Strategy for scanning complete 35mm negative collection

  • Thread starter Thread starter redtag
  • Start date Start date
So, I think you are all saying "do the best full scan that you can, and
stop moaning" :-)

Yes, do the best scan you can and do the least amount of editing
before archiving (!) i.e. scan "raw". You can always "add" things to a
raw scan, but you can't remove an edit afterwards (at least not
without loss of data).

Don't stop moaning, though, because that's how we find easier ways to
do things! ;o)

Which then, of course, makes us stop moaning anyway...
If I want thumbnails, then buy some software and create those
afterwards from the FULL scans.

Or make them yourself! But, either way, most definitely do them from
full scans! After all, you want thumbnails to represent those full
scans, not be a parallel impression from a second scan possibly with
different settings which risks not even resembling the full scan.
Final question, should I use the standard supplied Nikon software, or
are there any great time advantages in using Vuescan? Would it be
quicker? Could I then use post scan processing - so saving time?

Beware of Vuescan because it's extremely buggy and unreliable (check
the archives!!). This is especially critical if you want to scan raw
and archive the originals. You don't want Vuescan to mutilate them
before you even start. Vuescan is OK, for casual use (e.g. tiny web
JPGs and such) where quality is not important.

Nikon Scan can do everything you want and more. Actually, if you scan
raw for archiving, turn everything off!

Final thought, if you scan for archiving don't cut corners by trying
to do too much at once. In my book, scanner software is there to
*scan* not to edit! For editing use an image editing program
afterwards. On top of everything mentioned above, you don't want to
edit using a scanner program because that means using a tiny subset of
tools available in a proper editing program and through the "keyhole"
of a scanner preview display.

Don.
 
Actually, DVDs *do* have error correction. Indeed, much more than CDs!
About 10 times more which is way beyond increased relative capacity!

So, taking into account the increase in capacity vs increase in error
correction, DVDs are actually *much safer* than CDs.

Don.


NIST recently did a study of CD and DVD storage and life expectancy.
I wasn't reading it for info about DVDs, just CDs, but my recollection
is that there were lots of unknowns with DVDs and if all the details
are paid attend to to CDs can be very reliable.

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/

Any critical data needs to be backuped up to multiple copies and kept
in seperate locations. If you also buy seperate brands of media and
follow storage recommendations you're prettty safe.

Every few years, when a new generation of higher-density media comes
along, you can copy lots of older media to one new disk. Make several
copies. Keep the older disks, just in case.
 
Roger apparently said,on my timestamp of 6/10/2005 4:17 PM:

Yup. As a friend of mine says: it's not a matter of "if" you'll
lose digital data, it's a matter of "when".


Jim Gray, a research scientist for Microsoft, describes
something he calls the "personal Petabyte" as the amount of
storage needed to adequately digitize one's entire life,
including images, text and video. That's 1000 terabytes.
A long way to go, eh? :)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petabyte
 
Guys,
I have a Nikon Coolscan IV and have played succesfully with scanning my
35mm negatives. Works a treat. However I have several years worth of
negatives to get through!
Can someone share practical advise on how to go about this? I was
thinking of using the scanner as a catalogue device and just save a
thumbnail of all negatives, and correlate them to the negatives. I
would scan a negative, save the thumbnail and file the negative.
Then I can go through the thumbnails and select the pictures I want to
scan. More importantly my wife and kids can look at the thumbnails and
pick out individual pictures as well.
Any thoughts on that? Can I save just the thumbnails on the Nikon?
Should I just scan all the negatives first time round - will take a
looonnngggg time :-)
Cheers


I'm figuring this out as I go. I bought a used film scanner. It's slow.


What I'm doing now is sorting out all my slide and neg strips and
putting them into archical 3-hole pages. I label each slide
with a sheet# and slot # so I can put it back and find it again.

My scanner is set up so I can be scanning while I'm doing email, web
browsing, etc and get a few done a day. I scan to minimun detail
(fastest) and, add the slide # to the EXIF info and put the file info
a filesystem directory structure. Each day I click run "jalbum" which
rebuilds a "website" that serves as a contact sheet for everything
I've scanned to date.

