Digital files to archival quality film copies.....

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I've been thinking since someone brought up archiving...at a lunch I attended with friends...about his suggestion to transfer your digital files, not only to DVDs and Hard Drives for archival storage, but to also transfer the digital files to film. Does anybody know of labs that do this sort of thing. And I mean high quality copies....that 50 years from could be printed if the need arose.</p>

<p>And also, if I were to attempt this at home.....what kind of equipment is available to do (again) high quality archival copies. I understand the archival conditions needed for the film itself. What I don't know about is the equipment to get from computer to film.....if it even exists.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Such devices were common back in the days before digital projectors and after computer graphics. Our campus scientific illustration people did film slides from almost any kind of digital input, including PowerPoint™ and so on. So the equipment exists. I think in the end, we were paying about a dollar a slide or so which was supposed to be pretty close to cost, including staff etc.<br /> So there have to be places that still can do it, although it wouldn't be inexpensive for large quantities of pictures.</p>

<p>For color, the shutting down of Kodachrome is a real blow to archival preservation of color images, short of color separations.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>Yeah, it wouldn't be for every digital picture I took, just the really good stuff from my personal photography, and probably a little more than just good (like with sentimental value, but not the greatest pic in the world) from my family shooting.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>The device which turns digital files into film slides or negatives is called a "film recorder". There used to be many different variations on these, from many companies. The only one still on the market (as of 2 years ago, the last time I checked) was the Solitaire 16xps.</p>

<p>You probably don't want to own and maintain one, but there are several companies that have them and will run your images on them. Companies who do this are commonly referred to as "service bureaus". The last time I checked (again, about 2 years ago) there were at least six in business in the US.</p>

<ol>

<li>http://www.replicolor.com/</li>

<li>http://iprintfromhome.com/</li>

<li>https://www.prodigitalphotos.com/</li>

<li>http://www.imagers.com/</li>

<li>http://colorslide.com/</li>

<li>http://slides.com/</li>

</ol>

<p>Unfortunately, there are three problems with these places. </p>

<ul>

<li>They only print slides, not negatives. That means if you've got raw files, you have to process them enough to make them "printable" before you send them in.</li>

<li>They're insanely expensive. The one I use, iPrintFromHome.com is $2.49 per slide. </li>

<li>They typically require the files to be in the sRGB color space, so you have to do some color work before submitting, typically an automatic (perceptual intent) conversion to sRGB.</li>

</ul>

<p>Basically, I'd consider them useful for "projects" where you need actual slides (I did something a while back projecting images onto nude women. Yup, my life sucks...) but not as an archiving method.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>thanks Joseph.....exactly what I needed to evaluate this idea. Although, at a quick glance, your summation seems dead on. The post processing i don't mind, I'd have done it already actually. But, the rest is not good.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The reason the cost per slide seem high to you that recorder is very expensive; and it often sees little usage too. If one was going to make many thousands of slidesthen maybe one could buy a used recorder priced at about a used car; then do the job oneself. The pickle is a film recorder is not so common as a flatbed or 35mm slide scanner.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The reason slide film is used in a film recorder is because many clients want actual 35mm film slides of a Power Point show; the military wants this too.<br>

<br /> The prices of making 35mm slides is lower than in the past; considering inflations it is way cheaper.<br>

<br /> Here we use to run a film recorder for many years; now we farm it out. Our 8000 buck recorder of many years died and volume contacted so it made no sense to buy another recorder.<br>

Even after exposing the film roll; one has to have the slide film processed to. One has the cost of the film; the processing; the labor; and deprecication on the recorder; plus local taxes since it is an asset too.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>And I mean high quality copies....that 50 years from could be printed if the need arose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Think about printing these out to archival paper using a pigment ink set. Print large to minimize resolution and tonality losses. </p>

<p>A consideration in archiving is media accessibility. Chances are that in 50 years a print will be easily reproducible with the future technology available. Anything that requires specialty equipment, i.e., scanner, enlargers, chemicals, paper, etc. is guaranteed to be more problematic.</p>

<p>Hmmm... Here's an idea that could make an interesting weekends project for somebody, a DIY almost-film recorder as it were. Print the R, G, and B channels of the digital file out separately in grayscale. Use an inkset like Piezography K7 carbon for both stability and the much higher resolution.</p>

<p>Scan the grayscaled R,G,B prints back in. Calibrate for image registration, and calibrate out the end-to-end (paper, ink, scanner, whatever) density curve non-linearities. Combine the three channels and I'd bet you'd get back an image pretty close to the original digital capture.</p>

[bernard_korites]

<p>The cheapest way would be to display the files on a good quality monitor or on a wall via a digital slide projector then photograph the image with slide film. I've done the reverse - photo'd a projected slide image with a digital camera and the results weren't too bad.</p>

[robertshults]

<p>My offers film recording and accepts both mail and online orders (though online ordering is only available for certain services):</p>

