Lightfastness of UltraChrome ink™

[WillieB38717]

Along with the announcement of Epson's new printers comes the introduction of a new formula for pigmented inks. Epson is calling their new ink UltraChrome™. Below is an excerpt from an Epson document describing their printers and ink:

(UltraChrome™ Ink)

"Preliminary data from Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc. indicates the lightfastness of color UltraChrome prints made with the EPSON Stylus Pro 7600 and 9600 printers will be rated up to 100 years under glass, depending upon the specific type of Epson media being used.

Preliminary data indicates the lightfastness of black and white UltraChrome images printed in 7-color mode will be rated as greater than 100 years under glass depending on the type of Epson media being used.*

Visit http://www.wilhelm-research.com for regularly updated information as testing proceeds.

Premium Glossy Photo Paper (250) 90 to 100 years
Fine Art Papers 80 to 100 years
Premium Luster Photo Paper 50 years
Premium Semimatte Photo Paper (250) 40 years
Enhanced Matte Paper 30 years"

It struck me as odd that the paper on which the new ink shows the least lightfastness, although preliminary, is matte. Went back to the Epson

site to see what they had to say about their current inks, and their lightfastness. Below are two excerpts from "detail lists" on two relevant printers:

Epson Stylus Photo 2000P - Archival Ink

"Lightfastness rated 200 or more years before noticable fading occurs, in normal indoor flourescent lighting, under a glass frame, when using Geniune EPSON Archival Inks and compatible EPSON matte type papers. Under the same conditions, lightfastness rated at 140 yrs when using EPSON Premium Semi-Gloss Photo Paper and EPSON Premium Luster Photo Paper. Results will vary depending on lighting conditions, humidity, color intensity, color range and print media...."

Epson Stylus Photo 1280 - Dye based ink

"Per Wilhelm Research Labs (Wilhelm-Research.com), lightfastness rated approximately 25 years before noticeable fading occurs in normal indoor display conditions in a glass frame, when using Genuine EPSON ink cartridges and EPSON Matte Paper- Heavyweight; approximately 6-7 years under the same conditions when using EPSON Photo Paper. Results will vary depending on lighting conditions, humidity, framing under glass, color intensity, color range and print media. Water-resistant prints are produced using Genuine EPSON ink cartridges and EPSON Premium Glossy Photo Paper and EPSON Photo Paper..."

On both current printers (and inks), Epson gives their matte paper/ink combo the longest rating(s) for lightfastness. With the new ink, the results seem to be inverted - again, these are preliminary results only. Might their new UltraChrome™ ink/matte paper combo be only maginally more fade resistant than dye based ink on matte? What do you make of this seemingly "upside down" durability?

The new SC 2100 seems to be a very attractive package. But for me, the desirability of this printer hinges on the durability of its inks. Any thoughts?

 

[Leon Wittwer]

Along with the announcement of Epson's new printers comes the
introduction of a new formula for pigmented inks. Epson is calling
their new ink UltraChrome™. Below is an excerpt from an
Epson document describing their printers and ink:

(UltraChrome™ Ink)

"Preliminary data from Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc. indicates the
lightfastness of color UltraChrome prints made with the EPSON
Stylus Pro 7600 and 9600 printers will be rated up to 100 years
under glass, depending upon the specific type of Epson media being
used.

Preliminary data indicates the lightfastness of black and white
UltraChrome images printed in 7-color mode will be rated as greater
than 100 years under glass depending on the type of Epson media
being used.*

Visit http://www.wilhelm-research.com for regularly updated information as
testing proceeds.

