Have the manufacturers of the image recording mediums,whether they be Kodak film or the digital recording crowd, consideredand definitively tested the future durability of today's precious images.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002

Answers

For data purposes (and what is a digitized image, but data?), I believe the life of a CD is estimated at around 10 years. After that, the microscopic blisters that represent the zeros and ones start to relax, making the discs unreadable. DVDs may last somewhat longer. Large IT shops have schedules for reburning data stored on various forms of media, whether CD or mag tape. I doubt that many individual CDR/CDRW users have given much thought to the issue, and probably have no plans for regenerating the data (or keeping CD readers around to do so when they've updated their technology ten years from now).

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), May 20, 2002.

Therein lies the primrose path down which the entire photographic industry is blissfully skipping. No matter if a CD lasts 10 years because the technology won't. The photo manufacturers and retailers are jumping for joy at finally being able to reap the rewards of rapid obsolescence spilling over from the computer industry. But it isn't going to stop. I was at a party yesterday and there wasn't one film-based P&S to be seen, only digital.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 20, 2002.

Ralph:

I doubt that many individual CDR/CDRW users have given much thought to the issue, and probably have no plans for regenerating the data (or keeping CD readers around to do so when they've updated their technology ten years from now).

In my experience, 10 years is overly optimistic. While I am using DVD's at the moment, I don't expect the read technology to last 10 years. I stick with film for things I want to keep.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 20, 2002.

This thread has both factual and illusionary information flowing through it.

First: The longevity of CD's. I started our classical CD collection in the very early '80s. All of them are still pristine and playable. My wife was the Director of Information Services at the National Institute of Science and Technology ( the old NBS) before she retired. After running tests, the Institute believed that "properly manufactured" CD's would last for at least fifty to one hundred years. Then, like every other non-paper format, the information could be transferred to the new medium - - - whatever that might be; however, in this case, the transfer would be "digital-to-digital. All previous transfers have been analog-to analog, or recently, analog to digital.

Second: Analog information had either been lost or not readable. Instance: the 1970 Census records can no longer be accessed by other than the printed records, as although the medium still exists, the machines have been in the dustbin for years.

Third: Since microfilms still exists as a long-term storage mediun, have you gone to a library recently and asked for the "New York Times" of 1975 on microfilm? Get Lost. It's analog!

Fourth: (This is a personal, one data point experience). Our extensive 7 1/2 stereo tape collections were rendered useless when Panasonic quit making read-back heads for our 10 1/2 reel tape recorder/playback machines. It was analog.

Fifth: Our extensive collection of LP's sits on the shelf, unused ( they're analog) while our CD's (digital) get played on our stereo system.

Observation: While analog methods of storage have been replaced, the digital storage has not. The methods of transferring, reading, and producing information that has been stored in a digital context will change. But, the content will not. After all, the're only Ones and Zeros.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), May 20, 2002.

YesGeorge:

But you miss the point. The data lasts on the CD's but the reader technology changes. Your CD' s from the 80's [or whatever] may work, but my CD's from 95 don't work on my newest reader. The fact that I can use them on an outdated computer doesn't help a whole lot. I can't use them on my present machine and continuous work at transferring data is a waste of time and money. Therefore, they are of no value. Your point about microfilm actually makes my point. I know that the LOC is fretting about this problem as we speak.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 20, 2002.

Properly burned Kodak gold CDs are rated at over a hundred years. Unfortunately that is not by direct testing. Properly processed and stored B&W film has lasted over one hundred years in real life and Kodachrome is up in the eighty year range now.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@shaw.ca), May 20, 2002.

and Kodachrome is up in the eighty year range now

Ummm... how about 66 years. I believe it was introduced in 1936.

-- Tod Hart (g_t_hart@lycos.com), May 20, 2002.

I refer you to a well-considered article entitled "Digital's Dirty Little Secret?" by photographer Jim McGee on www.vividlight.com.

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm

-- Berle Stratton (berle.stratton@attbi.com), May 20, 2002.

Although all my images are delivered digitally as scans on CD or uploaded to servers like newscom, I would definitely not throw away my slides, for two reasons.

