Slashdot Mirror

I do this (run a business that archives people's pictures indefinitely), but I can't guarantee my company will be around in 100 years. If it is, that still brings up the question, how do your grandchildren know to come to me to get your pictures?

There are media that should last that long if stored properly. There is always the possibility of unexpected reciprocity failure in testing, or a type of degradation of which we are not yet aware and didn't test for, but experts, including those at the Library of Congress and other notable institutions, seem to think that MDM-A Gold CD's will last over 100 years. Of course, this leaves the problems of
1. Will anything be able to read CD's?
and
2. Will anything be able to view JPEG's?

I would guess that the answer to these is "yes." JPEG's are so ubiquitous and maintaining support for them on computers is so easy, I suspect they'll remain readable. Maybe the equivalent to the average web-browser or whatever won't read them then, but the 2106 equivalent to GraphicConverter will.

Player availability is more ify. CD's have already been around for 24 years, and the next generation of players (HD-DVD and Blue-Ray) will still play the original CD's. As long as small spinning disks are a popular layout for data storage, the costs of including compatibility for CD's is tiny and will keep shrinking. Meanwhile, CD's are incredibly popular. So I think we've got a lot of backwards compatibility left. When we moved from wax cylinders to flat records to tapes to CD's, maintaining backwards compatibility was essentially impossible; or at least, it was no easier than making two separate machines and gluing them together. But today everything runs of general-purpose micro processors, so maintaining backwards compatibility gets easier and easier. Add to that the fact that if you have a shellac 78-RPM record from the 1890's that you can still easily buy a brand-new record player that will play it, about 120 years later. So again, if not common, I think there will be machines available that play CD's. Or at the very least, labs you can take them to for transfer, like 8mm home movies.

But I think the best method is simply to have someone keep track of them. Keep them on your computer. Keep your computer backed-up at home. Then get some kind of off-site backup, like online backup, mailing good backup disks to a relative or putting them in a safety-deposit box, or hiring me :) With constant stewardship, it doesn't matter if you media is long-lived. If your primary fails, you replace your primary and restore from backup. If your house burns down, you buy a new computer, anew backup drive, and restore from your most recent off-site backup. Nothing- the devices, the formats, the readers- have to be time-proof.

If you keep track of your photos in something like Picassa, iPhoto, etc, you'll notice if they stop working, and can get a converter and move them to a modern format conveniently, when the changeover happens and it's easy to do. Keep them organized and delete the bad ones, so they're worth looking through. And when you get older, hand them down to someone younger to care for. Maybe a younger generation won't care and will lose them all, but whether you've got them on archival gold disks, held by a professional backup company, or on your own hard drive, if your family doesn't care, it won't matter. No technology will surpass basic stewardship within your family. However, the incorrect technology could destroy them all, so do some research and take some precautions.

It's considered to be more time stable than hard drives, conventional mass-produced CD's and DVD's, flash-RAM, and others.

Owner of an Epson Styles Photo R-800 ink jet here. I've had it for nearly a year now and I've been very pleased with it. With the right paper, http://www.inkjetart.com/photo_papers/ceramic/glos s.html, these are almost undistinguishable from lab prints. A couple of 4x6 ink-jet prints that I gave to my nephews were left on the dashboard of the family vehicle during the summer. Said pictures are still quite vivid. There is a tiny bit of sun fade when you compare it to another fresh print, but you really have to look close and with a critical eye. The Epson Ultrachrome inks are substantially better than ink tech even 3 years ago. With a bit of shopping, you can get the price per print down to around 40 cents. Compairable to lab prices, plus you get the convenience of doing home prints.

Not too terribly bad IMO.

• 173 4x6 prints (all but 15 or so were the full 4x6 borderless)
  4 cleaning cycles
  about 10 nozzle checks

• 173 4x6 prints (all but 15 or so were the full 4x6 borderless)
  4 cleaning cycles
  about 10 nozzle checks

Why don't you guys use a CIS system for your printer (approx. value of $15.00) and aftermarket ink that can be as good as OEM ink, using these two in combination can save your printhead ?
Aftermarket ink costs approx. $7.00 per kilogram, having this system and printing every few days will give you a longer printhead life (no ink clogging in the printhead).
You can also use aftermarket high glossy paper which costs aprox. 2 cents for an A4 page when ordering in value of $3000.00 from the manufacturer, I'm sure you can find for few more cents each page in lower quantities.
As for the print protection you can use something like PremierArt Eco Print Shield:

http://www.inkjetart.com/premier/eco.html

Of course, there are other substances that can be imported A LOT cheaper and mix it yourself with solvents then use a liquid laminator for your home made laboratory.

I was reading reviews that the Canon ip6000D printer is as good as photolab prints, it's printhead is guaranteed for the life of the printer (3600 4x6 pictures) and this beauty is a real workhorse.

If you're trying to say that using aftermarket ink and paper will ruin your printhead, printer and void the warranty then continue using expensive inks and paper or just go to the corner photo lab. All the big websites will say that prints using aftermarket inks are lower quality than the OEM inks, these are only statements backed up by manufacturers money which don't earn a dime (they even lose) from selling printers, but from all consumables for these.
You can always apply different colour schemes for the pictures using aftermarket inks and the result will be 99% close to the original inks or 100% if you have a good eye.