These scans are good enough for the web and I can go back and rescan
individual slides at higher res if I want to, or get a fancier
scanner someday.

I use these 3-ring binder-in-a-box things with vinyl sleves.

http://www.adorama.com/FSBSAB.html

I burn a CD and make a proof sheet for the contents. It all goes
together in appropriate sleeves in the box.
 
There is no one way to do it. It just takes a long time to scan all of the
negatives and slides.

I made a huge mistake, I was thinking that I could catalog all of the film
at a low resolution and then rescan selected images. It did not happen!

I recommend that you scan everything at the best resolution of the scanner,
because good intentions don't always work.


Agreed about not getting back to things, but if I scan at max res I
may never get to it in the first place. It takes hours.

"Best quality" on my film scanner is 60+MB tif. I just located my
shots from an arctic trip, about 1,000 frames now that I've put them
in sleeves.

As I described in a previous post, I'm plowing through them at low
resolution scanning and using a simple website as a modern proof
sheet. If I make a real web site out of it I'll scan the best shots at
higher resolution and use the low-res shots for decoration.

With low res scans on a web site I can enjoy them, reminisce, and show
them to friends, and start roughing out a real website.

If I get a new scanner or learn better technique I'll go back
and rescan, anyway.
 
"redtag" asked about scanning a "lifetime" of 35mm negatives.
--------------------------

You've gotten some good advice, particularly about the importance of
archiving. Here is my 2¢:

First some questions: How many images are we talking about? How many are
Very Important, how many are Keepers, and how many are Losers? What do
you intend doing with the images?

As to resolution issues, this is a question of how large you want to
make prints. There is a (terrible) temptation to scan at your scanner's
highest res because you can and because you *might* need a large print
some time. I scanned my slides and negatives at 2800ppi (2500x3800
pixels) because I sometimes wanted to make cropped 4x6 prints and
1400ppi (1250x1900 pixel) images were occasionally too small. I'm not
entirely happy with the decision as I think 2800ppi is overkill for most
images, but I am very glad my scanner won't do 5400ppi so I'm not
tempted to do something really wasteful.

For all desktop scanners, their biggest drawback is the quality of the
pixels they generate, and nothing in the specs of a scanner addresses
"pixel quality". In the future, there may be significant quality
improvements that would make a guy want to rescan Very Important images,
but today's quality is probably good enough for all other Keeper images.
I wouldn't worry about having to rescan most images for any reason in
the future.

As to workflow, there are lots of options, just as there are lots of ice
cream flavors. I have a ScanDual III.I scan with Vuescan and save the
base scan as a mid-level jpeg. I then process the scan (crop, spot,
color-correct, etc.), save a full resolution copy, and save a screen-res
copy. Full res files are about 500KB and screen res images are 200KB, so
I can store all images on my hard drive plus archive the images in a
reasonable number of CD's. I have about 12,000 hi-res images in about
9GB and some 60 CD's of archived files. I have all images backed-up on a
second hard drive on my only computer.

When I want prints, I crop and resize the hi-res copy to 300ppi for the
print size.

Vuescan works very well for me. I have no problem with it at all.

I would not save files as Lab-color files. There is no advantage to it
over RGB, and it only complicates life. Except for color correction, any
use you want for the file will be RGB or CMYK. You can convert back and
forth between RGB and LAB until the cows come home and you will never
see any change in the file.

I began using Adobe RGB (1998) because I thought it was better than
sRGB. There may be a slight gamut advantage to Adobe RGB, but sRGB is so
universal that for most uses it is much more convenient. I recently
converted all my files to sRGB so I won't have to worry about sending
someone an Adobe RGB file and having them hose it by thinking it is
sRGB.

I file negatives chronologically and scan and save them by rolls. I
number and date each roll and save the negatives in sleeves (sheets) in
3-ring binders. I save an index file (from Vuescan) for each roll I scan
and make a cheap 8½x11 print of that file to file with the negatives so
I can easily see what is on each roll. For negatives, I scan all images
on a roll except the really bad ones and I may scan them if there are
only one or two on a roll as it is easier to scan them than to exclude
them. For slides, I edit the slides and scan only the Keepers.

I've tried several indexing programs (Portfolio, Adobe Album, etc.) but
have not found them useful--too much work for too little return. I can
generally find an image by doing a search in Windows Explorer for some
word I think is in the file name. I also have saved a copy of the index
file in a separate directory for the rare times I need to search for an
image that Windows can't find.

As they say, your mileage may vary, but this works for me.

Preston Earle
(e-mail address removed)
www.SawdustForBrains.blogspot.com
 
They have their own set of problems, but I prefer DVDs as they are
physically more rugged, the recording layer is protected, and Nero is
capable of verifying every thing written is the same as the file being
copied.

NIST recently did a study of CD and DVD storage and life expectancy.
I wasn't reading it for info about DVDs, just CDs, but my recollection
is that there were lots of unknowns with DVDs and if all the details
are paid attend to to CDs can be very reliable.

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/

The truth is we don't know for sure about either. We only know from
accelerated age life testing and interpolated data from that. For me,
CDs are just too small even when I get them for free and the last 100
were free with rebate. The last 50 DVDs only cost 33 cents each. All
4 of my R/W drives will read and write CDs, DVDs and dual Layer DVDs
although I've never purchased any dual layer DVDs due to the price.

I'll stick with high speed single layer DVDs until HD HDTV, or Blue
Ray disks become standard. Then I'll get a drive for which ever
becomes the standard or de facto standard. OTOH I wouldn't be
surprised to see R/W drives that will be able to handle both.

I'm not usually an early adapter when it comes to storage technology
changes.
Any critical data needs to be backuped up to multiple copies and kept
in seperate locations. If you also buy seperate brands of media and
follow storage recommendations you're prettty safe.

Every few years, when a new generation of higher-density media comes
along, you can copy lots of older media to one new disk. Make several
copies. Keep the older disks, just in case.

The biggest problem is so many of the typical users don't bother to
back up, let alone make archival copies or dual copies and keep them
in separate places. Most computer users still have a casual
relationship with computers and think of them like their car. Let
some one else worry about what goes on inside.

If the typical user were smarter with a tad more ambition the net
wouldn't be flooded with viruses, worms, bots, and ... well, you get
the idea, unfortunately most don't.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger
 
Final question, ...using Vuescan? Would it be
quicker? Could I then use post scan processing - so saving time?

It has been a good thread up to this post, but can I feel the sharks
thrashing the waters now? There is at least one zealot and one flamer in
this group whom I expect will "suggest" you read the archives for all the
discussions re: Vuescan rev.x.x.x and the similarly functioning Silverfast
xx by LaserSoft . Those are the only oft-mentioned contenders in this
otherwise unpopulated category.

For the record, I used Manufacturer supported programs as well as VueScan
for: Epson 2480 Photo LE ( the mini-ADF for 4x6s has hung very seldom),
Kodak RFS3570, PIE PrimeFilm, Minolta Scan Multi Pro; and saved everything
as a TIF despite the subsequent conversions to be suitable to an audience
of computer monitor or TIVO/TV watchers blinking to the dissolve rate of
the slideshows. Too late to get honorable mention in the will.

Promise the kids you'll emerge for their high school graduation ceremony
but don't expect them to remember who you claim to be....
Regards,
 
NIST recently did a study of CD and DVD storage and life expectancy.
I wasn't reading it for info about DVDs, just CDs, but my recollection
is that there were lots of unknowns with DVDs and if all the details
are paid attend to to CDs can be very reliable.

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/

Longevity is a different story but as far as error correction goes
DVDs are more reliable than CDs.

BTW, I don't trust either the CD or DVD "projections". It's all fairy
tales as far as I'm concerned because it's based on their "accelerated
aging" experiments which basically means increase temperature... :-/

Personally, I simply check my collections at regular intervals and
since I have two backups, if one fails I just make another copy.

