On Jan 9, 2009, at 7:30 PM, aussieshepsrock wrote:
> > Topic: Storing Original Prints As Best Option - A Discussion > > Upfront! Well Kept Prints Are By leaps and bounds this is > UNEQUIVOCABLY The Best Option! > Any and All Atempts To Explain Doing So Is Best Is To Be 'Preaching To > The Choir'. > > My Photographic Skils Come Out Of Large Format Cameras And Sporting > Darkroom Tans. Give me properly processed 4x5 negatives and fibre > based prints or Cibachrome Color Prints and I'll be the Most Happy guy > around!!!!! Which is why you are aware that 'photographic' (chemical/ paper/ negative) copies have the potential to NOT lose hidden data. [Talking about 'granularity' of the image, for B&W, Color is a bit different, but still BOTH contain far more data than a 'granularity = 600 or 1200 dpi can record. Being satisfied with the appearance of a 4x6 at 600 dpi, is fine, IF that 600 dpi is derived from 1200 dpi or 2400 dpi original data. IF you have the higher resolution data available, you can drop quality all you want when you are printing, with no problem. But there is a limit as to how much you can enlarge things depending on the dpi available to you AT THAT TIME. Once you cut the dpi information, that's the NEW limit. Can't magically get those pixels back. > > Having established THAT data point! :-) > > I have to accept the photos in this box for what they mostly are. > CHEAP Color Prints from the late Seventies to Early Nineties. By > Definition that makes them NON-Archival. But you can transfer those pics to current 'photo quality' with attention to using archival grade materials when appropriate. > The later stuff will take a > fair bit longer to self destruct, but self destruct they will. They > have also lived a semi-rough life in the environs of my Grand Mothers > home. Loved, but not well stored or temperature protected for the most > part. The clock is ticking on these pictures. Fortunately, you shouldn't be having 'Next Week' deadline problems. > > I would like to have a Non Computer Based Solution to 'Saving' these > images and distributing them. I actually have one, but the agreggate > cost might be daunting. > > I can take the Digital Files I am making and print them at the local > Professional Photo Lab we have in this town. It's actually a semi- > major player nationally and draws clients globally. I used to work > there 7 or 8 years ago. Great People. For anything beyond snapshots > EVERYTHING I need printed goes to them. Period. > > They aren't overwhelmingly expensive, but their Quality is Many Orders > Of Magnitude Better than using Walgreens or Walmart or Snapfish or > Whatever. Remember, as good as you say they are, you have already 'reduced' the grain/pixel information. Maybe the solution to the 'photographic reproduction' problem is as simple (yeah right) as locating a willing amateur photo buff, that still runs his own dark room, and supplying materials. > > It would likely cost 150+ dollars a copy just for each set of prints, > but I have worked out a process of using Photoshop to divide an 8x10 > into 5x8 halves showing each photo and an associated data block > showing the available info for each photo. > > Going this route would buy in to the absolute best printing papers and > high quality printing processes to give the longest living color > prints I am likely to reasonably encounter. > > The high res scans would 'hold' more absolute photographic info, but > the prints would have the benefit of only needing photon's and > breathing people to be accessible in the future! > > The good ole Mark One Eyeball. Technology Extrordinaire! This was what I was getting at with my comments about an 'archival system' > > The likely availability of light and people 5-10 years from now is > statistically pretty hopeful! The certainty of cd's, dvd's, or HD's a > Decade out might be more squishy! LOL The Digital solution has the advantage of being easily searched, reproduced, etc. The 'photographic method' is closer to an 'Archival solution'. Maybe a combination (gets things into two different physical systems right off the bat) would answer the overall problem best. > > The issue for me is that 2 sets of prints and associated appropriate > storage materials looks like a 500 dollar minimum buy in. > There go those darn $'s, rearing their ugly heads again!!!!! Chuck D. > It is definitely a goal to have this print set, but I don't see how to > make it yet. > > Richard > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to g3-5-list-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
