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

No, but with 4K and eventually higher resolution big screen devices, digital display of digital images will become a norm. We use our 55" Smart TV to display all our digital content. We share a drive over the home network, and we plug in USB sticks, and we use apps on our iPhones to send images and videos to the Smart TV. It works great, and the images look better than prints (from across the living room).

In the long run, bits beat atoms. I still like prints, and see a purpose for them, but they are too static for many uses in this modern world.