Re: So sad
- From: contaxman@xxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:45:33 -0700
On May 25, 4:24 pm, Scott W <biph...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 25, 9:37 am, Draco <JPD...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> So keep shoting film. It will be the safest way to archive your
images. Who knows what programs will be in use years from now and will
they be able to open that file of aunt Berta smacking uncle Bo with a
frying pan?
I have come to the conclusion that the safest way to archive images is
to have both a print and an image file. To date my image files have
endured much better then my negatives and slides, but in the very long
term who can be totally sure. So I have a fair number of prints made,
not all my photo to be sure but still a lot of prints.
On the flip side I know my negatives and slide are not always good for
archiving images and I have scanned most of them in by now.
Between the two choices, making prints from digital photos or scanning
negatives making the prints is by far the easier.
We tend to talk about wanting our photos to last to the next
generations, but I have also seen this going the other way. My
parents are both in their 80s and switched from shooting film to
shooting all digital in the beginning of 2001. From time to time I
grab a complete copy of all of their digital photos, the time to do
this is not long at all. For their film photos I have their negatives
from years ago when my father had a darkroom in the house and I have
scanned some of these, but they are in very poor shape after more then
50 years in a shoebox. Their color negatives they simply though out
when they got their prints. There photo collection from film is like
many peoples after many, a number of very large very heavy photo
albums. When they die we do what we always do, divide up the photos,
with no one person getting a complete set, there is a dilution of
photos that I find kind of sad. For the digital photos anyone can
have all of them at a cost of lest then $1.00.
Scott
Sorry to hear about your bad experiences with film longevity, Scott :-
(
I guess what it boils down to is a matter of purpose - do you want a
record, any record of the original image? Then (photographic or some)
other longer-lived procees/prints may be the way to go. But for fine
art (as opposed to family archiving, though the two can be the same,
you can be both a fine art photographer and a family archivist a la
Sally Mann - I know she is a B&W photographer so not as hard
(ususally) to get archival/longer lasting results with B&W materials)
you may be better off going with a more stable origianl material
(film), processing as well as storage conditions since even with the
best photo image manipulation something is usually lost, and/or at the
very least "compressed" when going from an original negative or slide
to a print. For some images (ie. graphic shots of painted walls with
only a few solid colors in it) the loss might not be apparent but for
things with more subtle hue differentiation and tonality, and
especially when viewing larger images this lost information is more
apparent.
Perhaps the best answer is to (try to) buy and use the most stable
film(s), use a lab (pro or not) that takes the freshness,
temperatures, etc. of its chemicals very seriously, store under
temperature controlled conditions away from heat, light, excess
humidity (as well as mold/dampness of basements, away from floors that
can be flooded or have bugs) and/or anything that might cause out-
gassing (mothballs, certain plastics in sleeves, certain types of
cardboard shoe boxes/photo boxes, etc. - "Light Impressions" is a good
source of archival storage materials, though similar archival storage
materials may be available form B&H Photovideo and various other
archival storage media makers themselves on the net/in physical
reality too - use the best non-reactive (no outgassing that might
affect the densities of the color layers and/or contribute to staining
over time), scan and adjust image parameters yourself onto DVD/CD for
"temporary emergency copies" you can distribute to multiple people/
locations (in case of disaster(s). Make photographic prints (from the
finished/tweaked CDs/DVDs or directly from the original slide or
negative) of the most important/worthwhile images and consider (though
expensive) duplicate 35mm (or for best reults, 4x5") dupes of your
best and/or most important images - this is what I did before the age
of computers. You lose surprising little when blowing 35mm optically
up to 4x5" but you may want to check around for prices on output to
film via a film recorder.
I've seen color negatives last 25 (mid-late '90s prints from Kodacolor
negatives of about 1973? vintage)-40+ (Kodacolor? negatives - not mine
- from the early '60s stored in a film can checked visually past 2000
or so) years without significant change in density or color balance
and these weren't stored with any particular care (the latter 60s
negatives) - so there are probalby a number of factors at work that
contributed to its longevity - the fact that they were taken on
Kodacolor print film probably didn't hurt, though Kodachrome would
have been even better - the more negative archival factors you can
eliminate, the better chance you have of helping images that you take
now survive deep into the future in one form or another. I know this
doesn't help you with those 50+ years prints, but at least with those
you can scan and bring back color and density (and print on long
lasting Fuji Crystal Archive and/pr some other long-lived process -
does "Evercolor" still exist?).
In addition to divying up the albums with the original prints and the
$1 CDs/DVDs have you considered making duplicate albums with all the
restored copy photos in each album (this could get expensive even if
you are doing 4x6" prints so maybe you want to ask for a nominal
charge to cover the cost of duplicate prints and albums before youtake
"orders") this way everybody can have their cake (some of the original
prints (or negs?) as well as eat it too (have a duplicate print album
containing all of the images. Just a thought...
Regards,
Lewis
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Odditoria
- Next by Date: Re: (SI) Motion appears to be up...
- Previous by thread: Re: So sad
- Next by thread: Re: So sad
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
