Hello Mick, Point taken. My wife is somewhat the same way (except I archive properly for her). One big difference though, is that she actually takes pictures with her digitial. When using a film P&S she would only take a single shot of any given memory or event (counting pennies). So a roll of film would last quite a while and she would miss quite a few worthwhile shots, not to mention the foibles of P&S cameras. Many times the single shot sucked due to reliance on the camera technology that failed her (focus, exposure, movement, eyes closed, etc). Now with digital she shoots away and gets way more to view and remember. I can say that she is much happier with the digital direction. And yes, without me, she would have no negatives and no cd's.
-- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, August 26, 2004, 9:51:46 AM, you wrote: MM> Bruce: MM> I am not talking about those who print their images. I think alot of MM> people (like my mum) will keep all their images on CD and not bother to MM> print (it's expensive or a big hassle) easier to email or take the laptop to MM> friends houses. Her album *is* the CD/DVD or whatever. It's not backup, it's MM> the primary output! MM> -----Original Message----- MM> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MM> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:40 PM MM> To: Mick Maguire MM> Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. (kind of OT now) MM> Mick, MM> Herein lies the issue: MM> We all keep talking about Joe Public (Sixpack) and his issues with MM> archiving. The reality is that whether he is shooting film or MM> digital, he isn't archiving in any manner that will provide longevity. MM> With film, if he isn't throwing his negs away, he is just throwing MM> them in a drawer or box. Not caring about heat or humidity or having MM> them processed in good chemicals. Nope, cheapest, quickest way MM> possible. Then forget about it. Probably can't even find them, MM> especially a specific frame if the need ever arises. Not to mention MM> how much he damages them just looking at them (handling them with bare MM> hands, scratching them by sliding them across the table, etc). MM> With digital, if he is having a cd made, more than likely it will be MM> thrown into the same drawer or box, with equal care about MM> environmental issues. Time will do it's work on the cd's as you MM> suggest. MM> In the end, not much archiving really happened. He might get lucky MM> and be able to use his pictures down the road, but don't count on it. MM> The reality is that archiving takes some thought, planning and caring MM> whether you are shooting film or digital. Those that really care MM> about the longevity of their photos will learn proper methods and the MM> rest will reap what they sow. MM> For those on this list, I suspect that by and large archives are MM> reasonable no matter medium they are using. I can say that I have MM> some negatives my wife shot on cheap film that are fading badly and MM> some of my slides shot back in the 70's and 80's are starting to show MM> some problems. My only recourse with those is to scan them and fix MM> and preserve them digitally. MM> -- MM> Best regards, MM> Bruce
