When sharing or viewing old photos I have never had any concern of the quality of the image, nor have I ever heard anyone else mention this either, unless it is "it's amazing how great these photos look for being over 100 years old." And I can't vouch for how long they will last. I only know I have prints that are at least 100 years old and have many on our home walls of my wife and I when we were babies, so at least 81 years old and nothing seems to be wrong with them and they have been exposed to light for the entire duration. The real keepers are kept in albums and in boxes so they are only experience exposure to light on short occasions.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Q. How to keep a collection "forever"
- Thread starter Guy Parsons
- Start date
Great point. The only photo archives we have ever concerned ourselves about are about family and our families lives. I have never attempted to archive anything from my attempts at hobby photography as a hobby. I imagine after I'm gone if my kids and their kids ever get hold of one of my computers or drives, that after 100,000 or so flowers, bugs, birds photos the whole mess with simply go to the recyclers or land fill. Those things are not going to mean anything years from now. But hopefully the albums with snapshots of mom and I, and them as kids, along with grandma and grandpa and great grandparents will be stuck away or maybe placed on a coffee table in the living room.
tbcass
Forum Pro
My point was there is a down side to prints. The ideal archive doesn't exist. I would think Prints and negative/digital backups. I have negatives and slides that are up to 75 years old in perfect condition.
--
Tom
Attachments
Last edited:
That's not right. There are dozens of prints from my past and my wife's past that have suffered severe fading and color shift, even while sitting undisturbed in photo albums. Anyone with similar prints of personal importance would much prefer to have them looking as they did when they were new. Fortunately, most of our other prints do still look as they did when they were new.
Last edited:
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
From my own experience the way prints are stored does matter. The usual consumer photo albums were not acid free hence may automatically ruin prints. To get a summary of what to do I asked DuckDuckGo and their AI Search Assist yielded this.....
Ideal Storage Conditions for Color Prints Temperature and Humidity
- Temperature: Maintain a temperature between 60°F to 70°F (15°C to 21°C).
- Humidity: Keep relative humidity levels between 30% to 50%. This helps prevent mold growth and deterioration.
- Light: Store color prints in a dark environment. Exposure to light can cause fading and damage over time.
- Enclosures: Use acid-free materials for storage, such as:
- Archival Boxes: High-quality, acid-free boxes designed for long-term storage.
- Sleeves: Clear, acid-free sleeves to protect individual prints from scratches and environmental damage.
- Interleaving: Consider using interleaving paper between prints to prevent sticking and abrasion. [that had better be acid free tissue or paper... Guy]
- Clean Hands: Always handle prints with clean, dry hands or wear nitrile gloves to avoid transferring oils and dirt.
- Edge Handling: Hold prints by the edges to minimize contact with the image surface.
- Silica Gel: Include silica gel packets in storage boxes to control humidity levels and prevent moisture damage.
- Avoid Writing: Do not write on the back of prints; instead, label the storage container.
............................................
Long ago I moved all negs/slides/prints to proper acid free storage, now to do something similar to my digital files.....
Yes, that matters, just as the process that created the prints in the first place matters, and so does the way prints are displayed if they're on display. All of these things can result in loss of print quality over time.
Last edited:
BertIverson2
Member
My thoughts:
1. First one has to document the photos or it is a waste of time to just keep 100K photos for posterity if the photos are not tagged with answers to the questions:
Who, What, When, Where, Why
2. The digital formats have to updated every 10 years or so: USB, JPG, etc (who can read 360KB floppy disk these days.)
3. My choice for the medium in 2025 is 1TB hard disks ( Buy a new one every year and copy all the photos onto it. (100 K photos at 1MB is only 100GB)
4. Keep the disks in 2 or 3 different locations.
5. Toss the disks when they are 10 years old.
Its a bloody big project / effort.
Maybe the Movie Industry and Microsoft will eventually market their glass storage medium so the medium issues will go away. (thousand of years storage)
I am 88 and my 20K photos are in the hands of my 3 children. They meet my (1) requirement. (2) is pretty easy (3) is a pain but certainly doable. (4) is easy (5) for sure
Biggest job is (1) and I have been at it for 30 years. I f one does not do this, then forget about anybody ever lookin at your photos.
