Hi @winstonwolfe, this is a very good point you have brought up. I was a big fan of digital but in all fairness they get lost more easier than a print does.
Me and my wife have 1000's of images on our pc that we have not looked at in years, but yet we still get our photo albums out to have a look through them.
I feel that even though technology has taken over most things that prints are something that will last for a life time.
BTW, your reply to the iamarobot post is priceless, I found that so funny.
thanks for sharing with us.
I didn't really feel as strongly about prints as I do until my parents passed and I found myself scanning thousands of old family images. Anytime I scanned a damaged print, I wished I had the negative. And anytime I came across a print that was upwards of 50 years old, I somehow knew that if digital existed back then, these prints would surely be all that's left of them. There needs to be some form of digital storage that's more permanent than the available options, and there would need to be a reliable storage technology that is agreed upon to be the chosen format for which to produce the reading devices for at least a good handful of decades to come - the true digital equivalent of film. Even then, as I stated in the post, the fact that it needs a reading device makes it inferior to good ol' paper prints, which can be viewed simply by picking it up and putting in front of your eyes.
Sorry to hear about your parents @winstonwolfe that must have been a hard time to go through.
Maybe some time in the future there is going to be something more reliable than the storage we have now.
a few years back I used a cd to put some images to, then a few weeks later I wanted to take the images and put them on my brothers computer, when I came to using the disk it was scratch and unreadable.
I do like flash drives I think they are pretty cool, but I have bought cheap ones from eBay and found that once the data is on there and the drive goes corrupt it was pointless of buying cheap.
I do online and offline storage. For online, I use Google+, imgur, and Flickr. For offline, I'm partial to Western Digitals "Duo" drives, which is a case with 2 hard drives inside. You can set them up any number of ways, but I prefer to use the "mirrored" mode, which is when one drive mirrors the other. This way if one drive dies, the other should still be intact. Just replace the bad one and move on. This of course doesn't address what would happen if the house burned down or if there was a lightning strike. Ultimately, the art of archiving (digital or not) is a constant uphill battle.
Hi @winstonwolfe, this is a very good point you have brought up. I was a big fan of digital but in all fairness they get lost more easier than a print does.
Me and my wife have 1000's of images on our pc that we have not looked at in years, but yet we still get our photo albums out to have a look through them.
I feel that even though technology has taken over most things that prints are something that will last for a life time.
BTW, your reply to the iamarobot post is priceless, I found that so funny.
thanks for sharing with us.
I didn't really feel as strongly about prints as I do until my parents passed and I found myself scanning thousands of old family images. Anytime I scanned a damaged print, I wished I had the negative. And anytime I came across a print that was upwards of 50 years old, I somehow knew that if digital existed back then, these prints would surely be all that's left of them. There needs to be some form of digital storage that's more permanent than the available options, and there would need to be a reliable storage technology that is agreed upon to be the chosen format for which to produce the reading devices for at least a good handful of decades to come - the true digital equivalent of film. Even then, as I stated in the post, the fact that it needs a reading device makes it inferior to good ol' paper prints, which can be viewed simply by picking it up and putting in front of your eyes.
Sorry to hear about your parents @winstonwolfe that must have been a hard time to go through.
Maybe some time in the future there is going to be something more reliable than the storage we have now.
a few years back I used a cd to put some images to, then a few weeks later I wanted to take the images and put them on my brothers computer, when I came to using the disk it was scratch and unreadable.
I do like flash drives I think they are pretty cool, but I have bought cheap ones from eBay and found that once the data is on there and the drive goes corrupt it was pointless of buying cheap.
what do you use right now for you storage option?
I do online and offline storage. For online, I use Google+, imgur, and Flickr. For offline, I'm partial to Western Digitals "Duo" drives, which is a case with 2 hard drives inside. You can set them up any number of ways, but I prefer to use the "mirrored" mode, which is when one drive mirrors the other. This way if one drive dies, the other should still be intact. Just replace the bad one and move on. This of course doesn't address what would happen if the house burned down or if there was a lightning strike. Ultimately, the art of archiving (digital or not) is a constant uphill battle.
Hii i am robot
#upvote
Oh good! I mute robots! :D