Premium Glossy Photo Paper (250) 90 to 100 years
Fine Art Papers 80 to 100 years
Premium Luster Photo Paper 50 years
Premium Semimatte Photo Paper (250) 40 years
Enhanced Matte Paper 30 years"

It struck me as odd that the paper on which the new ink shows the
least lightfastness, although preliminary, is matte. Went back to
the Epson
site to see what they had to say about their current inks, and
their lightfastness. Below are two excerpts from "detail lists" on
two relevant printers:

Epson Stylus Photo 2000P - Archival Ink

"Lightfastness rated 200 or more years before noticable fading
occurs, in normal indoor flourescent lighting, under a glass frame,
when using Geniune EPSON Archival Inks and compatible EPSON matte
type papers. Under the same conditions, lightfastness rated at 140
yrs when using EPSON Premium Semi-Gloss Photo Paper and EPSON
Premium Luster Photo Paper. Results will vary depending on lighting
conditions, humidity, color intensity, color range and print
media...."

Epson Stylus Photo 1280 - Dye based ink

"Per Wilhelm Research Labs (Wilhelm-Research.com), lightfastness
rated approximately 25 years before noticeable fading occurs in
normal indoor display conditions in a glass frame, when using
Genuine EPSON ink cartridges and EPSON Matte Paper- Heavyweight;
approximately 6-7 years under the same conditions when using EPSON
Photo Paper. Results will vary depending on lighting conditions,
humidity, framing under glass, color intensity, color range and
print media. Water-resistant prints are produced using Genuine
EPSON ink cartridges and EPSON Premium Glossy Photo Paper and EPSON
Photo Paper..."

On both current printers (and inks), Epson gives their matte
paper/ink combo the longest rating(s) for lightfastness. With the
new ink, the results seem to be inverted - again, these are
preliminary results only. Might their new UltraChrome™
ink/matte paper combo be only maginally more fade resistant than
dye based ink on matte? What do you make of this seemingly "upside
down" durability?

The new SC 2100 seems to be a very attractive package. But for me,
the desirability of this printer hinges on the durability of its
inks. Any thoughts?

 

[Leon Wittwer]

That is indeed strange and contradictory to anything I have seen before including stuff from Epson. I wonder if there is a misprint. In any event, the things I have read are all over the map regarding specific numbers. I will be patient to see how this comes out. I will be patient.... I will be patient.... I WILL be patient.....

Along with the announcement of Epson's new printers comes the
introduction of a new formula for pigmented inks. Epson is calling
their new ink UltraChrome™. Below is an excerpt from an
Epson document describing their printers and ink:

(UltraChrome™ Ink)

"Preliminary data from Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc. indicates the
lightfastness of color UltraChrome prints made with the EPSON
Stylus Pro 7600 and 9600 printers will be rated up to 100 years
under glass, depending upon the specific type of Epson media being
used.

Preliminary data indicates the lightfastness of black and white
UltraChrome images printed in 7-color mode will be rated as greater
than 100 years under glass depending on the type of Epson media
being used.*

Visit http://www.wilhelm-research.com for regularly updated information as
testing proceeds.

Premium Glossy Photo Paper (250) 90 to 100 years
Fine Art Papers 80 to 100 years
Premium Luster Photo Paper 50 years
Premium Semimatte Photo Paper (250) 40 years
Enhanced Matte Paper 30 years"

It struck me as odd that the paper on which the new ink shows the
least lightfastness, although preliminary, is matte. Went back to
the Epson
site to see what they had to say about their current inks, and
their lightfastness. Below are two excerpts from "detail lists" on
two relevant printers:

Epson Stylus Photo 2000P - Archival Ink

"Lightfastness rated 200 or more years before noticable fading
occurs, in normal indoor flourescent lighting, under a glass frame,
when using Geniune EPSON Archival Inks and compatible EPSON matte
type papers. Under the same conditions, lightfastness rated at 140
yrs when using EPSON Premium Semi-Gloss Photo Paper and EPSON
Premium Luster Photo Paper. Results will vary depending on lighting
conditions, humidity, color intensity, color range and print
media...."

