>> more ink in cleaning cycles to do so?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. I won't and all of my relatives won't be here in 100 years.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the cost per print may be higher, but not if you have to
>>>>> consider having to reprint each print 2 or more times during its
>>>>> useful life.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That issue is debatable. Let me ask you if you have actually seen
>>>> any prints made by an Epson Photo inkjet printer using Epson Paper
>>>> and Epson ink that is 100 years old. How about 90 years. OK how
>>>> about 50 years. I even doubt if you have see result that are even
>>>> 20 years old? Tests are simulations.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, many people have come to expect their photos to last for
>>>>> numerous generations. I have B&W prints that are over 100 years
>>>>> old from my great-great grandparents, from the "old country".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I have prints made by professional photographers that are 30
>>>> years old and they have faded.
>>>>
>>>>> If they had been printed on many of the dye ink systems, they
>>>>> would have been gone long before now.
>>>>>
>>>>> We shouldn't have to accept going backwards in terms of permanence
>>>>> of image to go forward with inkjet technology technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll admit that pigment colorant inks aren't without some
>>>>> maintenance issues still being worked out, but considering that
>>>>> for literally under $100 a person can own a printer that produces
>>>>> full color photo quality prints that are waterproof and last over
>>>>> 90 years,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Will not be really proven beyond a reasonable doubt for another 80
>>>> years. I hope that you can find a way to let me know at that time.
>>>>
>>>>> we've come a long way.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Epson Picturemate, as a 4x6" printer has resolved many of the
>>>>> problems already. It uses Ultrachrome inks, (about 100 years fade
>>>>> resistance) with the gloss optimizer fro high gloss prints, the
>>>>> waste ink from cleaning goes back in the old cartridge, and costs
>>>>> are frozen at $.39 or less, ink and paper, still too expensive in
>>>>> my book, but a good start as a design.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect the next 5 years will offer rapidly printed and amazing
>>>>> archival results from home printers at very reasonable prices and
>>>>> few maintenance issues. We've come a long way already. The answer
>>>>> may be inkjet or laser or something else, who knows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Art
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> measekite wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it. And in
>>>>>> that case, who cares. Besides, this issue is temporary. I think
>>>>>> that Canon will develop a new formulation of dye ink that will
>>>>>> have a tendency for longevity. At least long enough so it won't
>>>>>> matter and the print results will be the overriding factor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hecate wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH <henrymot@coco.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ThomasH wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper
>>>>>>>>> jams,
>>>>>>>>> zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast
>>>>>>>>> operation, fantastic
>>>>>>>>> results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have
>>>>>>>>> collected over a 100
>>>>>>>>> images already from our friends and relatives, which lost
>>>>>>>>> their magenta
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta! Sorry about
>>>>>>>> the mistake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
>>>>>>> claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is
>>>>>>> just a
>>>>>>> lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> be quite subtle at first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hecate - The Real One
>>>>>>> Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with
>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram