 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / November 2006Best way of shooting old photos?
I've just been given scores of old photos to copy, family photos. The earliest one is from 1875, down to last year. I'd like to preserve the originals, catalogue them and produce the rest on dvd with narration before all the information gets lost. I'd like to hear your opinions on the best way of re-photographing these as I have decided that scanning them might damage them too much. I have a cheapish tripod, a 4megapixel camera and thought to use the darkest room in the house and the flash on the camera. This is not ideal, what do you think is the minimum equipment you might use. Joy > I've just been given scores of old photos to copy, family photos. The > earliest one is from 1875, down to last year. I'd like to preserve the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you think is the minimum equipment you might use. > Joy a flatbed scanner should do just fine. The only damage tht can be caused is by the cover squashing them (a book spine for example). Some scanners have a hinged lid to allow for this. If they are behind glass, and you do not wish to remove them.. .I suggest trying to scan through the glass, you may be surprised by the results! they may require a bit of cleaning up in photoshop afterwards depending on the'glass" photographing them is not a bad idea, though for archiving purposes a 4megapixel camera is a touch on the low side (good enough for a dvd though) using a flash will only be good if it is not the built-in flash... reflections will be a problem... you will need to offset the flash as close to 45degrees as possible to avoid reflections. Another option you might try is photographing in natural light... to avoid colour casts.... perhaps you have a window with a white drape (what do you call them.... not the main cutain... often goes between the window and the curtain???) they make a great softwbox for duplication. finally... before you do all th is work and blow away most of the quality by burning it to a dvd-movie.... save thema s jpegs as well as making a viewable movie. chris >> I've just been given scores of old photos to copy, family photos. The >> earliest one is from 1875, down to last year. I'd like to preserve the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > by burning it to a dvd-movie.... save thema s jpegs as well as making a > viewable movie. thanks for that, sounds very sensible. Joy > I've just been given scores of old photos to copy, family photos. The > earliest one is from 1875, down to last year. I'd like to preserve the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you think is the minimum equipment you might use. > Joy One thing to remember is burnt dvd's only last a few years. Some say 5 at the most. >> I've just been given scores of old photos to copy, family photos. The >> earliest one is from 1875, down to last year. I'd like to preserve the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Some say 5 at the most. I didn't know that. What has the longest shelf life? Joy Cross-posted to aus.computers. >>> I've just been given scores of old photos to copy, family photos. The >>> earliest one is from 1875, down to last year. I'd like to preserve the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I didn't know that. What has the longest shelf life? > Joy > Cross-posted to aus.computers. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> I didn't know that. What has the longest shelf life? >> Joy Why not store them in a few places. Try out picasaweb.google.com, or Yahoo. It's a pity with all things going digital that our storage facility is so short termed. >> Cross-posted to aus.computers. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's a pity with all things going digital that our storage facility is > so short termed. I still have burnt CDs that are 10 yrs old & work fine. >>> Cross-posted to aus.computers. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I still have burnt CDs that are 10 yrs old & work fine. So do I, but I also have burnt DVD's that I burnt last year that are nothing but coasters now Google "disk rot" you might just scare yourself :-) one of my jobs is installing backup solutions for critical data, the first thing I do when I get to a job is to put all the backups that they have done to CD/DVD and save it to a hard drive, then I either use a tape backup option or if they don't want to go to that expense I install a NAS (Network Accessible Storage) then I set the system up so its automated because as sure as eggs, if I don't, the day the person that was put in charge of doing the backups is away sick or forgets is the day the system crashes. and depending on how critical the information was, depends on how often I set the backups to occur. Most banks back up every new transaction as they happen in real time, if you ever get a chance to walk through a banks data centre, you will be completely gobsmacked at the redundancy built into their systems. No System Administrator that I know uses a CD/DVD backup solution, hard drives are almost forever and I have friends who have successfully retrieved data from drives that had been repeatedly formatted and written over to deliberately obscure whatever was on those drives, and modern tape backup systems will out live you and me. bottom line is anything that uses a chemical reaction to store info is prone to early failure. Oz >>>>> I didn't know that. What has the longest shelf life? >>>>> Joy [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > bottom line is anything that uses a chemical reaction to store info is > prone to early failure. Good post thank you. I use a little 30g removable drive to back up my photos and use cd/dvd for distributing copies. Joy >> Cross-posted to aus.computers. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>> I didn't know that. What has the longest shelf life? >>> Joy **DVD-RAM.  SignatureTrevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> I didn't know that. What has the longest shelf life? > **DVD-RAM. Strange then that many sources claim DVD RAM (and DVDR/W) are not suitable for archival purpose, having a life expectancy less than DVD-R or DVD+R. Do you have any justification for that claim? MrT. T: > Strange then that many sources claim DVD RAM (and DVDR/W) are not suitable > for archival purpose, having a life expectancy less than DVD-R or DVD+R. Which sources? Cheers > > Strange then that many sources claim DVD RAM (and DVDR/W) are not suitable > > for archival purpose, having a life expectancy less than DVD-R or DVD+R. > Which sources? A quick Google search will give you many opposing viewpoints. Guidelines for library archival storage specifically mention DVD-RAM as not recommended for archival purposes. All the measurements I have seen are so far inconclusive. DVD-RAM certainly has some benefits, but long term storage has not yet been proven to be one of them IMO. That's why I was asking for details of PROOF of the assertion, so I can a.ses the quality of the measurement data for myself. If there is none however, then I see little point in making any claims one way or the other. MrT. > Strange then that many sources claim DVD RAM (and DVDR/W) are not suitable > for archival purpose, having a life expectancy less than DVD-R or DVD+R. For an opposing view, see: "Study: DVD-RAM Safest Archive Medium" at: http://www.dvd-recordable.org/Article1325-mode=thread-order0-threshold0.phtml Cheers > > Strange then that many sources claim DVD RAM (and DVDR/W) are not suitable > > for archival purpose, having a life expectancy less than DVD-R or DVD+R. > > For an opposing view, see: "Study: DVD-RAM Safest Archive Medium" at: http://www.dvd-recordable.org/Article1325-mode=thread-order0-threshold0.phtm l Yes I'm aware there are opposing views, any Google search will quickly prove that. However since there ARE opposing views, one would need to present definitive measurements before making unqualified assertions. MrT. : However since there ARE opposing views, one would need to present : definitive measurements before making unqualified assertions. : : MrT. Now that was funny :-)) It hasn't stopped anyone one on Usenet before this so why would you expect it now? Please bear in mind the old saying "never let the facts get in the way of a good argument/story." ;-) Cheers TT >> > Strange then that many sources claim DVD RAM (and DVDR/W) are not > suitable [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > MrT. Oh, yo mean kinda like when people ask for proof that there isn't a god? > Oh, yo mean kinda like when people ask for proof that there isn't a god? No, that's impossible. More like when people ask for proof that there is a God, or else they remain agnostic. MrT. >> Oh, yo mean kinda like when people ask for proof that there isn't a god? > > No, that's impossible. That's what I tell them, but they still want the proof... ;-) More like when people ask for proof that there is a > God, or else they remain agnostic. Ok. | > Strange then that many sources claim DVD RAM (and DVDR/W) are not suitable | > for archival purpose, having a life expectancy less than DVD-R or DVD+R. | | For an opposing view, see: "Study: DVD-RAM Safest Archive Medium" at: http://www.dvd-recordable.org/Article1325-mode=thread-order0-threshold0.phtm l | Cheers One failure renders any test devoid of meaning unless you talk statistical failure rates (of course) my tests have shown dvd error rates to be consistent, ie, there are no change in the number of errors across a span of time (weeks) in the sun on the rear deck of my car. This contrasts greatly with other DVD media.. Of course this is my personal test and hardly scientific as it's impossible to reproduce ;) And of course even the error rate count on this *other* media is suspect as it varies with almost each read, but they *do* however go up. And then there's the case of which brand / batch of media is being tested.. ..which varies - even though none have come close to ther consistent error rate of RAM. comparing this to CD's (brands various, dyes various) the DVD-R's have been as good as or (often) better than CD's again, brand variations/ batch variations etc render consistent results mute. My money is on DVD RAM.. but then as I've said before, I'd rather spend the $ on hard drives rather than optical media but RAM gets my vote.. k Memorex and others have Archival Gold DVDs which are claimed to have a life of 100 + years based on degradation tests against silver DVDs Google Archival DVD > Cross-posted to aus.computers. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> I didn't know that. What has the longest shelf life? >> Joy The most reliable blank media are Taiyo Yuden discs (Made in Japan). They also have the best ratings in terms of least degradation over time. Media codes: TYG01 for 4x, TYG02 for 8x (legendary), and TYG03 for 16x. In stores, look for Made in Japan spindles of Plextor, Fujifilm, or Sony. > The most reliable blank media are Taiyo Yuden discs (Made in Japan). > They also have the best ratings in terms of least degradation over > time. Media codes: TYG01 for 4x, TYG02 for 8x (legendary), and > TYG03 for 16x. Do you have a reference to tests that back up that claim? SignaturePaul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd., +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda. West Australia 6076 comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked. EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be. Some people go Verbatim Made in Taiwan discs, which are very good. The initial burns between these and the MIJ Taiyo Yuden oness are very close (can depend on burner used), but Taiyo Yuden dye is considered world best. Tests/graphs are easily looked up. My fav site is club.cdfreaks.com - forums with tons of info. > Some people go Verbatim Made in Taiwan discs, which are very good. The > initial burns between these and the MIJ Taiyo Yuden oness are very > close (can depend on burner used), but Taiyo Yuden dye is considered > world best. I have done no tests, but my reading has convinced me that the best dye is used on the Taiyo Yuden disks. > Tests/graphs are easily looked up. My fav site is club.cdfreaks.com - > forums with tons of info. > I have done no tests, but my reading has convinced me that the best dye is > used on the Taiyo Yuden disks. The tests I have seen were not so enthusiastic about AZO dyes for long term storage. Have TY changed their formulation? MrT. >> I have done no tests, but my reading has convinced me that the best dye >> is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > MrT. Hi, I am only repeating what I read. I have no other source of info. Sorry. Doug >> Some people go Verbatim Made in Taiwan discs, which are very good. The >> initial burns between these and the MIJ Taiyo Yuden oness are very [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Tests/graphs are easily looked up. My fav site is club.cdfreaks.com - >> forums with tons of info. As far as I know, TY use an AZO dye system, which is very good for high speed use, but after a few years starts to fail. That is from a US nation standards test . SignaturePaul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd., +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda. West Australia 6076 comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked. EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be. > Cross-posted to aus.computers. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> I didn't know that. What has the longest shelf life? >> Joy Read this: <http://www.knaw.nl/cfdata/grip/output/gripresults.cfm?descriptor_id=266> and this <http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub121/pub121.pdf> Cheers, Gary B-) Signature______________________________________________________________________________ Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know whether you were up them with or not - Barry Humphries >>>I've just been given scores of old photos to copy, family photos. The >>>earliest one is from 1875, down to last year. I'd like to preserve the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I didn't know that. What has the longest shelf life? > Joy it'snot always so short.... a long slow burn helps... brand choice does as well... though even the biggies can be known to go for bad disks.... several lburns with prints is always the best way to go. kosh > One thing to remember is burnt dvd's only last a few years. > > Some say 5 at the most. And some say 80 years or more. MrT. >> One thing to remember is burnt dvd's only last a few years. