Peterff wrote:
Nothing against film here, but the curation is important for both film and digital, but physical media are simply more vulnerable. It is certainly something that needs more space and sometimes temperature or humidity controlled environments. Digital just requires replication, ideally in multiple geographically separate locations. It is a simple fact of materials science and technology, but above all good curation which is easier with digital.
I too have many B&W prints, and some are about a century old. No special care was taken to preserve them other than keeping them dry and in the dark most of the time (albums), and they still look fine. They were handed down from one generation to the next throughout the years. My brother has many of the same images. I think that was the way they backed up back then, by making several copies of shots that were important to them. But I do understand what you're saying about digital images. The problem with digital is, how many people will actually back up important images? I bet that many don't. Snap it with a phone, put it on farce book and done! Many once in a lifetime images will soon be history (pun intended). A lot of folks don't care about preserving their work the way that we do. What the heck, they can always take another one tomorrow, right? They may regret it someday.