I make prints of selected images. I guess I feel those are the ones
worth keeping. Physical copies of everything would just be too
expensive. BTW, unlike others I am not too enthused with the keeping
quality of ink jet prints, especially since I noticed some reticulation
in some not so old prints.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Badri A wrote:
very good thread and probably very useful for designing an archival
storage system for digital media.
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.
On 4/27/06, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it has to do with computer experience rather than production
levels.