Epson Stylus Photo 1280 - Dye based ink

"Per Wilhelm Research Labs (Wilhelm-Research.com), lightfastness
rated approximately 25 years before noticeable fading occurs in
normal indoor display conditions in a glass frame, when using
Genuine EPSON ink cartridges and EPSON Matte Paper- Heavyweight;
approximately 6-7 years under the same conditions when using EPSON
Photo Paper. Results will vary depending on lighting conditions,
humidity, framing under glass, color intensity, color range and
print media. Water-resistant prints are produced using Genuine
EPSON ink cartridges and EPSON Premium Glossy Photo Paper and EPSON
Photo Paper..."

On both current printers (and inks), Epson gives their matte
paper/ink combo the longest rating(s) for lightfastness. With the
new ink, the results seem to be inverted - again, these are
preliminary results only. Might their new UltraChrome™
ink/matte paper combo be only maginally more fade resistant than
dye based ink on matte? What do you make of this seemingly "upside
down" durability?

The new SC 2100 seems to be a very attractive package. But for me,
the desirability of this printer hinges on the durability of its
inks. Any thoughts?

 

[Ulysses]

Thanks for compiling the info.

My question to you is what is the intended use for your printer?

The new SC 2100 seems to be a very attractive package. But for me,
the desirability of this printer hinges on the durability of its
inks. Any thoughts?

--

Ulysses

 

[WillieB38717]

That is indeed strange and contradictory to anything I have seen
before including stuff from Epson. I wonder if there is a
misprint. In any event, the things I have read are all over the
map regarding specific numbers. I will be patient to see how this
comes out. I will be patient.... I will be patient.... I WILL
be patient.....

Crack me up, Leon. It's tough, ain't it?

 

[WillieB38717]

Thanks for compiling the info.

My question to you is what is the intended use for your printer?

Printing pictures for family, friends, myself, and for fun - mainly for
private use, occasionally for sale (I'm very, very, very reasonable). I think
durability is an important issue, even in the home. Prints are often
treated casually (heck, they're not all worth saving!), and what a boon
it would be have them last as long as photographs. You don't always
know today what will seem important to you in the future. Archiving
digital images is always an option, but this requires regular maintenance
of one kind or another - a labor of love over a very long time. Having
durable hard copies is so much easier, especially when people go their
own ways through time.

Thanks for your inquiry.

WillieB

 

[Ulysses]

I'm glad I asked you. Because most typical users want their inkjet photos to last as long as "regular" photos they'd get from Eckards or Wal*Mart.

The thing is that with the current stock of inkjets and papers, they already last that long. With the introduction of Epson's new inks, they can last even longer, depending upon the paper you use. Much longer.

We had one well-educated reader here who needs for his photos to last as long as 300 years. But that's not only understandable, considering his line of work, but it's also quite the rarity. He's using it for a very interesting and extreme business. For most users, even most advanced amatures and professionals, having an archival life of 45 to 75 years (and possibly up to 100 years if you protect the image enough) without fading is a significant value.

Keep in mind that your source images are now DIGITAL, which means that you can also provide the same client or yourself a copy of the digital data on CDR so that they can reprint it at any time. This increases the value and gives flexibility for that distant time when the image does begin to fade.

BTW, do you compose your images in some other editor and past it here.

Thanks for compiling the info.

My question to you is what is the intended use for your printer?

Printing pictures for family, friends, myself, and for fun - mainly
for
private use, occasionally for sale (I'm very, very, very
reasonable). I think
durability is an important issue, even in the home. Prints are often
treated casually (heck, they're not all worth saving!), and what a
boon
it would be have them last as long as photographs. You don't always
know today what will seem important to you in the future. Archiving
digital images is always an option, but this requires regular
maintenance
of one kind or another - a labor of love over a very long time.
Having
durable hard copies is so much easier, especially when people go their
own ways through time.

Thanks for your inquiry.

WillieB

--

Ulysses

 

[WillieB38717]

I'm glad I asked you. Because most typical users want their inkjet
photos to last as long as "regular" photos they'd get from Eckards
or Wal*Mart.

The thing is that with the current stock of inkjets and papers,
they already last that long. With the introduction of Epson's new
inks, they can last even longer, depending upon the paper you use.
Much longer.

