Message-Id: <mailto:199408241432.JAA17020@library.wustl.edu> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 07:05:10 CST From: John FRIEND <mailto:John.Friend@CCMAIL.ADP.WISC.EDU> Subject: Re[2]: More digital resolution... To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB <mailto:IMAGELIB@ARIZVM1.BITNET>
>...The archival issue is vital. It should be fairly common knowledge now that
>some electronic printing equipment and materials actually provide images with
>archival quality that is equal or greater than film and print material that we
>are used to using in traditional based photography. I strongly suggest that
>if anyone questions this they reference information in Henry Wilhelm's book on
>Preserving Photographs (forgive me that I do not have the exact title as my
>copy is in my office)
Fairly recently, the folks at AIIM decided it would be a good idea to start refering to the 'Life Expectancy' of the storage medium rather than calling it archival. Perhaps this would be a good idea here too. The word 'archival' means too many things to to many people. I once saw an add for some electronic storage system that said it was archival quality because the info would last for 20 years. Also, according to the aging tests I've seen, if you do everything right, microfilm will have a Life Expectancy of 500 years or more. I do not recall seeing anything like this in the world of digital/electronic storage. Although it probably won't be all that long before we do.
Then there is the problem with, once you've committed yourself to a digital archive, you must be sure and keep up with the times. What will you need 20 years from now to retrieve the information? With something like microfilm, 20 years form now, if worst comes to worst, you can still use a candle and a magnifing glass to see what you got.