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > MrT. the people saying that are trying to sell you something :-) and none of those that say that are Sys admins. I know of no Sys admins who would even contemplate a CD/DVD solution for backups. Oz .. > I know of no Sys admins who would even contemplate a CD/DVD solution for > backups. Nor would I for short term commercial use where data integrity is paramount. For cheap long term domestic storage, a large redundant array of drives may be uneconomical though for most people. Hard to beat the 10 gigabytes per dollar storage cost of DVDR. By doubling that cost you get to keep two copies, on different media types, and in different locations. MrT. > .. >> I know of no Sys admins who would even contemplate a CD/DVD solution for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > MrT. But with HDD now costing around 60 cents a gig and falling every day, why would you bother using burnable media for anything other than passing the family happy snaps around. SignatureI'm Off to see the Wizard.... Oz >>.. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > would you bother using burnable media for anything other than passing the > family happy snaps around. Even starting to go lower than that now, 200G - $90, 250G - $105 which is looking good. > Even starting to go lower than that now, 200G - $90, 250G - $105 which > is looking good. Obviously *much* better than 470GByte for < $30! :-) Depends on YOUR requirements IMO. MrT. > > Hard to beat the 10 gigabytes per dollar storage cost of DVDR. By doubling > > that cost you get to keep two copies, on different media types, and in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would you bother using burnable media for anything other than passing the > family happy snaps around. Maybe because the idea of paying 5 to 10 times the price for something that is still unreliable (have you guys never seen a hard drive fail???) is not the best solution for everyone. And you still need copies on separate hard drives if you want off site backups to survive a fire/flood/robbery etc. Frankly everyone gets to decide how important their data is, what is the most convenient for their purposes, what they are prepared to spend, and what they consider the best overall solution for themselves! MrT. >> > Hard to beat the 10 gigabytes per dollar storage cost of DVDR. By > doubling [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > most convenient for their purposes, what they are prepared to spend, and > what they consider the best overall solution for themselves! um yes I have seen a HDD fail I have also seen that same HDD cough up its entire contents unscathed, ever seen how successful it is to try and get your precious wedding photos off a DVD with the dreaded coffee cup stain ??? not happening, no matter how much money you have to throw at it. the simple fact of the matter is, anything that requires a chemical reaction is prone to failure sooner rather than later and if you want to store something that you consider irreplaceable/precious why would you go for the cheap and nasty method when for less than $150 you can have a 200 gig external HDD (a technology that has proven itself over the last 30 years) or would you risk it all on a $20 box of DVD's that will have a failure rate of over 50% in the next 5 years, higher if you don't store it correctly Oz >>> > Hard to beat the 10 gigabytes per dollar storage cost of DVDR. By >> doubling [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Oz Having said that, You are correct, it is horses for courses, Caveat Emptor Oz "Oz" <OZ@yellowbrickroad.com> wrote in message news:45643bc1$0$4668$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au. .. > um yes I have seen a HDD fail I have also seen that same HDD cough up its > entire contents unscathed, Sure, it only takes a clean room and hundreds or thousands of dollars in some cases. No problem for a big corporation. Actually, it only took a plastic bag, an external HDD case, a long USB cable a freezer and a laptop >ever seen how successful it is to try and get > your precious wedding photos off a DVD with the dreaded coffee cup stain ??? If you choose to treat your disks that way, you obviously aren't worried about the data. you obviously have no idea, do you..................... :-) look up disk rot with Google, it may give you some form of a clue. > the simple fact of the matter is, anything that requires a chemical reaction > is prone to failure sooner rather than later As is anything relying on mechanics and electronics. ah but HDD's also rely on magnetic particle re alignment and that's something that has proven to be reliable over a period of decades, even if the electrics fail, and I have personally revived a dead drive by a simple replacement of the circuit board from a donor drive. >and if you want to store > something that you consider irreplaceable/precious why would you go for the > cheap and nasty method when for less than $150 you can have a 200 gig > external HDD (a technology that has proven itself over the last 30 years) Yes, proven itself quite UNRELIABLE too. define "quite" of the millions and millions of HDD sold every year, a small percentage will fail within the first year, of those few percent the vast majority can have the data retrieved by inexpensive means, as mentioned before, I have revived a drive by simply replacing the circuit board, > would you risk it all on a $20 box of DVD's that will have a failure rate of > over 50% in the next 5 years, higher if you don't store it correctly No, I use both, and hope they don't go down at the same time. currently there is no 100% infallible and safe storage method for backing up your data, there is only using the best methods available at the time, I know where my money is going :-) and Verbatim of Kodak wont be seeing any of it :-) Oz MrT. .. > Sure, it only takes a clean room and hundreds or thousands of dollars in > some cases. > > Actually, it only took a plastic bag, an external HDD case, a long USB cable > a freezer and a laptop Do you not understand what "some cases" means, and that ONE particular case does not mean ALL cases are identical? > you obviously have no idea, do you..................... :-) > look up disk rot with Google, it may give you some form of a clue. I'm well aware of disk rot since the days of Laser Video disks. Does that mean you don't buy any commercial CD recordings or DVD movies either, or do you back them all up to Hard Disk as well? > ah but HDD's also rely on magnetic particle re alignment and that's > something that has proven to be reliable over a period of decades, even if > the electrics fail, and I have personally revived a dead drive by a simple > replacement of the circuit board from a donor drive. Yep, it can be done SOMETIMES. I have sometimes recovered data from "unreadable" CD's too. But the biggest reason I find for unreadable disks is NOT failure due to age, but high error rates when initially burned. From that POV, hard disks do have the edge in data integrity, no argument. > Yes, proven itself quite UNRELIABLE too. > define "quite" of the millions and millions of HDD sold every year, And millions and millions of CDR/DVDR disks sold every year. > percentage will fail within the first year, of those few percent the vast > majority can have the data retrieved by inexpensive means, as mentioned > before, I have revived a drive by simply replacing the circuit board, Which is fine and dandy IF that is the problem, AND you can get a new board. Too bad for those who do lose data when their drive is not repairable and the cost of data recovery is simply not economical. > currently there is no 100% infallible and safe storage method for backing up > your data, there is only using the best methods available at the time, I > know where my money is going :-) and Verbatim of Kodak wont be seeing any > of it :-) Just as I said, everyone gets to choose for themselves. MrT. .. > um yes I have seen a HDD fail I have also seen that same HDD cough up its > entire contents unscathed, Sure, it only takes a clean room and hundreds or thousands of dollars in some cases. No problem for a big corporation. >ever seen how successful it is to try and get > your precious wedding photos off a DVD with the dreaded coffee cup stain ??? If you choose to treat your disks that way, you obviously aren't worried about the data. > the simple fact of the matter is, anything that requires a chemical reaction > is prone to failure sooner rather than later As is anything relying on mechanics and electronics. >and if you want to store > something that you consider irreplaceable/precious why would you go for the > cheap and nasty method when for less than $150 you can have a 200 gig > external HDD (a technology that has proven itself over the last 30 years) Yes, proven itself quite UNRELIABLE too. > would you risk it all on a $20 box of DVD's that will have a failure rate of > over 50% in the next 5 years, higher if you don't store it correctly No, I use both, and hope they don't go down at the same time. MrT. >>> > Hard to beat the 10 gigabytes per dollar storage cost of DVDR. By >> doubling [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Oz I don't think the technology used in a 200 gigabyte hard drive has been around for 30 years. In 1976 a 100 megabyte drive was a stunning piece of gear and that weighed about 200Kg and used 3 phase power. It was not until the late 80s when thin film disc and head technology started to arrive that quantum leaps in capacity started to be available. The technology needed for cheap 200 gigabyte drives has really only been available for maybe 5 years. It is true that they are very reliable and data is often recoverable from a failed drive but this is not always the case. | > "Oz" <OZ@yellowbrickroad.com> wrote in message news:4561bcb2$0$4671$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au. | > .. | >> I know of no Sys admins who would even contemplate a CD/DVD solution for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | would you bother using burnable media for anything other