Where have all the flowers gone?
We were looking at photo albums the other day; both my sister's family and mine are veteran snappers, with shelves and shelves of photo albums. I still like to print my favourite photos, which is why I recently bought a Hi-Ti dye-sub printer - because the results are more like a lab print, and more likely to last than an inkjet print. Inkjet manufacturers claim 100-year life-spans for some of their prints, whereas Hi-ti only claim 50...
But you know what? I'm more inclined to believe that a dye-sub print, with its protective coating layer, is going to be more resistant to handling than an inkjet print. And, somehow, a 50-year lifetime is more believable than a 100 year lifetime, as claimed by a technology that didn't even exist when I was a child.
All photos, silver halide, inkjet, dye-sub, are subject to ageing. Who hasn't got older colour prints that are now faded and yellow? Looking through old photos, you'll find varying qualties, from pristine and sharp like this one from the 1950s, which I think may have been taken with a medium-format camera and seems as good as the day it was printed; to the faded and damaged, like this one, which was rescued, as best I could manage, in Photoshop.
On the one hand, then, digital tools can help us preserve the past, by scanning faded prints and doubling them up with layers etc in Photoshop. On the other hand, as this article in The Register indicates, we should all be worried about obsolete file formats, storage media, etc.
The only safe way to preserve text is to carve it in stone and leave it in a cave. With a photo, you should definitely hedge your bets. Digital photos are more immediately disposable, because you can take so many, but always back up your files onto the best-quality storage media you can get - and keep it in a cool, dark place.
And print the best ones. Get a good printer, buy the best ink and media (or get a dye-sub) and print your best prints - then put them under glass or in an album (or a box with a lid) and look after them.
Flickr is wonderful, but though you'd hope it will still be there in 5, 10 years, there's a chance it won't be - the best backup is a quality hard copy which is kept dry and out of the sun.
Photography
Photos
Flickr
Digital
Technology
But you know what? I'm more inclined to believe that a dye-sub print, with its protective coating layer, is going to be more resistant to handling than an inkjet print. And, somehow, a 50-year lifetime is more believable than a 100 year lifetime, as claimed by a technology that didn't even exist when I was a child.
All photos, silver halide, inkjet, dye-sub, are subject to ageing. Who hasn't got older colour prints that are now faded and yellow? Looking through old photos, you'll find varying qualties, from pristine and sharp like this one from the 1950s, which I think may have been taken with a medium-format camera and seems as good as the day it was printed; to the faded and damaged, like this one, which was rescued, as best I could manage, in Photoshop.
On the one hand, then, digital tools can help us preserve the past, by scanning faded prints and doubling them up with layers etc in Photoshop. On the other hand, as this article in The Register indicates, we should all be worried about obsolete file formats, storage media, etc.
The only safe way to preserve text is to carve it in stone and leave it in a cave. With a photo, you should definitely hedge your bets. Digital photos are more immediately disposable, because you can take so many, but always back up your files onto the best-quality storage media you can get - and keep it in a cool, dark place.
And print the best ones. Get a good printer, buy the best ink and media (or get a dye-sub) and print your best prints - then put them under glass or in an album (or a box with a lid) and look after them.
Flickr is wonderful, but though you'd hope it will still be there in 5, 10 years, there's a chance it won't be - the best backup is a quality hard copy which is kept dry and out of the sun.
Photography
Photos
Flickr
Digital
Technology
posted by Anonymous at
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home