Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
Hmm. I must be doing something wrong. I jus' keep getting older, not richer... Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Mustarde wrote: >Spend a few years getting really rich, then hire out the job of >archiving your old photos. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, aimcompute wrote: > Personally, if I had a large number that I wanted to archive I would > take prints, negatives and slides to a lab and pay to get them scanned > to some Photo CD or even regular CD. Time is money. The only problem with this is that PhotoNet CD (the standard CD service in a lot of places) has a standard resolution of 1024x1536, which is not enough to give you good prints. There's a high res. version of the PhotoNet CD that gives 2000x3000, I believe, which will allow for an 8x10 image at 250dpi. The only moral here is that you need to ask specifically about the resolution when you drop your film off for scanning, as you may otherwise wind up with images that are only suitable for viewing on a monitor. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
> Dan Scott wrote: > > > > I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be simplist > > thing for most people in the same situation to do? Scanning negatives or > > slides would be the optimal, but time consuming for large numbers of images. > > A flatbed for prints? Still pretty time consuming, right? Would the quickest > > way be a digital camera? I know some, like the Nikon Coolpics have slide > > attachments available, and a simple tripod would work for quickly shooting > > prints, right? Personally, if I had a large number that I wanted to archive I would take prints, negatives and slides to a lab and pay to get them scanned to some Photo CD or even regular CD. Time is money. Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:23:13 -0600, you wrote: >I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be simplist >thing for most people in the same situation to do? Spend a few years getting really rich, then hire out the job of archiving your old photos. Voila, you'll spend your time sipping Pina Coladas on the warm sand, photographing beach babes, instead of slaving over the scanner in your dark, lonely workroom. Oops, gotta go, the scanner needs re-loading, Mr. Big will give me hell if I don't get his CD's finished by Friday... -- John Mustarde - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
Not sure I agree with you about the no "media that came next" (that'll happen in the future, not the past), but you're right about the tapes. I'm old enough to remember wondering whether or not I should dump my tapes and buy into this new-fangled CD technology. :) chris On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Many people put their precious recordings on to tape when tape became > available, whether reel to reel or cassette. This was long before CDs. > At one point there was no "media that came next." If you wanted to > preserve your recordings, you had to make tape copies. Maybe you're too > young to remember that, Chris ... . > > Mafud said: > > > There are tens of millions of 78rpm records > > out there whose owners have not or do not > > think about transferring their data. Ditto > > for 8-track tapes, 45rpm records, 8 and 16mm > > movies. Why? > > Chris Brogden replied: > > > Where did we get talking about records? I'm talking > > about photographs. People didn't transfer their records > > because it was cheaper and easier to buy the CD version > > of the album. Think about it... there was no need to > > transfer their music albums because they could buy a > > copy on whatever media came next. > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html > http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/pentax_repair_shops.html > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
Hi ... I'm far from an expert on these matters, having only used a scanner twice. However, my "scanning mentor" pointed out that some of the Nikon scanners, and other brands as well, allow for automatic scanning, and have either attachments or accessories, or built-in features, that allow them to scan an entire roll of film automatically. That means there's no need to hang around the scanner while the scanning process is being completed. We set a strip of six negs to be scanned and went out for lunch. You can do something else while scanning, so time is, IMO, a minimal concern. Scanning an entire roll of film can, indeed, be time consuming. But if you set the scanner to automatic, you can be doing something else. Likewise for burning the CD. Dan Scott wrote: > > I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be simplist > thing for most people in the same situation to do? Scanning negatives or > slides would be the optimal, but time consuming for large numbers of images. > A flatbed for prints? Still pretty time consuming, right? Would the quickest > way be a digital camera? I know some, like the Nikon Coolpics have slide > attachments available, and a simple tripod would work for quickly shooting > prints, right? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/pentax_repair_shops.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be simplist thing for most people in the same situation to do? Scanning negatives or slides would be the optimal, but time consuming for large numbers of images. A flatbed for prints? Still pretty time consuming, right? Would the quickest way be a digital camera? I know some, like the Nikon Coolpics have slide attachments available, and a simple tripod would work for quickly shooting prints, right? Dan Scott (curious spectator) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wm. Robb wrote: > I have prints from my grandparents wedding, and my parents > wedding, but I won't be able to pass on pictures from my own > wedding (not that it matters), because they were printed on > 1980's era RC papers, and are already discolouring. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