Cheers,
Bert
1. First one has to document the photos or it is a waste of time to just keep 100K photos for posterity if the photos are not tagged with answers to the questions:
Who, What, When, Where, Why
2. The digital formats have to updated every 10 years or so: USB, JPG, etc (who can read 360KB floppy disk these days.)
3. My choice for the medium in 2025 is 1TB hard disks ( Buy a new one every year and copy all the photos onto it. (100 K photos at 1MB is only 100GB)
4. Keep the disks in 2 or 3 different locations.
5. Toss the disks when they are 10 years old.
Its a bloody big project / effort.
Maybe the Movie Industry and Microsoft will eventually market their glass storage medium so the medium issues will go away. (thousand of years storage)
I am 88 and my 20K photos are in the hands of my 3 children. They meet my (1) requirement. (2) is pretty easy (3) is a pain but certainly doable. (4) is easy (5) for sure
Biggest job is (1) and I have been at it for 30 years. I f one does not do this, then forget about anybody ever lookin at your photos.
Cheers,
Bert
GarysInSoCal
Senior Member
There honestly is NO such thing as archiving 'forever'. Now that we've gotten past that sad reality... I back up all my amazing content (and I have decades of it) on new SSD's about every 3 years. But unfortunately, forever will sadly and eventually consume all my work, and yours too. Hate to tell all you 'Victims of Forever'... but there's NOTHING you can do to stop it... ;-)
Last edited:
atom14
Senior Member
Cherry_F
Senior Member
I have a dream... I would like computers and external drives to remain operational after I die, so that someone else could use them. no land fill involved !
___
Photography is so easy, that's what makes it highly difficult - Robert Delpire
Cherry_F
Senior Member
Due to the gazillions of pics that have been posted since the digital era, very rapidly, there won’t be any space left to do so... (overlooked or not)
___
Photography is so easy, that's what makes it highly difficult - Robert Delpire
Philip Eihuyar
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,688
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 689
Your assessment of what should be chosen has to be 'unpacked' to decide which will be readable in over 100 or more years. I disagree with you that optical media is going to be abandoned as in -terms of longevity- it is still and into the future ,the most advanced longest lasting form of storage.
Choosing the best ink, paper and storage techniques for preserving the image is limited to one print per page and this is fine as well but limited.
perhaps good as a form of backups to the most 'important' images. Cuts through the 'hoarders mentality. I could go on but to conclude, there are means to digitize for the long term preservation lasting several centuries.
Choosing the best ink, paper and storage techniques for preserving the image is limited to one print per page and this is fine as well but limited.
perhaps good as a form of backups to the most 'important' images. Cuts through the 'hoarders mentality. I could go on but to conclude, there are means to digitize for the long term preservation lasting several centuries.
Bernard Delley
Senior Member
It has been all downhill in archival durability since Hammurabi had his writings chiseled in stone.
GarysInSoCal
Senior Member
Not a dream... more like a nightmare... :-O Ever been to one of those 'inheritance parties'? Nobody there is giving a flying flip about anything you owned remaining operational. They're just attending to see whatever cash they can collect. Do you think they give a rats patudy about your memories?... better think again... ;-)
Last edited:
tbcass
Forum Pro
My objection stands because you know what I meant. Let me rephrase it for you. The information contained in the digital files can produce photographs of much higher quality than a print unless the print is of a huge size which is impractical for archival use. The same is true of a negative. To get the most out of a negative you would have to print at a size impractical for archiving.
I need to clarify, apologies. I was not referring to the quality of the print from a longevity standpoint or how well it will hold up. I was referring to the image quality does not matter. I realize that a print needs to have good quality materials and processing. I do have some concern about the prints we get today though. Like many, I do not make my own prints unless you call pulling them out of a dye sub printer. Most come from labs though. And whether they will be around in viewable form 100 years from now, I have no idea and won't be here to check them out either.
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
Yep, coming to the same conclusion. Which is what I personally started out with anyway, but thought that I might ask the question to see a variety of answers. Non dye optical disks seem to be the only likely answer.
If a collection has some family interest then better make sure it is distributed somehow as widely as possible within that family group.
If a collection has interest in general social history terms or local historical terms then try and find a library or museum that will accept the collection.
If the photographer has some fame then their collection may live on but purely seen as an investment and profit making device rather than for any photographic merit.
The real answer seems to be... why worry, nothing survives forever anyway.
Even in 5 billion years or so the Sun fails and destroys the Solar System.
Oh dear, I forgot to take my morning medication....
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum