«

Do these devices preserve photographs
longer than a CD-R disk? Would saving
an important photo this way be more
reliable than the CD-R?

Thanks.

Luk

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:48:16 -0400, luk <>
wrote:

>Do these devices preserve photographs
>longer than a CD-R disk? Would saving
>an important photo this way be more
>reliable than the CD-R?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Luk

For the cost of a 512MB USB drive, you could buy,...
How many CD-Rs?
It's not cost-effective.
If you really want to make your digital images last a long time, use
multiple methods; multiple CD-Rs geographically dispersed and stored
properly, a hard drive backup, and a good web server (get your own
domain) with a lot of space. The more places you put your image files,
the mor elikely you are to have them last.
Oh, also think about giving copies to whoever you think will want them
later. Kids, friends, museums, whoever.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk wrote:

> If you really want to make your digital images last a long time, use
> multiple methods; multiple CD-Rs geographically dispersed and stored
> properly, a hard drive backup, and a good web server (get your own
> domain) with a lot of space. The more places you put your image files,
> the mor elikely you are to have them last.
> Oh, also think about giving copies to whoever you think will want them
> later. Kids, friends, museums, whoever.

Thanks to all. Someone suggested to me that
a USB flash drive would last longer than the
CD-R. I then looked at the prices and storage
capacity of the USB devices. I was surprised
at the cost - and a bit discouraged.

Now some people are saying that a CD-R can
last quite a long time.

I think we're all handicapped by the fact that
the new technologies are...well...new. How
can anyone predict durability?

I have, in fact, made multiple CD-Rs. Not
geographically dispersed, however. That's
a thought.

Luk

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:48:16 -0400, luk <>
> wrote:
>
> >Do these devices preserve photographs
> >longer than a CD-R disk? Would saving
> >an important photo this way be more
> >reliable than the CD-R?
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Luk
>
> For the cost of a 512MB USB drive, you could buy,...
> How many CD-Rs?
> It's not cost-effective.
> If you really want to make your digital images last a long time, use
> multiple methods; multiple CD-Rs geographically dispersed and stored
> properly, a hard drive backup, and a good web server (get your own
> domain) with a lot of space. The more places you put your image files,
> the mor elikely you are to have them last.

I recall about 15 years ago when I started recording live music on DAT
that there were numerous studies done to prove that DAT would fail as a
storage medium. The metal oxide on the tape itself would rust off, the
sound would be lost and your capture would be interspersed with the
nagging "scream" resulting from digital errors. They posited this
theory under the most ideal of storage circumstances. Recently, I
unearthed a large box of DATs that had been stored in multiple places,
including an outside storage facility with no air conditioning. I
listened apprehensively, and there were no more or less digital errors
than there were in, some cases, 1992 or '93.

I'm banking on CDs to do the job!

<> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:48:16 -0400, luk <>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Do these devices preserve photographs
>> >longer than a CD-R disk? Would saving
>> >an important photo this way be more
>> >reliable than the CD-R?
>> >
>> >Thanks.
>> >
>> >Luk
>>
>> For the cost of a 512MB USB drive, you could buy,...
>> How many CD-Rs?
>> It's not cost-effective.
>> If you really want to make your digital images last a long time, use
>> multiple methods; multiple CD-Rs geographically dispersed and stored
>> properly, a hard drive backup, and a good web server (get your own
>> domain) with a lot of space. The more places you put your image files,
>> the mor elikely you are to have them last.
>
> I recall about 15 years ago when I started recording live music on DAT
> that there were numerous studies done to prove that DAT would fail as a
> storage medium. The metal oxide on the tape itself would rust off, the
> sound would be lost and your capture would be interspersed with the
> nagging "scream" resulting from digital errors. They posited this
> theory under the most ideal of storage circumstances. Recently, I
> unearthed a large box of DATs that had been stored in multiple places,
> including an outside storage facility with no air conditioning. I
> listened apprehensively, and there were no more or less digital errors
> than there were in, some cases, 1992 or '93.
>
> I'm banking on CDs to do the job!
>
Mine haven't.
Jim

In article <>,
luk <> wrote:

> Bill Funk wrote:
>
> > If you really want to make your digital images last a long time, use
> > multiple methods; multiple CD-Rs geographically dispersed and stored
> > properly, a hard drive backup, and a good web server (get your own
> > domain) with a lot of space. The more places you put your image files,
> > the mor elikely you are to have them last.
> > Oh, also think about giving copies to whoever you think will want them
> > later. Kids, friends, museums, whoever.
>
> Thanks to all. Someone suggested to me that
> a USB flash drive would last longer than the
> CD-R. I then looked at the prices and storage
> capacity of the USB devices. I was surprised
> at the cost - and a bit discouraged.
>
> Now some people are saying that a CD-R can
> last quite a long time.
>
> I think we're all handicapped by the fact that
> the new technologies are...well...new. How
> can anyone predict durability?
>
> I have, in fact, made multiple CD-Rs. Not
> geographically dispersed, however. That's
> a thought.
>
> Luk

To the best of my knowledge, none of the companies that manufacture
flash drives market them as long-term archival media. A flash drive
might very well hold its data intact for many years, but its just not
cost effective.

On the other hand, plenty of manufacturers of CD-ROM media have tested
their media for long term archival storage. The last time I checked, the
typical CD was "projected" to last 100 years. Its anyone's guess how
long data will remain intact on a flash drive because they were never
marketed for long-term storage so I doubt there's been much testing or
certification done with that media for archival storage.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:45:18 -0400, Shawn Hirn wrote:

>> I have, in fact, made multiple CD-Rs. Not
>> geographically dispersed, however. That's
>> a thought.
> . . .
>
> To the best of my knowledge, none of the companies that manufacture
> flash drives market them as long-term archival media. A flash drive
> might very well hold its data intact for many years, but its just not
> cost effective.

It's not cost effective compared to archiving with CDs. But for
some people whose needs are no greater than snapshooters that only
get 4"x6" prints made (some not even caring that their 4"x6"s are of
pretty poor print quality), using flash cards or drives can be a
very inexpensive way to save pictures.

While I archive my original multi-megabyte images, they can be
reduced to about 50k in size and still rival the image quality of
mediocre snapshots, and can look even better when displayed on a
large monitor. A 1GB card can hold 20,000 50k images, which for
many people would represent more than 20 year's worth of shots. A
flash card used for archiving doesn't need to be one of the more
expensive high speed cards, so you should be able to get a 1GB
"archive" card for well under $40. That's less than 2 cents per
image, which is an order of magnitude less than film snapshooters
have been willing to pay for their prints. And print costs are
pretty stable, while flash memory keeps getting cheaper and cheaper.
Fussier snapshooters with a few more bucks in their wallet can save
250k images, but in only a few years card costs will drop enough so
that even these will eventually be able to be saved for less than 2
cents per image. Meanwhile, those using inexpensive film cameras
and disposables will be paying much more per shot and thinking
"What, me worry?"

My Fuji's pictures average just under 2MB, so I'd be able to fit
1000 on a 2GB card. That's a little more than I usually take per
year, and that card would cost less than what I used to pay annually
ten years ago to get a smaller number of prints made. Of course
back then I considered the costs excessive, and it kept me from
shooting as often as I would have liked. I also prefer the quality
of the Fuji's images to what I used to get from my old Nikon SLR.
I'm not about to stop using CDs and DVDs for backing up my images,
but flash cards and drives are much more convenient for carrying
large numbers of pictures when you're in the mood to trap friends
and relatives for hours, seeking revenge for the times they bored
you to tears showing their unedited home videos.

wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:48:16 -0400, luk <>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Do these devices preserve photographs
> > >longer than a CD-R disk? Would saving
> > >an important photo this way be more
> > >reliable than the CD-R?
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >
> > >Luk
> >
> > For the cost of a 512MB USB drive, you could buy,...
> > How many CD-Rs?
> > It's not cost-effective.
> > If you really want to make your digital images last a long time, use
> > multiple methods; multiple CD-Rs geographically dispersed and stored
> > properly, a hard drive backup, and a good web server (get your own
> > domain) with a lot of space. The more places you put your image files,
> > the mor elikely you are to have them last.
>
> I recall about 15 years ago when I started recording live music on DAT
> that there were numerous studies done to prove that DAT would fail as a
> storage medium. The metal oxide on the tape itself would rust off, the
> sound would be lost and your capture would be interspersed with the
> nagging "scream" resulting from digital errors. They posited this
> theory under the most ideal of storage circumstances. Recently, I
> unearthed a large box of DATs that had been stored in multiple places,
> including an outside storage facility with no air conditioning. I
> listened apprehensively, and there were no more or less digital errors
> than there were in, some cases, 1992 or '93.
>
> I'm banking on CDs to do the job!

ASAAR wrote:
>
> While I archive my original multi-megabyte images, they can be
> reduced to about 50k in size and still rival the image quality of
> mediocre snapshots, and can look even better when displayed on a
> large monitor. A 1GB card can hold 20,000 50k images, which for
> many people would represent more than 20 year's worth of shots. A
> flash card used for archiving doesn't need to be one of the more
> expensive high speed cards, so you should be able to get a 1GB
> "archive" card for well under $40. That's less than 2 cents per
> image, which is an order of magnitude less than film snapshooters
> have been willing to pay for their prints. And print costs are
> pretty stable, while flash memory keeps getting cheaper and cheaper.
> Fussier snapshooters with a few more bucks in their wallet can save
> 250k images, but in only a few years card costs will drop enough so
> that even these will eventually be able to be saved for less than 2
> cents per image. Meanwhile, those using inexpensive film cameras
> and disposables will be paying much more per shot and thinking
> "What, me worry?"

The 1 GB card in addition to some CD-Rs might be
a good plan for the time being. (With the understanding
that technologies will continue to change rapidly,
as they have in the past 10 years.)

There seems to be an underlying acknowledgment in all
these replies that ink jet prints are not likely to
be very durable.

Luk