Mike wrote:
> My point is that we are sitting on the leading edge of
> technological developments that threaten to do away with
> tried and proven (although not perfect) processes that
> have allowed us to see what the last 170 years looked
> like... We need to be very careful before we start to
> believe everything the manufacturers tell us about
> "archival" CD's, inks, etc...
And painters panicked that photography would make them obsolete too. :)
Any paradigm shift brings dangers. In reality, as long as we look after
our negs and slides, it doesn't much matter whether CDR technology or inkjet
technology is less than reliable. :)
Those who can afford the "tried and proven" methods of photographic archiving
will probably continue to use them for a long time yet. Many of us lesser
mortals will have to take a risk that we can find ways of looking after
our pictures in both film and electronic form.
I don't necessarily believe anything companies tell me in their advertising
material, but on the other hand thanks to Nikon making film scanners and
Epson making photo quality inkjets, I can now make my own 10x8 colour and
B&W prints at home without mixing up chemicals, building a darkroom, or
buying an enlarger and photo paper etc (I still need paper for the printer
of course :). I also make my own B&W prints by wet chemistry in the winter
months when it's cool enough, but digital technology has made photographic
things possible for me which would be much more expensive or impossible
otherwise.
I take your point about known versus unknown methods and their known or
unknown longevity. It's certainly important enough to warrant the expense
in time and money for some, but not for everyone.
Going back to the archival nature of CDR, there just aren't any practical
alternatives at the moment, so we just need to know how to make the best
of what we have.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