1) I don't like CD's, slow to read and write. On the other hand, I can now purchase 6 GB pcmcia cards which have a capacity of about 500 2700 dpi scans saved as PS jpg 12, or a couple of 80 GB HDD's which would have a capacity of almost 7000 of the same files each, one for backup. And HDD's don't seem to be obsolescing so fast. I believe that HDD's are a better option for archiving images, bigger, faster and more future proof. So I'm not against digital media as such, but:

2) Every time I download a new version of vuescan, the output from my LS2000 seems to be better, and I'm sure that future generations of scanners will deliver even better results. And my scanning skills are improving every time I do a major batch. So I don't consider any scan as definitive and want to be able to rescan stuff.

So I won't be tossing the slides just yet. Fortunately I only have about 400 I consider worth keeping, so they don't take up too much space.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 20, 2002.

George, unfortunately you'r talking about two different things here. A CD reader in your stereo is a much less complicated piece of equipment than that in your computer. If a 'piece' (bit) of information goes missing on a music CD you won't hear it (much like motion pictures - if you take one of the 32 frame/second images out of a scene you'll not notice it). Same with a photo CD EXCEPT if the piece of information that goes missing is somewhere in the internal tag file of the CD that allows your computer to open the image. We recently had just that - a customer who shot a wedding on an Olympus digital camera, had it transfered to CD and then couldn't open it - when sent to the manufactures service dept they have in fact said 'yes, something is there, but it's effectively gone'. Ouch!! The other problem with digital as mentioned is the changing technology, which is far faster than your reel to reel. Five years ago ZIP drive was the best way to store large files. Find me one now, or parts for one. Impossible. Some of the early (as in two years ago) IBM microdrives, that worked fine on a D1 Nikon won't work on a D1x - you need the 'NEW' version. I've got some 35mm negs my father took in WWII that I routinely print. Lets see how much digital medium today can be easily worked with in 60 years.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 21, 2002.

Sorry, the above should read 'Syquest' drive - not ZIP.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 21, 2002.

Yes, I think Bob is right. A CD player is essentially a digital to analog converter and does not require sophisticated software to run - if it outputs a few unexpected blips, who cares it is over in a fraction of a second. It could be a disaster in an image file. I predict that most of the digital image files being produced today will die very rapidly, so I hope people are printing them out on archival paper. Many rank amateur snapshotters (not us) just throw away negatives anyway, so they will not care.

I would never go wholly digital unless forced too. I completely agree with Rob - what happens when Photoshop goes over to more than 24 bit - (you know it is going to happen one day). Then all our scans will be obsolete in strict terms. If you have the film you can always scan again.

As for the idea that I constantly update my 5,000 + slides (images) or so every ten years to keep up with digital "advances" - I think that is a nightmare scenario for anyone who does not run a large business and cannot charge customers for the privilege. With film I can just keep it and reuse when required.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.

Art and Bob -

I was referring to the durability of the compact disk medium, per se, and NOT to the advances in CD playback devices, be they audio CD, DFVD, or computer. My point was that the digital information available on a compact disk, of any format, can be transferred either to a completely new storage medium or to another compact disk that has a different format. What I worry about is the longevity of our slide projectors, as our entire photographic collection is on slides - - not negs.

BTW: Our 2000 and 2001 audio CD's, as well as our 1980's and 1990's CDs, work in our latest (2001) Sony DVD player without a hitch. We've been burning our LP collection to CDs. It's a kludge setup, and a royal PITA!

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), May 21, 2002.

It seems in the world of commerce there is an answer iinvented when the need is big enough ( read; profitable enough. ) If, as stated, EVERYONE is shooting digital, then the need will be big enough to warrant CD-ROM converters that conceivably could improve on the stored image. Nikons' restoration program is a primative example of the concept, as is Genuine Fractals. In essence, the latter makes more of what's not there. And, once this fledgling technology really hits its' stride, the RAW capture will be ubiquitously employed in even the cheapest cameras. I view CD-ROMs as a holding action. I've told my customers to convert when the time comes. In the mean time, I'm storing RAW images on a 100GIG seperate drive who's price gets lower almost every week. This unit is smaller than a 30 Pack of CDs. And will probably be considered a whale in 2-5 years. A thousand gig drive the size of pack of cigarettes is just around the corner. Coupled with an archiving program. any, full data, un-manipulated photo and its previously retouched version will be instantly transferable to ANY new portable vehicle. Commerce assures us of that. This isn't the same as improving on music recordings by others in order to resell the same music. This is about preserving OUR existing memories and/or art. That is the commerce that will fuel the solutions.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 21, 2002.