CajunLou Loc: SW Louisiana

I am looking in the availability of the Mitsui Gold CD-R with an advertised life of excess 300 years. I too have thumb drives and CD's that are going bad, with printing all being a very expensive option. I did a google search and they are quite more expensive, but better than loosing files and photos.

fcrawley Loc: Melbourne, FL

The Library of Congress has a complete archive section that does this. They study the degradation of media extensively. This goes much further than just physical degradation. For instance, we keep documentation for projects as required for long periods of time. Back in the 90s these documents started being created in Microsoft Office. However, current Office versions only support back four revisions, so older files will not open on newer versions. In order to keep them usable, they have to be opened and re-saved in the latest version that will support it, and this process repeated until the files get to the latest version. This has only recently come to light. So who out there still has a machine with Office 2000 on it to open those old Word 95 docs?

As for physical media, it does change, but files do not. They are all 0s and 1s, so backup regularly, and if you are really concerned make sure to do a magnetic AND optical backups. If you ever got a tape (audio or video etc) too close to your amplifier and then tried to use it after you know what happens. Same thing with hard drives. Less likely because of shielding, but very possible. And forget flash drives...nice for temporary and frequent back-ups in a firebox, but if you drop one it's toast. Also, remember encryption. If you aren't the only one with access to your backup, make sure you control who is.

For CDs and DVDs we know that commercial ones last longer because the pits are pressed into the plastic and then the reflective layer is added. The degradation of the reflective layer causes them to be unreadable...however I haven't found a study that shows pit degradation at the same rate. For ones you burn, the pits are put in the dye layer...since they are not physically pressed, the dye itself changes shape over time making them unreadable.

We do know that properly stored physical audio recordings last longer than any other type of physical media. Now take those recordings and make them on metal discs instead...we've sent those on vehicles leaving the solar system.

jbmauser Loc: Roanoke, VA

It is clear that digital libraries require maintenance and diligence. As each technology has become obsolete their has been easy steps to the newer platform. The problem arises if these migrations are not made while the bridge technology is in place and one finds there are no bridges spanning back to say 5 1/4in floppies. The one thing we can all agree on (I hope) is that the library of photos taken in the digital world exceeds the film libraries of a few decades ago may fold. To print all that I have stored electronically would probably require a home equity loan, a full time archivist and a dedicated addition to my home to store the paper prints. The other side of the coin is that I can buy the latest technology hard drive etc. and have the system back up and copy while I sleep and If I wanted three such backups I could have them and store them in a desk drawer.

The fact is digital photography requires diligence and redundant systems.

rps Loc: Muskoka Ontario Canada

I think you overlook one thing. The people who are transferring VHS to DVD and LP's to CD etc. etc. are the minority. For every one who takes the trouble to do that, there are ten who don't. Likewise news organizations and such. The good ones have a sense of history and preserve their material. Others see it as a waste of money. Certainly much of today's imagery will be saved in one way or another. The question is what won't be and how much will be lost to apathy, indifference, laziness and procrastination.
(This is a really good discussion. Maybe it will plant some important seeds that will grow.)

rps Loc: Muskoka Ontario Canada

I think you overlook one thing. The people who are transferring VHS to DVD and LP's to CD etc. etc. are the minority. For every one who takes the trouble to do that, there are ten who don't. Likewise news organizations and such. The good ones have a sense of history and preserve their material. Others see it as a waste of money. Certainly much of today's imagery will be saved in one way or another. The question is what won't be and how much will be lost to apathy, indifference, laziness and procrastination.
(This is a really good discussion. Maybe it will plant some important seeds that will grow.)

arjty

You are absolutely correct to make prints on paper which has its own short lifespan. We still have drawings from the Renaissance (1500 AD). I find this somewhat discouraging because the idea of reducing everything to a series of O and 1's was exciting. I have had a personal problem trying to get data from my old 5 1/4" disks. I had to travel 70 miles to a machine which still ran 5 1/4" disks but also had a hard drive and a CD writer. However the owner of this machine died on me and I was unable to complete the translation of data (nor able to purchase the machine).