In a message dated 11/18/01 9:56:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > "Fortunately, the bulk of the pictures that will be lost don't > matter, even to the people who have taken them." Exactly. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Businesses who have a vested interest in maintaining access to their >> products, (music, radio, television, video and movies, businesses) >> regularly and readily transfer property to new storage technology. Ted >> Turner is the Guru of the genre, by now having copied and restored the >> entire MGM movie library. Not to give Mafud more ammo for his point of view, but even Turner's a bad bad man when it comes to this -- Important films that no longer completely exist in any resolution higher than that of a DVD because of storage negligence during Turner's watch: Goldfinger (apparently left in a hot warehouse -- print quality of the current DVD varies widely from sequence to sequence, since some was salvageable, but the rest comes from inferior duplicate negatives and release prints) West Side Story The long version of The Alamo (pristine 70mm print borrowed from a collector, the last believed to be in existence, transferred to video, then chopped into sections and put into a cleaning bath...and forgotten about until it turned into magenta goo) Warner, who have recently aquired most of the old MGM library from Turner, have apparently been having kittens over the shape that much of the original material is in. Just because we can archive this stuff doesn't mean we will, even when it is financially wise for us to do it. But, like Chris, I agree, the important part is that we CAN do it. -Aaron p.s. I don't imagine that Pixar will ever have the problem of the last known print of, say, Monsters Inc. being accidentally left in a hot warehouse -- they could just output another one. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Can we say: "affordability"? The gist of the "data transfer" thread > assumes (mightily), that tens of millions of folks are going to buy > the latest storage medium then transfer again every time the storage > medium changes. Huh? Go back and read what I said... I *never* argued about how many people are or are not going to transfer their data. I don't care if 10 million people or one person transfer their data... my points about data transfer are about the process itself, not how many people use it. And an intelligent person won't transfer their stuff every time a new storage medium appears, just every time a new one becomes dominant, and when it looks like their current medium won't be around for much longer. > Businesses who have a vested interest in maintaining access to their > products, (music, radio, television, video and movies, businesses) > regularly and readily transfer property to new storage technology. Ted > Turner is the Guru of the genre, by now having copied and restored the > entire MGM movie library. Agreed. > Not so we consumers. There are tens of millions of 78rpm records out there > whose owners have not or do not think about transferring their data. Ditto > for 8-track tapes, 45rpm records, 8 and 16mm movies. Why? Where did we get talking about records? I'm talking about photographs. People didn't transfer their records because it was cheaper and easier to buy the CD version of the album. Think about it... there was no need to transfer their music albums because they could buy a copy on whatever media came next. The same people need to transfer their photos if they want them to last beyond the realistic life of the negatives. Personally, I don't care if they transfer the photos themselves or get a company to do it for them... that's irrelevant to my points. > Transferring data is damned expense is one why. Nostalgia in the guise > of being or owning contemporary stuff costs like h*ll. Here we are on > this list, most of whom still harbor the "boxes under the bed" > storage system. Why don't they (PDMLers), 100% of them, knowing what > they know, transfer their slide/negative/print data as per new storage > medium? Again, because the transfer is 1. Expense (priced a quality > DVD-R or RW machine lately)? CD-RW's are pretty cheap now unless you want the high-end ones that can run while you're working on your computer. I got mine for less than $200 CAN and it's worked fine. > 2. labor intensive > > 3. Time-consuming > > 4. boring. So don't do it, then. I'm not arguing that digitizing your negatives is the most fun or exciting job in the world. All I'm saying is that it's the *only* way that you stand a chance of being able to make high-quality prints beyond the life of the negatives. If you don't want to do that, fine. If it's too expensive for you, fine. If you'd prefer not to spend a day or so every 20 years doing this, fine. That's your choice. As for the time and labour factor, there are two parts to this. The only real time-consuming part is digitizing your archived negatives and slides