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.enochsvision.com/, 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."
Just Say No: META name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE"