Why worry about inkjet longevity?

[squiress]

That may be a problem. An image preserved as a permanent print or photo negative can be replicated by the technology of the future. Many images saved only as digital files have been lost forever because we didn't understand how ephemeral they can be.

I work with seismic data (echo recordings of the subsurface earth). In the 80's a seismic company converted a large number of nine track computer tapes to a new laserdisk WORM drive format (very large disk in plastic square case not unlike a current 3.5 floppy disk but maybe 12"x12" and a precursor to the laserdisk video. The data was later sold to another company during the consolidation phase of the oil and gas industry that occurred in the 90's. In the last two months I attempted to license a portion of that data. The current owner has no hardware and no software to read the data. It has gone from something of excellent value (many hundreds of thousands of dollars) to something good only for the recycle bin.

I think if you archive images on whatever media, you need that plan in place to upgrade to something more current in format or media type over the years. Common sense. (Although I still have data on nine track tapes and know of people who can read them. I also still have 5.25 floppies and can read those as well on machines hold up in my basement.)

I guess I really was looking at the convenience of digital storage compared to the hassle of storing negatives and prints.

Stew

[David Luttmann]

I work with seismic data (echo recordings of the subsurface earth). In the 80's a seismic company converted a large number of nine track computer tapes to a new laserdisk WORM drive format (very large disk in plastic square case not unlike a current 3.5 floppy disk but maybe 12"x12" and a precursor to the laserdisk video. The data was later sold to another company during the consolidation phase of the oil and gas industry that occurred in the 90's. In the last two months I attempted to license a portion of that data. The current owner has no hardware and no software to read the data. It has gone from something of excellent value (many hundreds of thousands of dollars) to something good only for the recycle bin.

I think if you archive images on whatever media, you need that plan in place to upgrade to something more current in format or media type over the years. Common sense. (Although I still have data on nine track tapes and know of people who can read them. I also still have 5.25 floppies and can read those as well on machines hold up in my basement.)

I guess I really was looking at the convenience of digital storage compared to the hassle of storing negatives and prints.

Stew

While there is some truth in this, I would say we are talking apples & oranges. There is a big difference in terms of use between 9 track tapes and CD & DVD media. I would bet that more CD & DVD media is sold in one day than 9 track tapes sold in their entire history.

CD / DVD media are universally accepted and as such, much like there are still LP and 78 RPM and Wax Cyl machines available more than a century after their introduction, CD & DVD media will be around for a long time. Floppy disks are not the same in acceptance as they were not entertainment media....which is what decides acceptance in the market place. All these computer media analogies are thus not truly a valid comparison.

As well, the entire graphics industry and the entire internet in fact, are based upon JPG,PNG, GIF and TIF formats. These formats will be around for the forseeable future and because of the acceptance rates, will be readable for generations if not centuries.

Too much time is wasted worrying about longevity of media. My carbon pigment prints will be around for a couple of hundred years.....no worse than silver, and far better than color RC media. I'd like to see as much worrying devoted to getting good photographs.

[tim atherton]

just came across this very good little quote:

David Hockney: Enjoying the moment

“It seems to me to be the most beautiful printing of photography I have seen. The colour on the paper seems almost physical. The surface of the paper itself is beautiful. My reply therefore to how permanent the colour is; is that colour is fugitive in life, like it is in pictures, indeed colour is the most fugitive element in all pictures, a great deal more than line. Dimming down the light immediately alters colour. It does not alter line. Enjoy the moment. The piece of paper is beautiful it will slowly change like everything else. What’s the point of an ugly piece of paper that will last forever?”