Let's discuss on very long-term archiving.

[pablomatsumoto]

<p>Let me suggest a discussion on the best practices for pictures long term archiving. I am talking about those pictures such as family memories or historic material that have to be preserved for decades/centuries, not just a couple of years.<br />My procedure and fundamentals are:<br /><strong>"Digital era" pictures:</strong></p>

<ol>

<li>SLR's raw files converted to .DNG for archiving (DNG consider more universal than RAW), to save pictures in the highest possible quality.</li>

<li>JPGs considered the best format as regards future visualization capabilities, so a copy of DNG files in high-quality JPG are also archived (easy to do saving both RAW+JPEG on camera).</li>

<li>JPG originals archive as they are with the best possible quality .</li>

</ol>

<p><strong>"Film era" pictures:</strong></p>

<ol>

<li>Low/Medium quality prints (such as those taken with cheap pocket film cameras) scanned at 600dpi / 24-bit and .TIFF</li>

<li>High quality prints scanned at 1200dpi / 48-bit and .TIFF</li>

<li>If negative is available, scanned negative at 2400dpi / 48-bit and .TIFF</li>

<li>A .JPEG copy chould also be archived to facilitate visualization</li>

</ol>

<p>Then follow <strong>3-2-1 backup rule</strong> (at least 3 copies in 2 different formats and at least 1 off-site):</p>

<ol>

<li>1 Backup originals on a cloud service (ideally 2 with different providers if money is not an issue)</li>

<li>2 copies in 2 different hard disk drives on same computer + 1 more off-site copy, such as in removable HDD or Blu-Ray (I think Blu-Ray is more stable) in case of fire/theft.</li>

<li>Optionally, store low quality copies with an online free service such as Google Photos (Picassa), Flickr or similar, in the very remote case all the others failed.</li>

</ol>

<p>Very important:</p>

<ol>

<li>Leave detail instructions (including passwords) for key relatives or persons to be able to access your archives if something happens to you.</li>

<li>When possible, pay cloud services annually in advance, and alert in the instructions that those in charge of preserving the material must pay the service. Password and sensitive information can be left on a close enveloped or in a safety box.</li>

<li>Have detailed records on what has been stored and where.</li>

<li>Update this information at least annually and send by e-mail to multple persons, and leave paper copies (surprisingly, paper is one of the best way for long-term storage even in the 21st century!).</li>

<li>NEVER encript the data, use compression or use password for individual files. Probability of not being able to be restored in the future is very high. If material is sensitive, store unencripted in a bank safety box.</li>

</ol>

<p><strong>Descriptions</strong><br />In most family pictures you have people. It is almost a must to have information about who is who, as in 1 or 2 generations this information almost surely fades...<br />This is where I don't have a clear guidance. Should you input description in Metadata for .TIFF and .DNG (lossless)? What to do with .JPEG?</p>

<p><em>PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHARE YOU THOUGHTS AND PRACTICES ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT MATTER. THANKS!</em></p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Beside from all the mechanics of backup and archive:</p>

<p>Share your collections with others, family and friends, reduced resolution if that is more practical. And accept that eventually they will go.</p>

[sallymack]

<p>Prints can have names, dates, places, and any other information written on the back and are easily transferable and accessible. --Sally</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>IMO, the most permanent storage form, but not necessarily the highest fidelity, would be a pigment-based print on RC paper, stored in the dark in a Ziploc bag or hermetically tight case with silica gel. People lose negatives, or they delaminate. Digital files are also lost. But prints are interesting enough that almost anyone knows they should be kept. Pencil markings on the back to identify who is who, date, place, etc.</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>My procedure is simple. I make prints of the best images and write the information on the back. The prints get stored in archival boxes in a dry, temperature controlled environment. Once the print is made and stored, there is no updating necessary. </p>

<p>I recently had to prepare a slide show for a memorial service. I went through boxes of prints owned by the deceased. The good prints got scanned. Negatives, CDs, DVDs and floppy discs didn't get glanced at. </p>

<p>My experience is if you want photos to survive and get passed on to the next generation, give them something they can hold in their hands, pass around and discuss. </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>If negative is available, scanned negative at 2400dpi / 48-bit and .TIFF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the negative is available, put it in a box in a cupboard and forget about it. I bet it will still be there when you go back to look for it.</p>

[pablomatsumoto]

<p>Good discussion! Good prints really last but I believe they should not be alone. Risk of permanent lost is high (fire, theft, environment, bad care, lost, etc) and degrade naturally occurs anyway. Probably, one should identify those really key pictures to consider for special long archiving (guesstimate, may be around 1% of the pictures people take these days) to reduce volume.<br>