BTW, there is also a DVD FAQ at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ with more
information.
Any critical data needs to be backuped up to multiple copies and kept
in seperate locations. If you also buy seperate brands of media and
follow storage recommendations you're prettty safe.

All very good advice! For CDs I used gold/gold for master backup and
they really are... well... pure gold... ;o) Haven't had one fail yet!
Every few years, when a new generation of higher-density media comes
along, you can copy lots of older media to one new disk. Make several
copies. Keep the older disks, just in case.

Indeed! I usually have two backups plus a "working copy".

Also, perhaps over the top, but when I make those two backups I master
each separately i.e. I do *not* make one and then do a "disk copy" but
actually do two separate complete burns with mastering. This takes
longer but further reduces any chance of spurious error.

Don.
 
The truth is we don't know for sure about either. We only know from
accelerated age life testing and interpolated data from that.

Exactly! All that's really guesswork. In case of CDs it's already been
proven wrong on several counts. Not only in terms of projected
longevity but also totally unforeseen, out-of-left field problems.

For example (and this is no hoax) but there's apparently an organism
which eats the substrate causing the CDs to get "mouldy". Also, due to
bad sealing some early CDs had a tendency to "rust" i.e. oxidize.
For me,
CDs are just too small even when I get them for free and the last 100
were free with rebate. The last 50 DVDs only cost 33 cents each. All
4 of my R/W drives will read and write CDs, DVDs and dual Layer DVDs
although I've never purchased any dual layer DVDs due to the price.

Yes, CD capacity these days is simply insufficient.

It just occurred to me that each media is suited for a different type
of data. CDs were OK for text, but insufficient for still images. DVDs
are, sort of, OK for still images but not for moving images. That's
where the new high density DVDs come in.

But, as always, storage (of any kind) just never seems to keep up with
developments.
I'm not usually an early adapter when it comes to storage technology
changes.

Smart move! Neither am I. I follow it all with interest, of course,
but I let others be the guinea pigs... ;o)

On paper, I like Blue Ray better. Not only because of higher capacity
but also because it doesn't tie itself in knots in order to be
backwards compatible (always an overrated feature which only stifles
any new development).

Don.
 
It has been a good thread up to this post, but can I feel the sharks
thrashing the waters now?

Those "sharks" are harmless compared to the rabid Vuescan apologists.
For one, the "sharks" base everything they write on *facts*. Rabid
Vuescan apologists, by contrast, just spew obscenities and insults.
this group whom I expect will "suggest" you read the archives for all the
discussions re: Vuescan rev.x.x.x and the similarly functioning Silverfast
xx by LaserSoft .

Over here in reality we called that "being informed".

Are you suggesting *not* to read the archives? Interesting advice...

It's clear why rabid Vuescan apologists would rather run away from
facts because these documented facts (i.e. the archives) expose all of
the many Vuescan problems.

As you so ably demonstrate, they prefer to close their eyes and just
lash out. Shooting the messenger hasn't solved a single Vuescan bug!

Don.
 
Chomp! You broke my boogy board! I'm drowning in your invectives!
Welcome back Don.
Are you suggesting *not* to read the archives? Interesting advice...

Such "straw man" dissembling and prevarication from the zealous promoter
of "objective facts". Why no commentary on Silverfast, which I noted in
the same sentence.
Perhaps it was unsportsmanlike of me to have aided in the chumming, Don.
Sharks are so very focused.
Your contributions in this and earlier threads for other topics have been
informative (most recently NIST re. storage media) if not as entertaining
and diversionary.
Why don't you have the last word.
Regards,
Theo

Pessimists remain morose precisely because they are too right too often.
 
Roger apparently said,on my timestamp of 6/10/2005 4:17 PM:

Yup. As a friend of mine says: it's not a matter of "if" you'll
lose digital data, it's a matter of "when".

I have both and I've still been there and done that. I didn't get a
t-shirt for it either.

I find it sad to see a post for help on here every once in a while
that some one needs to recover the images on a disk. Still, it's very
true, that no matter how good your system, sooner of later you are
going to lose some data you can't replace.
Jim Gray, a research scientist for Microsoft, describes
something he calls the "personal Petabyte" as the amount of
storage needed to adequately digitize one's entire life,
including images, text and video. That's 1000 terabytes.
A long way to go, eh? :)

Considering how much I've gone through in the past few years, I don't
think it'd come near being enough. <:-))

Just with digital images I shoot about 80 Gigs a year of personal
interest stuff. If I were traveling and recored what I like I could
easily multiply that many times over and that's no video, audio, or
text.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 
Beware of Vuescan because it's extremely buggy and unreliable (check
the archives!!). This is especially critical if you want to scan raw
and archive the originals. You don't want Vuescan to mutilate them
before you even start. Vuescan is OK, for casual use (e.g. tiny web
JPGs and such) where quality is not important.

My experience with the Nikon LS5000 ED has been very good with
VueScan.
Nikon Scan can do everything you want and more. Actually, if you scan
raw for archiving, turn everything off!

I use both Nikon Scan and VueScan. Nikon Scan can easily become
confused with dark straight lines. I shot the auto show in Detroit a
few years back and Nikon Scan was chopping the 35s off when it found a
vertical line in quite a few instances. VueScan did not.
Final thought, if you scan for archiving don't cut corners by trying
to do too much at once. In my book, scanner software is there to
*scan* not to edit! For editing use an image editing program
afterwards. On top of everything mentioned above, you don't want to
edit using a scanner program because that means using a tiny subset of
tools available in a proper editing program and through the "keyhole"
of a scanner preview display.

VueScan will open the images for editing in your chosen program. This
works great if you have the time to do the scanning and editing all at
the same time. I use it to rotate images, but that is about it.

However, even editing in VueScan you can work with full screen images
as you can with NikonScan. OTOH I still prefer to do everything other
than scratch and dirt removal and faded slides in Photoshop although I
also use Jasc's Paint Shop Pro (easy) and Photoshop elements.

My biggest problem right now is Charter's News server which is
insisting I have too many connections and I have one. I'm going to
have to find a good subscription service.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 
<cough><choke><:-))

Each program has it's strong points and its week points.
Each additional step in scanning will add time to the scan process.
Each step in post processing will add time to that work.

As an example, using *either* VueScan or Nikon Scan my LS5000ED takes
about 20 seconds per image be they slide or negative. Adding IR
cleaning (scratch and spot removal) will easily take that to 30
seconds or a tad more. I'm not counting the set up for each image in
either program.

With color correction, faded slide restoration, grain reduction you
can easily take it out to two minutes per scan, but it's work that
won't have to be done later.

You can also set either up to use a photo editing program. Nikon
wants to use their own program, but it still lets you do a fair amount
of editing. Depending on what you do this can take considerable time
using either program.

As a side note VueScan has far more *user* selectable features where
they, or most of them are automatic in Nikon Scan. You may, or may
not find that feature an advantage. Just remember that more user
settings are more places where you can go wrong so it has a much
steeper learning curve. Not everything in Nikon Scan is intuitive to
the first time user, but it is far simpler to use. Still there are a
lot of post processing options available within the scanning program
without having to do any real hands on editing.

Some people swear by it and some swear at it. I use both Nikon Scan
and VueScan and have few complaints with either. I was able to use
Nikon Scan right off the bat. It took a while to get proficient with
VueScan. You'll find people have favorite software and hard ware and
what some love, others hate.

Then again Photoshop CS has a much steeper learning curve than Jasac
Paint Shop Pro, or even Photoshop Elements. Even though Photoshop has
more features, converting from TIFFs to JPGs and resizing them
requires you learn how and then create a macro while Paint Shop Pro
has the feature built in and you only enter the path to the input and
output files, what kind you want and the size. There are a few more
items, but the one is far simpler to learn to use for that task and it
is one whale of a lot less expensive. Photoshop Elements does it much
like Paint Shop Pro.
It has been a good thread up to this post, but can I feel the sharks
thrashing the waters now? There is at least one zealot and one flamer in

Circling at least. <:-))
this group whom I expect will "suggest" you read the archives for all the
discussions re: Vuescan rev.x.x.x and the similarly functioning Silverfast
xx by LaserSoft . Those are the only oft-mentioned contenders in this
otherwise unpopulated category.

Me? I have no favorites, at least not yet.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 
I have both and I've still been there and done that. I didn't get a
t-shirt for it either.

I find it sad to see a post for help on here every once in a while
that some one needs to recover the images on a disk. Still, it's very
true, that no matter how good your system, sooner of later you are
going to lose some data you can't replace.


In business, system administrators that lose data that has been
identified as important to the business get fired.
 
My experience with the Nikon LS5000 ED has been very good with
VueScan.

Many frustrated Vuescan users beg to differ as they keep posting
reports of bugs which never seem to get fixed. The best way is to
check the archives and, with that knowledge, do the evaluation.

As I keep saying, it all depends on one's requirements, one's
threshold for quality and - last but not least - one's tolerance for
recurring bugs.
I use both Nikon Scan and VueScan. Nikon Scan can easily become
confused with dark straight lines. I shot the auto show in Detroit a
few years back and Nikon Scan was chopping the 35s off when it found a
vertical line in quite a few instances. VueScan did not.

Considering the two-year Vuescan bug saga with Minolta (the "stripes")
this sounds more like Vuescan is *adding* those lines/stripes!?

Nikon Scan gets cranky when trying to turn things off - especially
auto exposure (!) - but it's very reliable and does output quality
data *consistently* which can't be said of Vuescan which oscillates
wildly and unpredictably which each new release.
VueScan will open the images for editing in your chosen program. This
works great if you have the time to do the scanning and editing all at
the same time. I use it to rotate images, but that is about it.

In general, it's not a good idea to cram too much in memory. Photoshop
needs all the RAM it can get otherwise it starts to crawl. If all you
want is to rotate the image, a more efficient workflow would be to use
actions and do the rotation (unattended) after the scanning.

But why not rotate in Vuescan? That way you can eliminate the
Photoshop step completely. Or do you "scan raw"? As far I recall,
Vuescan can't rotate raw scans.
However, even editing in VueScan you can work with full screen images
as you can with NikonScan. OTOH I still prefer to do everything other
than scratch and dirt removal and faded slides in Photoshop although I
also use Jasc's Paint Shop Pro (easy) and Photoshop elements.

The same as above goes for Nikon Scan. Of course, each person's
requirements and preferences differ but I, for one, would separate
scanning from editing for a number of reasons.
My biggest problem right now is Charter's News server which is
insisting I have too many connections and I have one. I'm going to
have to find a good subscription service.

I get a similar thing occasionally (very rarely, though). The master
newsserver complains about too many connection from my particular
provider (presumably, they only pay for a fixed number). When that
does happen trying a couple of minutes later usually works.

Don.
 
Such "straw man" dissembling and prevarication from the zealous promoter
of "objective facts". Why no commentary on Silverfast, which I noted in
the same sentence.

Because I leave it to the reader to check the archives and make up
their own mind. *Either* way!

And yet all you saw (through the red haze) was a reference to Vuescan.

It's that hair-trigger touchiness caused by that huge chip on your
collective shoulder which unmasks the rabid Vuescan apologists for
what they are, as you (again!) so ably demonstrate two times in a row.


Here's the full context for calm people who actually bother to read
instead of just lashing out:

--- start ---
this group whom I expect will "suggest" you read the archives for all the
discussions re: Vuescan rev.x.x.x and the similarly functioning Silverfast
xx by LaserSoft .

Over here in reality we called that "being informed".

Are you suggesting *not* to read the archives? Interesting advice...
--- end ---

Don.
 
It's true re the bacteria that has developed the ability to live of some of
the CD substrate (Makes sense. Most are organic dyes after all.). However,
the conditions required make it unlikely to be an issue for most. Ditto re
the oxidizing problem. An even bigger problem was cheap CDs that faded over
time (bought some, and cursed the day I did!).