in the first place, and you can cut down on this by using a scanner with software like Digital Ice or by having someone else do it for you. Or just buy a digital camera. :) Once your photos are digitized, it takes next to no time to transfer them to another medium. The size and price of storage media are always going down. If you think that taking one day out of 20-30 years is unreasonable, then that's your decision. You may find it "boring", but I bet a lot of us would find it pretty interesting. > Large newspapers/magazines keep huge amounts of their staff busy > archiving, transferring their merchant and intellectual properties on > microfilm and other storage media. Those with a vested interest in > maintaining their intellectual or creative property do. Those > without-don't. As I noted, transferring my negatives/prints to CD > didn't reduce the storage space used, just made it more accessible. > And who, beside me, gives a hoot about my images? Your great-great grandchildren, perhaps? If you don't care about the fact that later descendents or centuries might prize them as part of the historical record, then why archive them on CD? Keep them as negatives, enjoy the prints and negs while they last, and then let them crumble away into the dust. Again, I'm not arguing that people should archive every single one of their images digitally; I'm sure many people will only digitize their favourites or the ones that will mean the most to them and their families. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order > In a message dated 11/18/01 4:08:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] did not write, but I am used to being misquoted: > > > > How hard is it really to spend a few > > hours (or even > > > an entire day if you have a huge collection) every 20-30 years > > > transferring your data? Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. > > > > Can we say: "affordability"? The gist of the "data transfer" thread assumes > (mightily), that tens of millions of folks are going to buy the latest > storage medium then transfer again every time the storage medium changes. > Businesses who have a vested interest in maintaining access to their > products, (music, radio, television, video and movies, businesses) regularly > and readily transfer property to new storage technology. Ted Turner is the > Guru of the genre, by now having copied and restored the entire MGM movie > library. > > Not so we consumers. There are tens of millions of 78rpm records out there > whose owners have not or do not think about transferring their data. Ditto > for 8-track tapes, 45rpm records, 8 and 16mm movies. Why? > Transferring data is damned expense is one why. Nostalgia in the guise of > being or owning contemporary stuff costs like h*ll. > Here we are on this list, most of whom still harbor the "boxes under the bed" > storage system. Why don't they (PDMLers), 100% of them, knowing what they > know, transfer their slide/negative/print data as per new storage medium? > Again, because the transfer is 1. Expense (priced a quality DVD-R or RW > machine lately)? 2. labor intensive 3. Time-consuming 4. boring. All that you are saying in your ever pendantic way, is that about 40 years of photographic history from the advent of resin coated paper is destined to survive less than about 100 years. Whether this matters or not is moot. The box under the bed is not sufficient for these materials. They self destruct all by themselves in this situation. Fortunately, the bulk of the pictures that will be lost don't matter, even to the people who have taken them. Unfortunately, the ones that do matter (such as Joe Sixpack and the ever slutty Jane Whitewine's wedding pictures) fall into the same category. I have prints from my grandparents wedding, and my parents wedding, but I won't be able to pass on pictures from my own wedding (not that it matters), because they were printed on 1980's era RC papers, and are already discolouring. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
In a message dated 11/18/01 4:08:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > How hard is it really to spend a few > hours (or even > > an entire day if you have a huge collection) every 20-30 years > > transferring your data? Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. > Can we say: "affordability"? The gist of the "data transfer" thread assumes (mightily), that tens of millions of folks are going to buy the latest storage medium then transfer again every time the storage medium changes. Businesses who have a vested interest in maintaining access to their products, (music, radio, television, video and movies, businesses) regularly and readily transfer property to new storage technology. Ted Turner is the Guru of the genre, by now having copied and restored the entire MGM movie library. Not so we consumers. There are tens of millions of 78rpm records out there whose owners have not or do not think about transferring their data. Ditto for 8-track tapes, 45rpm records, 8 and 16mm movies. Why? Transferring data is damned expense is one why. Nostalgia in the guise of being or owning contemporary stuff costs like h*ll. Here we are on this list, most of whom still harbor the "boxes under the bed" storage system. Why don't they (PDMLers), 100% of them, knowing what they know, transfer their slide/negative/print data as per new storage medium? Again, because the transfer is 1. Expense (priced a quality DVD-R or RW machine lately)? 