<p>http://www.hollandphoto.com</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'll make a few assumptions regarding a couple of goals:</p>

<ul>

<li>The greatest possible potential for reproducing a photograph decades from now, regardless of changes in technology.</li>

<li>A one-time preparation that hopefully will be archival for decades or longer.</li>

</ul>

<p>Given those assumptions, I'd transfer my most important images to a large format negative transparency.</p>

<p>The reason is simple: It's relatively easy to prepare light sensitive emulsions on paper from materials that have been available for centuries. An image archived in negative form on, say, an 8x10 inch transparency, can be contact printed on a light sensitive surface (paper or other surface). No need for any equipment that cannot be custom made from scratch. No need for legacy technology to transfer digital information from one recording medium to another. No need for an enlarger, which itself is a complex mechanism requiring, at a minimum, a light source and lens.</p>

<p>There are many methods for creating light sensitive surfaces from raw materials that have been available for centuries. All you need is an appropriate surface on which to use the light sensitizing material and, if necessary, some way to hold the transparent negative and receiving surface in close proximity (easel, clamp, etc.).</p>

<p>Naturally, it's not going to be quite that straightforward in actual practice. For example, a negative transparency that's ideal for one type of receiving surface may not be ideal for another. And a negative that's perfect for contact printing may not be ideal for enlarging.</p>

<p>But it's a relatively low tech, well documented set of techniques that can be grasped (if not mastered) by anyone capable of grasping any technique used by artists, artisans or craftsmen.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I see the point of film recorders - not for archival use but for optical projection in the here and now. Thomas, quite seriously: what makes you think that a piece of film is more secure than redundant files on hard drives? If there are factors I have not thought of I'd like to know.</p>

<p>BTW I'm not saying film isn't archival! I'm saying that if I shoot digital images, why would I want to make film archives?</p>

[bernard_korites]

<p>Karim:<br>

I few years ago my house was struck by lightning. The bolt came in one end of the house and went out the other. Everything electronic was destroyed - computers, cd's, microwave oven, even the doorbell. One thing that did survive, however, was a box of 35mm slides that were sitting on the floor of a closet.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>A film or print archive might not get thrown away in an Estate sale after one dies; or it might be returned to the family.</p>

<p>A bunch of moldy old cassette tapes; 5 1/4 floppies, CD's, DVD's, or even external hard drives are often just an unmarked bunch of stuff; NOT quickly readable by eyeball in a second.<br>

Thus an old family album or box of slides can be looked at 200 years from now by a Klingon without any reader or file format issues.</p>

<p>A section of a 8x10 print that is say just 4x5 is still readable; even if the other 3/4's is eaten by roaches or ruined by water.<br>

A file that is 3/4 eaten may not be readable; or not worth repairing.</p>

<p>With digital alot of images survive by just being easy to spread around; one can send dupes to ones relatives; keep dupes in a safety deposit box.<br>

One has the issue too of having so many images one shot and alot is pure crap and thus really not worth saving.<br>

Alot of average folks have all their digital stuff in one basket; one HDA which is abit scary.</p>

<p>Go back decades and many folks had a few photo albums; a shoe box of slidesand old prints; some Kodak slide trays.<br>

In some places land plats at the courthouse are physical prints; ie mylars and they also have a digital scan ie TIFF of it too; ie they use both film and digital for valuable legal stuff. The TIFF file allows computerized finding tied to the tax dept; the phyiscal original is just another thing in a drawer; like 100 years ago when it was drawn on linen or vellum.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Off-site back-ups FTW!</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>"One thing that did survive, however, was a box of 35mm slides that were sitting on the floor of a closet."</p>

<p>And you can't imagine any disasters that would destroy that box of slides? I had an electrical fire in my darkroom. The negs that weren't damaged by the fire were destroyed by the firemens' hoses. Whether film or digital, you need multiple back-ups in multiple locations.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Digital files get corrupted, Negatives and prints can be destroyed.</p>

<p>I think that during a photographer's lifetime, a digital file in multiple locations has the best chance. Once he is gone though and no one is doing the backups, the negatives and prints stand a much better chance of survival.</p>

<p> </p>

[stevemepsted]

<p>Thomas<br>

You may be interested in this company (In the UK) who offer transfer services from Digital to Film<br>

<a href="http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/information/page/processing-services.html">http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/information/page/processing-services.html</a><br>

They will turn around, in a couple of days, a 36 image CD onto a Ilford (unprocessed) pan 100 or 400 film if you prefer. You thejn develop in your preferred way and print. Cost is (in the UK) £17.50 or £15.00 for those belonging to educational establishments. That's around 45 pence per image. Prices include VAT and FREE postage.<br>

The price of the service is easily offset by the lower costs of printing your work through an enlarger rather than inkjet.<br>

I haven't tried the service yet and am looking forward to doing so. I'll post up an original digital and a scanned negative when I get them back. We'll see the difference!</p>