What needs to be noted in these discussions is that ALL archive/storage
media have certian weaknesses, but digital is definitely superior in MOST
cases than non-digital. Not absolutely flawless, but mostly so. Continuous
cycling and updating provides for a continuous creation of new backups. And
(IMHO) that's the best way to go.

For example, I have an extensive music colleciton that I committed to mp3
for convenience about five years ago. It's grown over time and now numbers
10,000+ tracks with variations created for dancing (speed, length, info,
etc) nubering some 2,000+. The orignals were stored infolders onVerbatinCDs.
Then I moved them to Fuji DVDs. About every three months I update the
collection to reflect the new additions and information and
changes/variants, or to collect certain themes together. So the colleciton
is constantly changing and being updated. I store the 'old' copies so that
if the 'new' copies are lost or damaged, or for some unforeseen reason a
track or folder is damaged, I can recreate them.

It seems to me that much the same will occur with my photos when I get to
scanning them.

The important thing about creating digital copies is that -- for the MOST
part, in MOST cases, more often than not -- the digital copy will outlive
the original and the digital copy 'freezes' the original in the state it was
on the day it was made. By all means, archive the originals and protect
them, but not making a digital copy whenit is so cheap to make nad store
them is (imho) foolish.
 
An even bigger problem was cheap CDs that faded over
time (bought some, and cursed the day I did!).

I had some of those, however, I only use cheap CDs for my "working
copy", not for permanent backup. I don't know whether it's due to
constant usage or them not being stored properly (like the masters)
but some of those cheap CDs didn't even last a year!

I consider that working copy a disposable one so that's one place
where cheap CDs could be used (I also use them for temporary
storage/backups).
What needs to be noted in these discussions is that ALL archive/storage
media have certian weaknesses, but digital is definitely superior in MOST
cases than non-digital. Not absolutely flawless, but mostly so. Continuous
cycling and updating provides for a continuous creation of new backups. And
(IMHO) that's the best way to go.

Exactly. Although, I do find digital (concept) perfect because it does
not cumulatively deteriorate with every new copy like analog does
(whatever the source: sound, pictures, etc). The only potential
problem is the front end, i.e. the digitizing but that has nothing to
do with digital as such and applies to analog as well.

What I mean by this is that, qualitatively speaking, digital is only
as good as the way it was created! And any problems downstream can
usually always be traced back to that very first step!

That's why I (for one) keep harping on about the importance of
scanning raw to capture everything on the original analog media. If
that data is not captured in the first place there's no way of
recreating it later! I find this to be essential!

Consequently, this is why software used to perform this step is so
crucial and there should be absolutely zero tolerance (!) for any
faults or unreliability because, again, if the software corrupts that
original pure data up front, there's no way of getting it back later!
For example, I have an extensive music colleciton that I committed to mp3
for convenience about five years ago.

I'm still to do my LP collection but it keeps getting postponed
because my Nikon got me bogged down with Kodachromes. I did, however,
digitize my own tapes because, like film, they deteriorate with time.
LPs, by comparison, can live "forever" if they aren't used and are
stored properly.
The important thing about creating digital copies is that -- for the MOST
part, in MOST cases, more often than not -- the digital copy will outlive
the original and the digital copy 'freezes' the original in the state it was
on the day it was made. By all means, archive the originals and protect
them, but not making a digital copy whenit is so cheap to make nad store
them is (imho) foolish.

Indeed! I would even go further and say that digital has the potential
to outlive all originals simply by its ability to be copied losslessy
ad infinitum. Of course, that takes work with regular cycling etc but,
then again, the same goes for conventional archiving media which does
deteriorate with each new generation.

The beauty of digital is that one loses nothing with each subsequent
copy and with each new advance in storage technology the physical size
gets smaller! So I'm eagerly looking forward to the day when my whole
"digital life" will fit on what, in the future, will be the equivalent
of a USB memory stick! Hopefully with room to spare! ;o)

Don.
 
Back
Top