From: "Badri A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have a sub-poll: how many of those who primarily shoot digital think
it's a good idea to also invest time and money in retaining an
'analog' (print/transparency) copy of your photos in a suitable
archive?
I find this attractive because, unlike digital storage, analog storage
will likely degrade but not be destroyed barring fire/other calamity.
Some (fuzzy and faded) memories are better than no memories.
To me, as much as I enjoy viewing photographs on line and in
projection or on a computer screen, a photograph is a print. All my
"serious" work, even if it gets exposure in no other place, is
printed. That is indeed my work. The image files on disk or the
negatives/slides never printed are less important to me.
Ultimately, the best archival solution for the ages at this point is
to publish a book and have it purchased by a few libraries. Digitally
published books are coming up as screen and rendering technology
improve. Once in the hands of a library or museum, your work will
last a long time.
Godfrey