We had one well-educated reader here who needs for his photos to
last as long as 300 years. But that's not only understandable,
considering his line of work, but it's also quite the rarity. He's
using it for a very interesting and extreme business. For most
users, even most advanced amatures and professionals, having an
archival life of 45 to 75 years (and possibly up to 100 years if
you protect the image enough) without fading is a significant value.

Keep in mind that your source images are now DIGITAL, which means
that you can also provide the same client or yourself a copy of the
digital data on CDR so that they can reprint it at any time. This
increases the value and gives flexibility for that distant time
when the image does begin to fade.

BTW, do you compose your images in some other editor and past it here.

I am a typical user, a Wal*Mart kind of guy! Regarding current technology
and its durability on matte paper, I'm inclined to agree with you. Have
some eight year old prints produced from Epson's original Stylus Color -
and they still look good (framed, behind glass). Dye based ink and glossy
stock seems to tell a different story though. Behind glass, they may hold
up well - too early to tell, maybe. Exposed to air, they frequently color
shift, an effect Bob Meyers displays well on his site. Really hoping Epson's
new ink formulation addresses this discoloration issue also, although I'm
aware this phenomenon may not be related to lightfastness.

You refer to Stephen Livick, I think. Really looking forward to his blast
furnace UV experiment; he has some results posted already. Perhaps
what we need is a companion test for "gasfastness" on glossy paper.
How would such a test be composed, I wonder?

As far as posting images goes, I'm afraid I'm not much of a photographer.
Printing is my hobby and interest.

 

[Donald Cooper]

You might want to consider a few factors which militate against feeling too comfortable about reproducing the current crop of digital images:

1. The current dithering techniques render prints unfit for scanning (except there might be something out there ....... ).

2. The media for storing the digital images aren't that great -- CDs might last ten years, maybe. Zip drives two or three years. NAS tomorrow ....

3. The format is shaky -- do you really think JPG will be supported in five years, not to mention any proprietary format?

So it's not quite a slam dunk for digital .......

Keep in mind that your source images are now DIGITAL, which means
that you can also provide the same client or yourself a copy of the
digital data on CDR so that they can reprint it at any time. This
increases the value and gives flexibility for that distant time
when the image does begin to fade.

 

[Joe Barnhart]

2. The media for storing the digital images aren't that great --
CDs might last ten years, maybe. Zip drives two or three years. NAS
tomorrow ....

See Kodak's web site:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/cdr/tech/lifetime.jhtml

They guarantee 100 years lifetime and estimate much longer life for their "ultima" media. These are the discs of choice when you care how long a CD-R will last.

 

[I F Burley]

You might want to consider a few factors which militate against
feeling too comfortable about reproducing the current crop of
digital images:

1. The current dithering techniques render prints unfit for
scanning (except there might be something out there ....... ).

This is only partly true. Some printers with a very regular half tone dot pattern, like Canon's S800/900/9000 - yes, it's a problem, but I know a professional photographer who routinely re-scans ink-jet prints to obtain a more natural looking result.

2. The media for storing the digital images aren't that great --
CDs might last ten years, maybe. Zip drives two or three years. NAS
tomorrow ....

This is an important point as cheap CDs probably won't last and even so-called archival CDs are vulnerable to physical damage. You need to back up your backups!

3. The format is shaky -- do you really think JPG will be supported
in five years, not to mention any proprietary format?

No problem here - JPEG is part of the Web standard and will be supported for eternity. Many very rarely used formats are routinely supported in the most mundane of applications.

So it's not quite a slam dunk for digital .......

I think that's a meaningless statement - the problems associated with conventional analogue photography are plentiful too you know!

Ian

 

[Ulysses]

Hahahahah.... Wal*Mart guy. There's a Wal*Mart guy lying dormant in most of us, methinks.

As far as posting images goes, I'm afraid I'm not much of a
photographer.
Printing is my hobby and interest.