<strong>So, let's add to the list of backups a bullet-point of backup in prints for those special photos.</strong></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you're serious about archiving and cost is no problem - platinum prints for B&W with gold-toned negatives on glass. For color, three-color separation negatives on glass.<br>

But maybe there's a reason things decay and rot....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:<br /><br />A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;<br /><br />A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;…</p>

</blockquote>

 

[starshooter]

<p>Digital media is ephermal. I have some 8.5 inch computer disks that are pretty darn hard to find a way to read. But not only do digital delivery systems (disks, memory drives, etc.) disappear, the 1s and 0s on them will sooner or later disappear.<br>

Relying on digital media for long term storage is like saving film on nitrate based stock. <br>

Hollywood backs up its digital movies on film.<br>

I have family photos from the 1920s and the b&w photo prints are as clear as the day they were shot.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>"SLR's raw files converted to .DNG for archiving (DNG consider more universal than RAW), to save pictures in the highest possible quality."</blockquote>

<p>It's a good practice to save those original camera raw files too. The original camera raw file may be requested for provenance of photos submitted to some contests and news outlets. Occasionally the original raw may be requested to determine whether a photo was edited within the guidelines of the contest or ethical standards of the news outlet. It isn't clear yet whether a DNG converted from the original proprietary raw file will be accepted in the event of a dispute over authenticity. But the original camera raw can be saved inside the DNG. Or archived separately if you prefer the advantages to an all-DNG workflow but don't want the larger file size.</p>

[pablomatsumoto]

<p>I agree, Wayne. Digital backups involve updating the supporting media every 5, at least 10 years. I remember myself backing up in Zip drives more than a decade ago, now impossible to read. CD-R and DVDs had had quite a long lifespam from this perspective, but in 10 years experts forecast that optical media will be dead.<br />In this respect, I believe cloud storage provides a good answer and it seems to be the future of mass storage (although it has another issues such as recurrent fees).<br />The problem with prints is that they can't be alone. You do need a digital copy in case of destruction and also for displaying. More and more people don't see pictures on paper.<br />Probably, to have the best of both worlds best practice would be a solid digital backup of mass data plus good prints storage under reasonable conditions of those "special" pictures. At least for me, print large amounts of photos is not a possibility (too expensive, too bulky, too cumbersome).</p>

[randrew1]

<p>This seems like an appropriate thread to repeat a story I've told before. <br>

Several years ago I attended a conference on image preservation at the George Eastman House Museum. The conference we intended for museum archivists. The question was asked. "What is the best way to preserve a collection of images for centuries?" The answer was very specific:</p>

<ol>

<li>Digitize everything. This allows unlimited copying with no quality loss.</li>

<li>Store your image files on multiple redundant servers in geographically separate locations.</li>

<li>Endow your IT department in perpetuity. It will be necessary every 5 to 10 years to convert your files to new formats and to move your files to new media. Collections that are not actively managed will be lost. </li>

</ol>

<p>The panel member went on to say that if you can't do all three, don't bother. <br>

This advice works well for museums, but few individuals have the resources to fund a permanent IT staff. The best way to preserve family photos for future generations is to make multiple prints, put them in high quality albums and distribute them among family members. We should also actively manage our digital files and try to find members of the next generation who will take custody of the images, but we have to recognize that managing <strong>our</strong> photo collections may not be a high priority for future generations and "collections that are not actively managed will be lost."</p>

<p>I used to suggest that images worth keeping should be output on Ektachrome slide film because it provided a human readable image and has outstanding image stability (better than Kodachrome). I never got around to it with my image collection. It's a bit late now and prints are more likely to be kept by future generations. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

If you can't do all three, it still is a good idea to do whichever of the three you can do.<br><br>Prints age, no matter that there are many or where they are kept. Digital copies keep their quality and allow unlimited copying without quality loss.<br>You have to store copies in different locations. But one or two in your home, one in the garden shed already decreases the risk of all of them being lost if something should happen. Distributing the (digital) copies among family members would even be better.<br>Most people on PNet are their own permanent IT department. You will have to copy your archive to new media now and again. Convert the file format they are stored in too when there's a danger that the one they are in may become unreadable in the future. That takes some time, but unless you keep your archive on something that does not hold much, like CDs or DVDs (which aren't archival quality media, last rather short), it's something you can start and let run, or let it run completely automatically, without needing much of your time.<br>So you can do all three.<br><br>But i too think it would be a terrible shame to preserve everything for eternity. Most things are meant to be enjoyed once, and then forgotten. Please do let things disappear again!

[MichaelChang]

<p>Most photos are only of value to its maker, so even with all the precautions taken, will future generations care much beyond casual curiosity?</p>

<p>I doubt it.</p>

<p>Odds are cloud storage will be deleted for nonpayment, distributed copies will be lost or forgotten, archived electronic copies will go into a junk pile; the only things of value after we die will be things that will bring money at an estate sale. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Save your raw files (whether in the archival open source DNG format or the camera makers proprietary (and proprietary

to each camera model) raw format plus the associated .xmp file that carries the all important metadata regarding

authorship, keywords, as well as develop instructions.

