hollidaypr

Yesterday afternoon I was sifting through hundreds of old photos my in-laws had in boxes. Some were over a hundred only years old, some were less than 40. Several things struck me during this review.

First was the quality of some of the shots. The blacks were stunning! And many of the less dense shots were still easily recognized. However, many of the later color shots washed out to a nearly unrecognizable point. Black and whites generally held their images, even when not well processed.

Old cameras were capable of quite clear photos, though most were small, and probably contact printed. I have a couple of the old Kodaks that were used to take some of these shots, and they are not high-end cameras by any stretch. The zoom was two foot ten, meaning walk ten steps closer to the subject to get a larger image.

I also wondered what my grandchildren will be looking at in fifty years or so. Since I don't print many pictures now, I have lost a lot of shots to software upgrades, hard drive failures, and storage format changes. My whole group of collected wall graffiti is gone, as are many of my other random shots of family, friends, and scenes.

Thankfully I shot film for many years, so I scan old negatives that I can print on paper.

My point? I think I need to print more shots on archival paper with archival inks, and probably in black and white, if I want future generations to be able to view my work.

Frank

texasdan78070 Loc: Texas Hill Country

Makes sense to me.

Dan

icram2

Sounds right to me, too------With everyone clicking here, and clicking there, and having all those images on a cell phone or camera memory card; who will ever see them? What do you want to leave your family for memories--electronic files? Do any of you think they will ever be found and printed? Sure can't enjoy what you can't see, is my prediction for the future.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I still make prints of the images I like. My grown kids have no use for them; but they will find them when I die.

Bkh42 Loc: N.I. UK

I agree b/w prints really hold their colour. During the 1950's whilst on a school trip to Switzerland I took a photo of three children(with their mum's permission) in Basle wearing their countrie's outfits. The camera was film and cost shillings and pence from Woolworths in north Watford. I still have that photo and all things considered it might not draw any gasps of admiration from folks today but I cherish it

Bkh42

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I quite agree.

Pictures don't live until they are printed.

Nobody is going to say "C'mon kids, gather 'round the hard drive to look at some 1's and 0's!"

Printing makes images real and nothing is better than a real wet print.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Old film was very large compared with 35mm, and that helps with the clarity. B&W doesn't have the dyes to worry about, so they tend to hold up better. Color photos tend to lean toward red over time. I wonder how modern printing in color will hold up over time.

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

Don't throw out the discoloured photos yet. Many scanners have a setting to deal exactly with this discolouration. While scanning these photos will not make them perfect, it will make a huge improvement.


Actually what you need is a good system for backing up your photos.
Software upgrades: Don't just upgrade your software, and start using it, while deleting the previous version. First make sure your newer software will still read your older images. If not, retain the older software and use it to convert your images to a universal format (I'm thinking, for example of "dng" for raw files). Only when you you are satisfied that your new software can deal with your old images, delete/uninstall the old software.
Hard drive failures: It has been discussed often enough that the question is not "if" a hard drive will fail, but "when." But I have yet to read a discussion that 3 hard drives, purchased at different times and of different brand names, all failed at the same time. Actually, I do know of one instance where three external drives were lost at the same time: there was a housefire and the the externals were kept together in the same desk drawer. So, the message is to copy your photos to two or three different hard drives and keep at least two of them off-site (office, parents' or child's house, etc), or as has become popular, get a cloud subscription as well as one or two external drives.
Storage format changes: Not sure what you mean here. I shoot jpg + raw, and after culling the bad ones or "almost" duplicates, I also store both formats. At least till after I have dealt with the raw files, then I usually delete the camera's jpg, and save the raw, sidecar and jpg files from raw, together - on the computer's hard drive. At the end of the day (or no later than the end of the week) copy them to an external drive that I keep at the opposite end of the house from the computer, in a small, supposedly water- and fireproof safe (haven't tested to see if it really is). When we go to visit our son and his family, that external goes with me and stays with my son, while the one at his place comes home with me to be updated and then put in the safe.
I have been shooting digital for almost 20 years now, and have not lost a single photo through any of the reasons you give.

Yes, I do have a number of my pictures printed. And many I use to make photo/scrap books for the grandkids. They love to have their own books.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Real Black & White Photo's hold up well, especially wet black & white Prints.
Black & White from inkjets can be poor if they mix colors to make shades. I have some small prints tucked in to a mirror frame, under the frame the black is true but they are more brown where you can see them. Behind glass seems to hold colors better. I have a cheap black & white technique which uses a single black and dithers for the lighter shades quite contrasty which i like but they seem to be pretty stable.

I think there is a uv finishing spray which seals the print that you can buy and that is supposed to help.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i ran across an article in one of the industry digital magazines. the header read "loss of history". the article dealt with the problem digital imaging is and is going to experience. the ability to print images from digital will be lost within the next 10 years. there will be no longer software or hardware support to enable the digital image maker to print what is being currently taken.

within the industry, there is great concern that our culture and history will simply be lost. storage on the internet sites will also cease to support digital images. and no hard drives will be supported, also.

so, if you care about, and want your children, or future generations to see and understand our current history and culture, you must begin to print, archively, your images and preserve them in non-acid, rag, papers.

this is sad news, but not really nothing new, just the growing realisation that what is produced on film negatives and prints will be, pretty much, the only thing which survives.

so, please, all you hoggers, start printing your images now!

harryd Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Why will the ability to print from digital be "lost"? Can you post a link to that article?

Thanks.

Dick Z. Loc: Downers Grove IL

I agree.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Pigmented inkjet prints... no dye inks if you want the very best archival permanence.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

As claimed in may publications, the new pigment based inks (color or black and white) have very good archival quality. Of course, if left in direct unfiltered sunlight all images will fade.

What is an archival Pigment Print?
Light Fastness of Pigment-based and Dye-based Inkjet Inks This is a technical paper in pdf format.
Dye Ink vs. Pigment Ink: How to Choose What's Best For You John Paul Caponigro article.

Hope this adds something useful to the discussion.

Impressionist

Thank you for the information. There is much to be said for the shoebox over hard drive.