Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: D.M. Procida on 2 Mar 2010 16:34 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > I've got an aunt most of whose family photos are almost certainly going > > to outlast almost everything saved in iPhoto albums - because most of > > her family photos originate as black and white negatives. <shrug> I > > always test expected storage reliability against that gold, no silver > > halide, standard. > > Even B&W negs can deteriorate, and are easily damaged. To last a long > time, they have to be carefully and expensively stored. [...] the > life of your digital images should be as long as anywone is willing to > copy them. Potentially much greater than that of any physical picture. In practice, the ability and willingness of people to pass on digital images is quite likely to outlast a print stored in an album that is known and cared about by the family. Digital images in principle will endure indefinitely, but who will care in a few generations' time? The images will be nothing more than historical curiosities. The need served by family photo albums isn't served well by digital images. > The same goes for books. Unless they are printed on parchment or archive > quality paper, which is extremely expensive and as a result quite > unusual, then their life is extremely variable. It may be very long, but > for instance I have a copy of a book, 'Post D', printed in 1941, which I > like a great deal and read every year or two. As far as I know it is out > of print and has been for some time. My copy is turning very brown. > Within a few years the paper will start to disintegrate. Books printed in 1941 in western Europe were printed on the very cheapest paper. Most books will last far longer than that. Daniele
From: Woody on 2 Mar 2010 16:40 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > Once again; if Rowland gets abusive, it means nothing in the real world. > > Simply ignore him. > > A lot of what I say is valid - but unfortunately, due to the words of > people like Peter and others who take the trouble to put me down, it > seems that no-one will actually pay me the respect of trying to > understand me. > > No, it seems that the usual clique here simply dismiss all my complaints > as the ravings of a madman. Because you rave like a madman. If you would discuss something then fine, we could pay your the respect to understand you, but you don't, you just get abusive. And that doesn't command any respect. Sometimes it would be nice if you could accept that becasue someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean they are dismissing you, just that they don't agree. > Peter is grossly abusive to me a lot, btw. > > Rowland - that's me - is not mad, for example. I see no proof of that. > Peter doesn't think it's abusive to call me mad - but for me to make > similar comments about anyone else would be abusive. Peter's a bit of a > hypocrite, you see. Why, you call people mad, who don't appear to be, when you appear to be. If you are not mad, why not act less mad? > Rowland suffers from anxiety and depression. So do a lot of non abusive people, I hardly think that is an excuse for the abuse you dish out. > He's been tested many times > by many shrinks. All of them have been very very definite about telling > him that he's *NOT* mad in any way shape or form. As you say, the medical profession isn't very good. > They sometimes get very stroppy about it - I think they get the grossly > mistaken idea that I'm asking them to diagnose me as mad, you see (i.e., > psychotic or schizophrenic). I could be wrong - psychiatrists are > usually impossible to understand. you seem to find everyone impossible to understand, and when you try, you appear to get it almost entirely wrong every time. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Peter Ceresole on 2 Mar 2010 17:30 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Books printed in 1941 in western Europe were printed on the very > cheapest paper. Most books will last far longer than that. I was giving an extreme example- where I can see the deterioration. That's why I gave the date. But unless, as I said, it's archive quality paper or some other medium like parchment, books on paper are certainly less long lived than digital content *provided someone wants to preserve it*. Having had a fair amount to do with archived film, I know that 'important' material such as the funeral of Queen Victoria is usually well looked after, much of it by getting it into digital form so the original can be kept untouched. The casual stuff, newsreels of only passing interest at the time which are now some of the most significant material we have because it contains a record of some of the ways in which we lived as people, away from the distortions of official life, has often fared very badly indeed. A lot of it was junked because it is really costly and expensive to store it. Digital media, on the other hand, are much more compact and cheaper and easier to store and especially to copy on. -- Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 3 Mar 2010 09:32 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > I've got an aunt most of whose family photos are almost certainly going > > > to outlast almost everything saved in iPhoto albums - because most of > > > her family photos originate as black and white negatives. <shrug> I > > > always test expected storage reliability against that gold, no silver > > > halide, standard. > > > > Even B&W negs can deteriorate, and are easily damaged. To last a long > > time, they have to be carefully and expensively stored. [...] the > > life of your digital images should be as long as anywone is willing to > > copy them. Potentially much greater than that of any physical picture. > > In practice, the ability and willingness of people to pass on digital > images is quite likely to outlast a print stored in an album that is > known and cared about by the family. My family (including the in-laws) have family photos going back to what's my great-grandparents' time - late 19th century. We also have colour photos from the 1970s and 1980s that are badly faded, although I'm quite impressed at the lack of fading on some early 1980s Kodak prints that I have. > Digital images in principle will endure indefinitely, More like: /can/ endure indefinitely, *IF* people are willing to pay the money to copy the data to the new format every few years. > but who will care > in a few generations' time? The images will be nothing more than > historical curiosities. Quite, whereupon they will not be copied to the new formats when needed, and will be lost. > The need served by family photo albums isn't served well by digital > images. [snip] Need? Passing the pictures around and so on - digital photos are *great*. Me, got some Aussie rellies. Visited recently. And the entire family gets to see the results at the same time: UK, US, and Oz branches. Slap it up on the Web - brill! /That/ purpose of family photo albums is well served by digital media. Dunno about anything else, though. Rowland. P.S. I might be up on YouTube. If so, do let me know. I was clowning for small girls. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 3 Mar 2010 09:32
Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > Books printed in 1941 in western Europe were printed on the very > > cheapest paper. Most books will last far longer than that. > > I was giving an extreme example- where I can see the deterioration. It's not extreme, it's mild. You should look at some of my 1970s paperbacks - 30 years on and they're crumbling to dust. And I've got 1930s hardbacks perfect aside from some spotting on the edge of the paper from damp storage. > That's why I gave the date. But unless, as I said, it's archive quality > paper or some other medium like parchment, books on paper are certainly > less long lived than digital content *provided someone wants to preserve > it*. But if the books *are* printed on decent paper, which is commonplace, books on paper are certainly much *MUCH* longer lived than `digital' content, assuming that the digital content receives the same amount of care and maintenance as the books. > Having had a fair amount to do with archived film, I know that > 'important' material such as the funeral of Queen Victoria is usually > well looked after, much of it by getting it into digital form so the > original can be kept untouched. That has been possible in recent years, yes. But it's expensive to keep the copies maintained in a current digital format - a necessary job of routine mainenance of digital copies. >The casual stuff, newsreels of only > passing interest at the time which are now some of the most significant > material we have because it contains a record of some of the ways in > which we lived as people, away from the distortions of official life, > has often fared very badly indeed. A lot of it was junked because it is > really costly and expensive to store it. Old explosive film is a special case - admittedly, there's a lot of it. Modern safety film stock (came in during the 1930s, didn't it?) does a lot better. > Digital media, on the other > hand, are much more compact and cheaper and easier to store and > especially to copy on. So you assert - but the archivists I've heard all say that paper's the best storage medium they've got and that they're all really, really worried about digital formats which just aren't going to last, and it's far too expensive to have to keep copying all the data to the new medium when it comes along. Hmm - now I come to think of it, that's the archivists' main objection, I think: that the digital formats work out much more expensive to store than anything else, because of the need for constant maintenance which you avoid if you stick with paper. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |