MikeK wrote:

Actually, not quite true. Silver is attacked by the sulphurs in our air,
that's why fine art BW printers selenium- or gold-tone prints as a final
step. (I use selenium) Platinum and palladium are much more inert, but
unfortunately, require contact printing.

Yup, and that's an increasing problem as pollution gets worse. Kodak used
to sell some molecular sieve gadgets that reacted faster than the silver
did, for storage in sealed containers.

And as for "last a century or two,"
just like the audio and video media, there will be some slow degradation,
and frankly, no one knows how much. It's only been in the 20th century that
folks realized how to properly process the materials for longevity, and even
that's a moving target: in the late 80s Ilford published new archival
procedures that flew in the face of "accepted practices." All creative
activities that rely on technology (like painting or recording) are working
with the materials before all the facts are known.

This is true, BUT we have silver gelatin prints that are a century old that
look pretty good. So we know it's at least possible to last that long.
That's nowhere near enough experience, but it's still a whole lot better
than what we know about magnetic media (and even more than we know about
acrylic paints).

The problem is that when you're dead and gone, who will remember to do it?
I deal with a lot of old tapes that people tossed into boxes and left in
attics, and many years after they had forgotten about them, they turned
out
to be important. Material that everyone agrees is important will get
refreshed, but what about the material that nobody realizes is important?

Again, another form of editing. Frankly, I think we have way to much ****
hanging aroundg, and if I let my wife edit the photos for the albums, we
need twice as many albums as necessary. But we're talking about
nearly-perfect preservation that requires occasional updating, versus
something that will last quite a while, but slowly AND surely, will
disappear.

I am a packrat at heart, because I see both of these alternatives as being
bad things.

I'm not arguing about "best media," I like film and shoot it for personal
pleasure (and use digital for paying jobs), but I'm taking my slides and
negatives (and old photos) and scanning them as best I can for preservation.
One way of preserving things is by minimizing handling, yet another good
reason for digital media. Those valuable originals can stay in the dark, or
frozen, or whatever, and the CDs and DVDs can be catalogued, multiple copies
(one for storage, one for handling), etc. I see this as the best way to deal
with all fragile media.

This is absolutely true, and this is the real benefit of digital media if
anything is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."