2. labor intensive 3. Time-consuming 4. boring. Large newspapers/magazines keep huge amounts of their staff busy archiving, transferring their merchant and intellectual properties on microfilm and other storage media. Those with a vested interest in maintaining their intellectual or creative property do. Those without-don't. As I noted, transferring my negatives/prints to CD didn't reduce the storage space used, just made it more accessible. And who, beside me, gives a hoot about my images? The copyrighted material is safe, the rest of it is but a salve to my ego, but of no great value to anyone but me and I'm not so sure I give a hoot about images I made which I'm not likely to benefit from. I just finished my last transfer of my entire image data. If CD-RW and my Zip 250 can't serve me into the near future, I know they are the ~last~ changes I'll make in my storage procedures. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
My gosh, Bob is at a loss for words. HAR! WW - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:51 PM Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
- This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
In a message dated 11/14/01 5:59:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred to 8-track > tapes. So what's next? > Oh, let's see John: small format tape*t* Cassette, then CD. *t* about 14 years ago (1987), I had all my favorite 33 1/3rd albums rerecorded on ... guess what? HI_FI VHS video tape! Something about the width of the tape and some other audio-speak I didn't understand then or now. You ~do~ need a quality 4-head recorder to hear all the data on the tapes. Now I only have to get someone with a "pro" quality VHS deck to reproduce the tapes on ... you guessed it; DVD or CD-R. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
Ha ha hh...! (Like John Lennon) Tom C - Original Message - From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:46 PM Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order > On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:00:16 -0600 (CST), you wrote: > > >On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> > Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost > >> > infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make? > >> > >> I can see one: my CD-R/RW disks may not be playable in twenty years ala > >> 8-track tapes. > > > Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred to 8-track > tapes. So what's next? > > -- > John Mustarde > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:00:16 -0600 (CST), you wrote: > >>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> > Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost >>> > infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make? >>> >>> I can see one: my CD-R/RW disks may not be playable in twenty years ala >>> 8-track tapes. >> >Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred to 8-track >tapes. So what's next? Getting your 8-tracks dubbed onto Elcassette, of course! (Anyone actually remember that abortion from the 70's: a "cassette" that contained 1/4-inch tape?) ...either that or the Philips DCC digital cassette! -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:00:16 -0600 (CST), you wrote: >On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost >> > infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make? >> >> I can see one: my CD-R/RW disks may not be playable in twenty years ala >> 8-track tapes. > Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred to 8-track tapes. So what's next? -- John Mustarde - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
- Original Message - From: "Chris Brogden" Subject: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order > On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Tom Rittenhouse wrote: > > > I assume that important images will be transfered to the new media > > technology when necessary. And contrary to what I know someone is > > going to say about who will have the time, that transfer is easily > > automated. > > Agreed. And the nice thing about storage media is that they are always > increasing in size. It took a long time to transfer information to 60-70 > floppy disks, but then Zip disks came out that could hold all of those > files on one 100MB disk. Now we have CD's that can hold 650MB of data, > not to mention the 1GB+ media out there. Transferring data will only get > quicker and quicker. How hard is it really to spend a few hours (or even > an entire day if you have a huge collection) every 20-30 years > transferring your data? Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. I wish we had been able to do this about 20 years ago. My family lost it's entire photographic history from my own childhood because of the vagaries of film permanence. Anyone who thinks film is a permanent storage media is kidding themselves. Read the disclaimer on every box of film about how colour dyes may shift over time, and therefore the product is not warranted against fading or colour shifting or fading. If they feel the need to put a disclaimer like that on the box, they are admitting it is likely going to happen. I have an aquaintance who works at the Saskatchewan archives. Apparently, this is an ongoing issue, as they haven't been able to find a method of storing colour materials that is 100% reliable. Black and white RC materials have proven unreliable in many instances as well. William Robb William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
