My sister's negatives and prints were destroyed in a house fire that the
fire department said was contained in the bedroom at the other end of the
house. Fortunatly, I had taken many of her prints and still had the
negatives stored in (a fire resistant box) another building. Those I could
replace for her. NEVER say never.
We had this discussion a long time ago on the archival time span of various
storage methods. B&W, Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Floppy Disks, and CDs. Now
we can add DVD. Each change seems to result in a storage medium that has
an archival time span that is shorter than before. Maybe the storage life
is fine, but the method of viewing may be gone. (Remember the 8 track?)
Gregg
> I agree, no difference in theory. But the fact of the matter
> is, negs are
> MUCH harder to destroy, where as digital pics can be destroyed
> with a couple
> of key strokes or a few mouse clicks..
Let's see... Finger prints, bent negs, scratches, dirt, fading
if left out in the light, heat, mold, chemical breakdown by not
using archival sheets, accidental discard...
You're right. Negatives are MUCH harder to destroy.
AG-Schnozz
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|