From: "Badri A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have a sub-poll: how many of those who primarily shoot digital think
it's a good idea to also invest time and money in retaining an
'analog' (print/transparency) copy of your photos in a suitable
archive?
I find this attractive because, unlike digital storage, analog storage
will likely degrade but not be destroyed barring fire/other calamity.
Some (fuzzy and faded) memories are better than no memories.
I would find it not worth the trouble. Too expensive and too time intensive
as you've alluded to. I understand and share the sentiment, it's just that
there is not a fail-safe plan. I would prefer to just have multiple backup
copies on different media and to occasionally create new backups.
Tom C.
