Have you seen the movie "The Time Machine" based on the story by H.G. Wells? This reminds me of the future society that he found where they had to spin these 'disks' on a table that would playback the recorded history on them....and all the Books in their library were in complete decomposition......... - just a passing thought...... I believe that we will figure out a way to store photos on a very long term fashion... The digital data will not get destroyed IF it's copied all over the place and CD's Should have a very long lifespan.... they are completely protected against corrosion and are not affected by magnetisim... But if you were to leave them in the SUN for any long length of time they would probably decay due to the ultraviolet rays breaking down the plastic coating. Bottom line though, they are tougher than a photograph on acetate ot a printed on on acid free paper and you can hold thousands on a single CD. The new CD Writers are getting very affordable and are safer storage than floppies or mag tape or the hard drive. In fact I sort of guess that eventually their will be holographic records that are even more complete than a 2D photo.....:-) - Bill Brooks, Vista, CA Richard White wrote: > I have already said this, but since mine seemed mostly to be one small > voice crying in the wilderness, I am going to reiterate it in simpler > terms: > > Digital records (whether created by scanners or digital cameras) are not > assured of long term survival for two reasons: (1) The digital storage > media are unknowns as to long term storage, in spite of manufacturers > claims in that regard, and (2) they depend on a sophisticated machine to > read them so that even if the medium survives the particular machine may > no longer be available. My example was trying to read a 45 rpm vinyl > record in a CD player. You cannot do it. > > Also, no matter what how many of you say about how great scanned or > digitally photographed copies come out compared to the original, it is > highly unlikely in most cases that the copy made that way would be as > good as a photographic copy. > > PHOTOGRAPHIC COPIES ARE SIMPLE TECHNOLOGY OF KNOWN DURABILITY AND > READABILITY (NOT DEPENDING ON A SPECIFIC MACHINE TO READ THEM). Under > controlled temperature and humidity, properly fixed photographic > negatives have already survived up to 150 years. How many CD ROMs have > done that... and do you really think there will be CD ROM readers 150 > years from now? One of the reasons that photographic prints cost so > much is that they are made on acid free paper. Photographic prints are > developed in solutions containing water and are even somewhat resistant > to ill effects from wetting. Have you ever wet an ink-jet printed copy > of a photo? > > Nobody has mentioned it yet, but the best alternative of all, if > available, is to make more prints from the original negatives. You > should never neglect that if it is an available option. > > So basically I'm agreeing with Sherry, but carrying it further... > > But if you don't believe me, ask your friendly local neighborhood > trained archivist. > > Richard White > Tallahassee > > "Sherry L. Nisly" wrote: > > > So, the longest saving choice is actually taking new photos of > > the photos, the second choice is to scan them in (actually best > > is to do both if you can) and with scans, save them in the original > > format plus a universal format, such as .tif (then convert them to > > .jpg if you want to electonically send them. > > > Sherry L. (Bouse) Nisly