 

If you are inclined, burn TIFFS, not JPEGs. All JPEG formats are lossy.

 

If you do generate TIFFs use Pro Photo RGB at 16 bits per channel not sRGB or Adobe RGB(1998) in 8 bit per channel

form. This way you preserve all of the pictorial information.

 

Media.

 

Here's where it gets tricky. All media has its positive and negatives. Statically we know that all data stored on current

electronic media will degrade over time and that all mechanical devices ( like hard disk drives) will eventually fail. How

fast that happens depends on the mechanical build, the conditions the drives are used and kept in, etc.

 

That leaves optical media like the currently available CD-R, DVD, and Blu-Ray discs. While most are dye based there is

now the m-disc media which you can read about here: http://www.mdisc.com/what-is-mdisc/

 

There is also prints. I love seeing my images printed but there is no way I am going to make multiple prints of even the

few frames I feel are worth the effort and expense of printing. You don't need to write on the back of the prong. You can

print the information (the metadata)directly on the print when making the print.

 

No matter what method or medium you use, the multiple copies, widely distributed, is a smart plan.

[Two23]

<p>If you aren't making archival prints from your digital files, you are absolutely kidding yourself about really long term archivability. I'll give an example. When my grandmother died, we found a shoebox full of 120 negatives and b&w prints in a shoe box. The photos dated to the 1920s and 1930s. They sat untouched for something like 60 years. I don't see any way that photos stored digitally are going to be regularly updated and transferred etc. Make prints of anything you want to keep as family treasures. I'm still shooting some silver b&w film for this reason. I have a few glass plate negatives of my great grandfather made in the 1890s--they still make nice prints. I have two photo prints of family members from the 1880s--they are holding up well. I see no chance at all that a digital file made today will survive anywhere near that long. So, I make archival prints.</p>

<p>My grandparents wedding photo, c.1921<br /> />

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Is DNG really a standard? Is it really the highest possible quality? Higher than 16-bit TIFF?</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>But i too think it would be a terrible shame to preserve everything for eternity. Most things are meant to be enjoyed once, and then forgotten. Please do let things disappear again!</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />A lot of sense in that statement.</p>

<p>Last week I saw a post on a forum where someone was asking about the best way to have music he had on cassettes transferred to his computer. What for? Why does everything have to be converted to digital format? Just enjoy it as it is. Listen to cassettes and records on their respective players, watch super 8 movies and view your slide collection on projectors... etc.<br /><br />Back in the late 1970s my wife's great aunt had all of her super 8 movies transferred to video so future generations could watch them. Unfortunately, she chose Betamax. Now when we want to watch them, it's with a projector - as intended.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Re TIFF: the TIFF format is a container format. Not a quality standard.<br>A container that can contain a number of (also simultaneously) other formats, including lossy JPEGs. So storing something in a TIFF file is not enough to make sure it contains more or better information than the JPEG file that it might contain. Obvious, isn't it? ;-) Wrapping a JPEG in a TIFF only makes the information contained in the JPEG less accessible.<br>So do not just decide it has to be TIFF format, but pay close attention to how the image data is going to be stored inside that TIFF file.

[randrew1]

<p>Kent, you are absolutely correct. Rochester has a great collection of images from the early 1900's only becuase they were shot on glass plates. Even then, they were nearly thrown away twice. </p>

<p>http://libcat.rmsc.org/aquabrowser/?q=%22collection:Albert%20R.%20Stone%20Negative%22</p>

<p>I have a portrait of my great grandfather because someone in the family had a copy negative made 100 years ago. </p><div></div>

[randrew1]

<p>My aunt and uncle have a color photo from their wedding in 1950 because the original is Kodachrome.</p><div></div>

[randrew1]

<p>Family photos are much more likely to survive if they are in a form that can be neglected for decades without significant damage. They are also more likely to avoid the trash can if they are easily viewable and in a compact form. An album is more likely to be kept than a shoebox of prints or slides and negatives are even less likely to survive. </p>

 

[pmind]

<p>Nice photo Ron!</p>

[pablomatsumoto]

<p>Of course this could be biased due to the kind of source, but this Panasonic article gives good information regarding the use of Bluray for archiving.<br /> http://panasonic.net/avc/blu-ray_disc/biz_ideal_media.html</p>

<p>After researching a little, Bluray seems a better choice than HDD in terms of reliability. In my personal experience, I have seen 2 Western Digital Passport refused to power on (have to admit that were never store in ideal conditions).</p>

<p> </p>