At 19:29 29-06-01 -0500, you wrote:
> > This discussion has led me to one conclusion that seems inescapable.
> > Clearly it's important to refresh our media assets every few years to keep
> > pace with technology. Perhaps the archival method with the greatest
> > longevity and 'universality' today is a high quality archival print
> > probably made on an Epson 2000P and stored under optimal conditions. In
> > another generation or two the images will still be there but the software
> > and old file formats won't be.
>
>Yes, the Epson 2000P prints would be universal. BUT, we don't really know
>how long they will last. We only have laboratory simulations that say they
>have archival qualities. I don't see them as any more accurate than the
>laboratory analysis that assured us that film had archival qualities.
>
>Nope, for my buck ($US) digital storage that is rearchived forward to the
>latest media and lossless file types seems the most reliable and it's
>getting cheaper every day. But keeping the original neg or an archived
>photo as backup sure makes sense.
That sounds like a practical approach to me and the one that I'm about to
implement. You have a good point about the 2000P tests. I'm using an Epson
3000 now with Lysonic inks and want to upgrade soon.
Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia
, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all
these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things.
The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object."
~Joseph Campbell
Just Say No: META name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE"