than passing the | family happy snaps around. David wrote: If all of teh photographs are in Black and white I would recommend using a true B+W neg film such as Ilford FP4 and have the negs scanned after developing (a pro lab could do this for you quite easily). this gets around the issue of having your images burnt to film for really decent storage life too! ;) k [snip] >David wrote: >If all of teh photographs are in Black and white I would recommend using a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >this gets around the issue of having your images burnt to film for really >decent storage life too! ;) If Kodachrome 25 was still available, maybe that would be a way of handling colour photos too. Those old slides seem to be pretty near indestructible, and I bet they'll still look pretty good long after the current flock of CDRs/DVDs have died (or can no longer be read by anything on the market :). Cheers, Phred. SignatureppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Cheers, Phred. I have some slides which are over 50yrs old but that was only 10asa Kodachrome - Couldn't find any DVD's at the time for storage :) > I have some slides which are over 50yrs old but that was only 10asa > Kodachrome - Lucky you it wasn't Agfachrome :-) >Couldn't find any DVD's at the time for storage :) Shame, they may be better than the Agfachromes if there were :-) MrT. >> I have some slides which are over 50yrs old but that was only 10asa >> Kodachrome > >Lucky you it wasn't Agfachrome :-) Oh god! Don't remind me! Lost "memories" from 50 years ago. And, more recently [30 years ago] the mistake of using Ektachrome for 3 months in the USA -- more than 60 rolls of 36 exposure, and more or less all junk now, even though in air con for the past 27 years. :-( >>Couldn't find any DVD's at the time for storage :) > >Shame, they may be better than the Agfachromes if there were :-) Cheers, Phred. SignatureppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID > >Lucky you it wasn't Agfachrome :-) > > Oh god! Don't remind me! Lost "memories" from 50 years ago. still, some can be recovered as b&W. but not much more... >>>Lucky you it wasn't Agfachrome :-) >> >>Oh god! Don't remind me! Lost "memories" from 50 years ago. > > still, some can be recovered as b&W. > but not much more... They say ROC with digital ICE. http://www.asf.com/products/roc/filmROC.shtml > >>>Lucky you it wasn't Agfachrome :-) > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.asf.com/products/roc/filmROC.shtml Narh. 20 year old Agfachrome looks a LOT worse than those Kodak samples. And 50 years? Not even in the colour map, just a uniform brown mush... >>>>>Lucky you it wasn't Agfachrome :-) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > than those Kodak samples. And 50 years? Not > even in the colour map, just a uniform brown mush... I think that it may surprise you in what it can do. I have it with my scanner. Hi Joy, If you're in Adelaide, you can borrow my copy stand. This is set so that your camera is mounted directly above the photograph, move it in to filtered window light (netteed curtain, overcast day is best), set the timer or remote, and off you go. If all of teh photographs are in Black and white I would recommend using a true B+W neg film such as Ilford FP4 and have the negs scanned after developing (a pro lab could do this for you quite easily). Set aside $25 per roll for B+W processing, and an additional $5 per roll for scanning (at time of processing). Otherwise if you have access to an easel, ,you can place the photograph on an the easel, set your camera on tripod and away you go. Just remember that if you're using just a pocket camera, you'll have to get quite close to the photograph, and then you'll get bad distortion. David > I've just been given scores of old photos to copy, family photos. The > earliest one is from 1875, down to last year. I'd like to preserve the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > what do you think is the minimum equipment you might use. > Joy > Hi Joy, > If you're in Adelaide, you can borrow my copy stand. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > David Thanks David, not I'm not anywhere near you. I've taken note. Joy Hi Joy, If you want CDs or DVDs that'll outlast you, take a look at Delkin's archival line: http://www.delkin.com/products/archivalgold/index.html Their archival CDs are independently rated for 300 years and their DVDs are likewise rated for 100 years. I doubt anyone will be using either kind of media that far in the future (which just means you'll need to transfer your files to something else long before the media give up). Cheers > I've just been given scores of old photos to copy, family photos. The > earliest one is from 1875, down to last year. I'd like to preserve the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you think is the minimum equipment you might use. > Joy |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.