Whoops. What I meant to ask was: Do you compose your MESSAGES in some other word processor and then paste here. When replying to your messages, this odd spacing becomes apparent.

--

Ulysses

 

[Ulysses]

Ian -

You got to some of the same points that I was going to address.

This is only partly true. Some printers with a very regular half
tone dot pattern, like Canon's S800/900/9000 - yes, it's a problem,
but I know a professional photographer who routinely re-scans
ink-jet prints to obtain a more natural looking result.

I found myself wondering: If I have the digital data (addressed later as to how to archive THAT data), then why would I need to scan the print, when I could just PRINT out another from the original data? That's the way I'd do it if at all possible. Or am I missing the point of the issue he raised?

2. The media for storing the digital images aren't that great --
CDs might last ten years, maybe. Zip drives two or three years. NAS
tomorrow ....

This is an important point as cheap CDs probably won't last and
even so-called archival CDs are vulnerable to physical damage. You
need to back up your backups!

Exactly... if/when another favored format for archiving comes along, naturally, I'd be moving on to that, and taking my valued pics with me. But somehow, I foresee backwards compability being around for a long, long time. And naturally, make sure that the media used is suitable for archival purposes.

3. The format is shaky -- do you really think JPG will be supported
in five years, not to mention any proprietary format?

No problem here - JPEG is part of the Web standard and will be
supported for eternity. Many very rarely used formats are routinely
supported in the most mundane of applications.

In a year or so, all of the digicams will be using some form of backwards-compatible JPEG such as JPEG2000 or some other derivative. I'm not worried about JPEG falling into nonexistance. It's too universal at this point.

So it's not quite a slam dunk for digital .......

I think that's a meaningless statement - the problems associated
with conventional analogue photography are plentiful too you know!

Exactly. I'd say that the slam dunk of digital has already been thrown down. We have tons of professionials using it even now in the studios, with lots of them making full conversion of their systems to digital. But the real slam dunk is in the acceptance by the mass market as a whole. All the data studies on the shift to digital sort of prove that. It's like watching the way IE slowly made its domination over Netscape. It took some years, but it was inevitable for a lot of similar reasons to digital eventually becoming dominant.

--

Ulysses

 

[WillieB38717]

As far as posting images goes, I'm afraid I'm not much of a
photographer.
Printing is my hobby and interest.

Whoops. What I meant to ask was: Do you compose your MESSAGES in
some other word processor and then paste here. When replying to
your messages, this odd spacing becomes apparent.

--

Ulysses

The initial post was cut and pasted from Wordpad. Subsequent replies were done "on site". Word processors are odd - I've never figured them out! Of course, the problem could be on my end.

 

[Vernon Purvis]

How long the CD media lasts is not the problem. The old reel to reel computer tapes that everyone remembers from old science fiction movies of the 1960s is still readable. The problem is that the machines they are read by are almost impossible to find. Read a article recently of NASA scientist scavanging junkyards in order to find these machine parts! So, the problem will be in 50 years finding cd drives to read the disk once everyone else moves to halographic memory crystals like those seen in the original Superman movie!

2. The media for storing the digital images aren't that great --
CDs might last ten years, maybe. Zip drives two or three years. NAS
tomorrow ....

See Kodak's web site:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/cdr/tech/lifetime.jhtml

They guarantee 100 years lifetime and estimate much longer life for
their "ultima" media. These are the discs of choice when you care
how long a CD-R will last.

 

[I F Burley]

You got to some of the same points that I was going to address.

This is only partly true. Some printers with a very regular half
tone dot pattern, like Canon's S800/900/9000 - yes, it's a problem,
but I know a professional photographer who routinely re-scans
ink-jet prints to obtain a more natural looking result.

I found myself wondering: If I have the digital data (addressed
later as to how to archive THAT data), then why would I need to
scan the print, when I could just PRINT out another from the
original data? That's the way I'd do it if at all possible. Or am I
missing the point of the issue he raised?

I don't know - I just addressed his technical point.

2. The media for storing the digital images aren't that great --
CDs might last ten years, maybe. Zip drives two or three years. NAS
tomorrow ....

This is an important point as cheap CDs probably won't last and
even so-called archival CDs are vulnerable to physical damage. You
need to back up your backups!

Exactly... if/when another favored format for archiving comes
along, naturally, I'd be moving on to that, and taking my valued
pics with me. But somehow, I foresee backwards compability being
around for a long, long time. And naturally, make sure that the
media used is suitable for archival purposes.

My professional photographer associates seem to have standardised on MO, but someone proceeded to flame me on its archival properties too!

3. The format is shaky -- do you really think JPG will be supported
in five years, not to mention any proprietary format?

No problem here - JPEG is part of the Web standard and will be
supported for eternity. Many very rarely used formats are routinely
supported in the most mundane of applications.

In a year or so, all of the digicams will be using some form of
backwards-compatible JPEG such as JPEG2000 or some other
derivative. I'm not worried about JPEG falling into nonexistance.
It's too universal at this point.

JPEG 2000 is completely unrelated to 'ordinary' JPEG. The former uses wavelet sampling and the latter DCT (discrete cosine transfer) sampling - so JPEG 2000 is not backwards compatible.

So it's not quite a slam dunk for digital .......

I think that's a meaningless statement - the problems associated
with conventional analogue photography are plentiful too you know!

Exactly. I'd say that the slam dunk of digital has already been
thrown down. We have tons of professionials using it even now in
the studios, with lots of them making full conversion of their
systems to digital. But the real slam dunk is in the acceptance by
the mass market as a whole. All the data studies on the shift to
digital sort of prove that. It's like watching the way IE slowly
made its domination over Netscape. It took some years, but it was
inevitable for a lot of similar reasons to digital eventually
becoming dominant.

A huge portion of professional output, becomes digital at some point - publications, etc. Digital is here and it's staying.

Ian

 

[Donald Cooper]

This is only partly true. Some printers with a very regular half
tone dot pattern, like Canon's S800/900/9000 - yes, it's a problem,
but I know a professional photographer who routinely re-scans
ink-jet prints to obtain a more natural looking result.

I'm not sure what low end inkjets don't use a halftone dither, though I do note that the new Epson 2200 doesn't seem to use variable dots -- and the prints do suggest that it may be using stochastic screening. Seems really odd to me that someone would want to scan a digital haftoned print, since it doesn't produce a good scan, but each to his own.

No problem here - JPEG is part of the Web standard and will be
supported for eternity. Many very rarely used formats are routinely
supported in the most mundane of applications.

Well, you're right if "eternity" is maybe ten years. But if you're thinking decades I think you're wrong. Technology moves really fast. I've got fractal images from Iterated Systems -- state of the art six or seven years ago -- which can't be read by any program -- the 16 bit programs that could read, display, and print them can't run under any Win 32 bit OS. And four or maybe five years ago about 90% of all web images were GIF -- and today plenty of programs don't support the format. Heck, I don't think TrueType will be supported in ten years, and it's really universal. And as for hardware, I'm not convinced CD Rom will be suported in ten years. Does your computer come with a 5.25" floppy drive? How about a 3.5" floppy? Can you even get a Bernoulli dirve .... ? And if you got one, could you find a driver for it?

As an aside, JPG2000 seems so much better than JPG, and it's open source, that I'm quite puzzled why it hasn't made more of a splash. But the pattern tends to be nothing when you think something should happen, then a trickle, then suddenly a flood. Any thoughts on this?

I think that's a meaningless statement - the problems associated
with conventional analogue photography are plentiful too you know!

I wasn't comparing the relative merits of digital vs. film, I was responding to the notion that you don't need to care about print longevity because you can "just print out another one." It's just not that simple, and as we go forward in time you'll have to budget the time and money to keep your formats, media, and hardware current.

