Folks, we've had this discussion before (ad nauseum). It's all in the archives. If there were a secure and reliable method of digital archiving, museums across the known universe would be using it and the Library of Congress would be spending $40 Million to find it. It does not exists. Right now your best bet is probably to make one of your parallel back-ups a major corporate web player such as Yahoo or Google and let them worry about it...
BTW I have a nice Webster in working condition, Richard. You are free to make use of it any time you need it. I've made quite a few wire recordings on it myself. It is a beautiful piece of period design. This is model I have:
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/wire.html
Eric Goldstein
--
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Roberts" <nickbroberts@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:29 AM Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Film vs Digital to preserve archives
I've been dabbling with digital imaging for13-14 years now, and I've not yet lost an image. I keep two copies of everything, one off-site, and migrate everything every time I change a storage medium (and keep the old ones! - I've actually still got a PC with Windows 3.11 and a 5.25 inch floppy drive mothballed just in case...).
So as far as I'm concerned, my digital files are actually safer than my negs and slides. Indeed my original digital dabbling was to give me electronic backup of my film records just in case of a fire.
Nick
This is fine as long as someone is dedicated to updating the storage periodically. In this sense, it is not really archival because that implys storage which is very long term without a lot of attention. Very often examples are given of people being able to recover images from negatives which have been in storage for on the order of 100 years, and prints that old are fairly common. One advantage digital storage has over analogue is that the original data can usually be recovered without change or loss where there is always some loss for analogue methods. I suspect that there may be better ways of storing digital data than the current magnetic media and the current applications of optical media, but those are in the future. Even of the media are very long lasting there remains the problem of being able to recover it and decode it. The concern here is being able to duplicate the mechanism, both mechanical and electronic, needed for such recovery, at some time in the distant future. Of course, the same thing applies to photographic materials but is not so obvious. Photographic materials have been enormously improved but not changed in principal for nearly two centuries. The process is very stable, the oldest photographic records can be read by eye and can be duplicated with modern materials. However, if we consider a future time, when photographic materials will no longer be available commercially, a problem similar to digital will exist. That is, it might be necessary to make a photographic material in order to recover and preserve existing information. The technology of the photograhic chemistry needed to make modern materials is not trivial and may be more difficult to duplicate in the distant future than precision machinery (disc drive) and electronic circuits capable of emulating the older coding technology. The reason is that the old digital technology may then be closer to the practice of the time than chemical methods. Those requiring genuine archival storage (100 plus years) may have to resort to parallel storage methods and, at least for digital, the frequent transfer of data to newer media and methods. I have been taken to task in the past for stating that I think digital and computer technology is still in a very early stage of development but I stand by this judgement. We only think computers are very advanced because we can't see the future.
--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list