----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
> In a message dated 11/18/01 4:08:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] did not write, but I am used to being misquoted: > > > > How hard is it really to spend a few > > hours (or even > > > an entire day if you have a huge collection) every 20-30 years > > > transferring your data? Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. > > > > Can we say: "affordability"? The gist of the "data transfer" thread assumes > (mightily), that tens of millions of folks are going to buy the latest > storage medium then transfer again every time the storage medium changes. > Businesses who have a vested interest in maintaining access to their > products, (music, radio, television, video and movies, businesses) regularly > and readily transfer property to new storage technology. Ted Turner is the > Guru of the genre, by now having copied and restored the entire MGM movie > library. > > Not so we consumers. There are tens of millions of 78rpm records out there > whose owners have not or do not think about transferring their data. Ditto > for 8-track tapes, 45rpm records, 8 and 16mm movies. Why? > Transferring data is damned expense is one why. Nostalgia in the guise of > being or owning contemporary stuff costs like h*ll. > Here we are on this list, most of whom still harbor the "boxes under the bed" > storage system. Why don't they (PDMLers), 100% of them, knowing what they > know, transfer their slide/negative/print data as per new storage medium? > Again, because the transfer is 1. Expense (priced a quality DVD-R or RW > machine lately)? 2. labor intensive 3. Time-consuming 4. boring. All that you are saying in your ever pendantic way, is that about 40 years of photographic history from the advent of resin coated paper is destined to survive less than about 100 years. Whether this matters or not is moot. The box under the bed is not sufficient for these materials. They self destruct all by themselves in this situation. Fortunately, the bulk of the pictures that will be lost don't matter, even to the people who have taken them. Unfortunately, the ones that do matter (such as Joe Sixpack and the ever slutty Jane Whitewine's wedding pictures) fall into the same category. I have prints from my grandparents wedding, and my parents wedding, but I won't be able to pass on pictures from my own wedding (not that it matters), because they were printed on 1980's era RC papers, and are already discolouring. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