 

[ksj]

Appreciate the thread. It's very useful information. I suggest caution however in assuming that a CD will last as long as a print. It's not so much that the CD will deteriorate, but that you must be careful about the format (I strongly suggest that ISO-9660 is the only way to go currently).

I put a large number of images on CD's formatted using Direct CD. Apparantly I didn't "close" the session when I created these CD's using Direct CD. While I used them frequently under my previous OS, WinXP doesn't like UDF natively. You can get a reader, but if you didn't "close" the CD writing session you can't read the CD.

I was lucky in that my old machine was sitting a few feet away and I just needed to plug in the CDR again and close the CD, but if you upgrade you could have alot of heartache...

Just something to think about...

Kevin

 

[Bob Siegel]

I agree with your suggestion to use ISO format for the CD-R, but I would not dismiss the concerns over the life of the CD itself. There are no standard tests for CD life, but many indications that the life is highly variable, and may be much shorter than the best photo prints or pigment prints.

The nature of the formated information on the CD is such that a small defective spot can render the entire image unreadable. Some types of errors can make the entire CD unreadable. An analog medium like a negative can have a defect but still be used and perhaps corrected with an editing program.

Until there is more experience, for everything worth saving, make several copies and a plan to frequently copy all CDs. With luck, newer denser media will be available, such as DVD, so you can consolidate as you copy. But don't rush to use a new format such as DVD until the standard wars are clearly over and you can go with the winner!

Appreciate the thread. It's very useful information. I suggest
caution however in assuming that a CD will last as long as a print.
It's not so much that the CD will deteriorate, but that you must be
careful about the format (I strongly suggest that ISO-9660 is the
only way to go currently).

I put a large number of images on CD's formatted using Direct CD.
Apparantly I didn't "close" the session when I created these CD's
using Direct CD. While I used them frequently under my previous OS,
WinXP doesn't like UDF natively. You can get a reader, but if you
didn't "close" the CD writing session you can't read the CD.

I was lucky in that my old machine was sitting a few feet away and
I just needed to plug in the CDR again and close the CD, but if you
upgrade you could have alot of heartache...

Just something to think about...

Kevin

 

[ksj]

Oops,

I didn't mean to suggest that CDR's have a longer life than a print. I have no idea if they will, however I treat my important CD's like I treat negatives. I imagine that just like negs and prints, if they are kept in acid free holders and not exposed to UV/Ozone they will last quite some time. I have some that are > 4 years old and seem just fine (it is funny to look at those DC120 images and think of how excited I was at the time - the DC40 images are still horrid though).

Personally I like to write 3 CD's with the same data (work, home, safe deposit box) for important material, but in this case I forgot to close most of them (Arrghh! It's gonna take forever to write these again...).

Backup daily and TEST those backups frequently!

Kevin

The nature of the formated information on the CD is such that a
small defective spot can render the entire image unreadable. Some
types of errors can make the entire CD unreadable. An analog
medium like a negative can have a defect but still be used and
perhaps corrected with an editing program.

Until there is more experience, for everything worth saving, make
several copies and a plan to frequently copy all CDs. With luck,
newer denser media will be available, such as DVD, so you can
consolidate as you copy. But don't rush to use a new format such
as DVD until the standard wars are clearly over and you can go with
the winner!

Appreciate the thread. It's very useful information. I suggest
caution however in assuming that a CD will last as long as a print.
It's not so much that the CD will deteriorate, but that you must be
careful about the format (I strongly suggest that ISO-9660 is the
only way to go currently).

I put a large number of images on CD's formatted using Direct CD.
Apparantly I didn't "close" the session when I created these CD's
using Direct CD. While I used them frequently under my previous OS,
WinXP doesn't like UDF natively. You can get a reader, but if you
didn't "close" the CD writing session you can't read the CD.

I was lucky in that my old machine was sitting a few feet away and
I just needed to plug in the CDR again and close the CD, but if you
upgrade you could have alot of heartache...

Just something to think about...

Kevin