After a while one could end up spending all of their time doing nothing but backing up old work. The changes in hardware and software seems to accelerate. Has anyone tried opening a MS Word file from 1998? (One can still read it from Open Office and then save it in a modern MS Word .doc form, but for how long will this be available)

We need a modern equivalent of paper. Otherwise we have to use paper.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

I have a few magnets holding notes to the side of my computer at work, one day our IT guy was at my desk for something and almost had a seizure. "Are those magnets? They can wipe out your hard drive!" I only laughed at him, knowing full well that magnets would not hurt the hard drive.

A few years earlier I retired an old small hard drive that had been replaced with a larger one, because I had financial records etc. that I didn't want to possibly be recovered, I took a video tape eraser (A very large, very powerful electro-magnet) and tried to erase the hard drive. When I hooked it up to the computer to see if it was wiped clean, it still had all the files available. So I opened the case and tried again, keeping that huge magnet right next to the platters for over a minute. Same result.

I realize that although hard drives are a magnetic media, magnets alone will not damage the data. To be sure the data was unrecoverable, I finally disassembled the drive as much as I could, and then destroyed it with a sledge hammer.

The moral of the story is that hard drives are safe storage as long as the motor works, if it spins, the data can be recovered.

arjty

No its not going to be all right. I've already lost images, documents and data even though I was actively attempting to be redundant and to store the material. No one is really working on the root of the problem. Also has anyone heard of a new 5 1/4" disk reader? The early CDs I made were unreadable withing a year because the software changed! An active attempt at dealing with the problem is needed.

jam Loc: Beaufort, NC

How are Blu-ray's for storage?

arjty

One last thought on this problem. An ink jet print on paper is probably mor permanent than a print made in a darkroom. Silver oxidizes over time. Carbon doesn't. So as temporary means the modern media are better but paper remains (at this time) the more permanent long period storage. Does anyone know about the 'metal' prints that are advertised?

sandgroper Loc: WESTERN AUSTRALIA

I think you're on the right track Judy-make prints of the ones you don't want to lose. Archivists tell me that they have little confidence in the shelf life of current storage technologies.

JBTaylor Loc: In hiding again

I would think that digital storage is the worst and best way to store your pictures for years to come. I agree that the most important pictures should be printed on/with quality media.

But the most important pictures, the ones worth printing should also be saved with checksums on multiple devices and checked and periodically copied to fresh media periodically. As new storage devices/media take over the market, copy from soon to be obsolete devices while they are still functioning. File formats are a separate issue that needs to be considered. The most standard lossless format should have support for some time to come and the images can be transferred as required by changing technology.

Of course this requires a lot of care and vigilance but bits in a file are perfectly reproducible. Of course for leave it in a box for 100 years, physical prints may be a better option.

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

Expanding a little on my previous post, the technology on solid-state drives (SSDs) is improving and has the advantage over DVDs and external hard drives of having no moving parts. Today's SSDs don't have an enormous life span because of some of their parts deteriorate with age, but SanDisk has come up with a 16-GB one claiming to be good for 100 years. That would be a very expensive storage, but it points to progress towards longer-lasting and higher-capacity SSDs of the future:


http://www.sandisk.com/about-sandisk/press-room/press-releases/2011/2011-09-14-sandisk-memory-vault-preserves-photos-for-up-to-100-years/

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

CaptainC makes a compelling case. I will be printing more photos. Great question and discussion.

JudyTee23 Loc: Eastern U. S.

I am now very glad that I started this thread. Initially, I was reluctant to do so for fear of igniting an unpleasant conflagration between opposing camps. I fully expected a vigorous, even absurd, defense of the digital media. Thankfully such has not occurred.

I owe a debt of gratitude to all who have taken the time and made the effort to contribute to a rational discussion of the problems inherent in preserving some visual evidence of our time for the education and enjoyment of future generations.

Many posters have recommended preserving standard silver-based prints. Silver-based prints are among the less desirable preservation methods. Nevertheless, gold chloride toning will remove most of the undesirable characteristics of silver. The gold will tend to coat the silver grains and protect against by humidity, oxygen, UV rays, etc.

Platinum or palladium prints are excellent, both in longevity as well as visually. Older, alternative printing methods, such as carbon, bromoil, etc, are more physical than chemical and thus are more stable in the long run.

If each of us preserves only a tiny part of our photographic output, we will, collectively, leave a valuable record for the future.

Thanks to all who have posted. I hope the discussion continues.