You can read some interesting stuff about aftermarket inks here:
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/inktest.html
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/inkjetstuff1.html
This guy talks about it and has some other interesting tests. It seems that he is not affiliated with any manufacturer.

One more thing. Don't try to buy a CIS system, ink and paper from your corner shop or regular website, there are companies in Asia that sell exactly the same thing for prices 20 times lower.
It will take time to match the paper and ink but when you finally do, you get your own home photo lab with a merely 3-4 cents per A4 picture, not including the price of the printer.

Good luck.

Already done. You'll pay a lot more than for the generic 100 to a spindle CD-Rs, but they should last a lot longer.

Shameless plug: http://www.inkjetart.com/mitsui/index.html

If you buy them in 100's, they're $1.09 each.


Or you could always "save" your pictures by printing them (and they will fade in <20 years unless you're using an archival printer). Check out http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ for more info on that.

An Epson 2200 or Canon S9000 is going to set you back about $500. Good inks for the Epson (the Ultrachrome inks) cost another $90.00 (for all colors), and good paper (archive quality) goes for about $0.50 / sheet. With Epson, I get longevity at the cost of image "punch". With Canon, I get faster, quieter prints and stronger colors, but they fade faster. If I go with a cheaper Epson (say, the 2000), I have to deal with terrible metamerism, a cheaper Canon I get terrible B&W. Each print is going to cost about $1.50 a page at best. This doens't factor in the cost of the printer itself.

Or, I can custom profile my photos for specific machine output (using Dry Creek's wonderful database), take my photos to CostCo/Sam's Club/Walgreens, where they print on Fuji Frontier's, pay $0.18 for a 4x6, get better color and more longevity.

Pretty simple decision to me.

What about an Epson 1280 with Lyson Fotonic inks and a CIS?

It seems to meet all your criteria.
- Well under $700 ( $300)
- Lasts well over 10 years
- Prints 13 x 19's
- Has a wide gamut with bright colors
- Makes excellent prints (without any "bronzing") on both Matte and Glossy papers
- And, as I listed above, works well with Lyson's CIS system.

Of course some of the sprays are also known to slightly change the color tones too
The sprays slightly increase the contrast by making the blacks appear darker. That's all. If you think they actually change the colors, get your ICC profile made with a coated printed target. But they don't shift the colors, they just extend the contrast ratio a little further into black.

They're much more resistant to light, scratching, and plain old entropy than other CD's. They're the only digital media certified by the Library of Congress, and most other libraries, as an "archival medium."

Here's some more info and a place to buy them.

I'll have to second this.

Another thing to consider is what you expect in terms of quality. Do you want your prints to last a long time? Do you want to be able to use color profiles to make the color closely match your intent?

A really good place to do some reading, especially for people going for extra high-quality output is inkjetart.com.

Personally, I have two Epson printers. One is a $600 Epson 2200 using Epson's own UltraChrome inks, which can go for 150 years without fading if you use the right paper. The other is an Epson c82, which I got for $30 as a display model on clearance. I bought third-party ink for it on sale, probably $25 for two full sets of black and color inks. When I first put it in, I had to run a flew ink cleaning cycles, but it has performed well since then.

Perhaps you could post here and say more about what you are looking for.

Check this lower left chart for super A3 size info.

This printer was shown at the Photo Marketing Association (PMA) show in Las Vegas back in January. The printer is being targeted to scrapbookers - there's the female side of it. Epson had a display up with a bunch of monitors and women on the screens talking about scrapbooking. Pictures and more here (scroll down about one page).

"You can't actually print them in an archival format"

Absolutely false. Recent HP printers are pushing 50-year Wilhelm numbers, and you can always get a CIS and run real ink on real paper. I'd be shocked if any of my prints looked any different in 50 years.

Check out InkJetArt for a start. (Not an endorsement, just an example)

These CDs WERE NOT WRITTEN TO

And here is the key.

I've seen other tests where CD-Rs can't be written reliably after sitting around blank for a few years or artifically "flash aged" using elevated heat &c.

That matters to me a bit, but what's much more important is how reliable the data can be read after *being written*, then stored for years.

I use Kodak pseudo-golds (they don't make the real gold on gold ultima anymore) for anything I care about. The discs should be good, but they are also actually made by Kodak. No problems with the manufacturer changing & the brand remaining the same. No research on who's selling the best Taiyo Yudens this week needed.

Oh, shit! Good things never last. Well, the folks I bought my last batch of Kodak's from have a replacement: Mitsui Golds

I don't abuse my "archival" discs, so I don't care much about scratch-resistance, which is all some "life" discs offer. I care about bit rot.

Wouldn't companies want to make their printers last longer because it would build customer loyalty (and hopefully result in the customer buying LOTS of cartridges from them)?

It's funny to note that the expensive epson 3000,5000,5500,7000,9000
printers (wide print format) don't have print cartridge chips .

As for knocking down color printing costs, I'm looking into getting an automatic ink refill system. These are the ones I've encountered so far.

"IJC Bulk Feed Systems" (chip resetters and 'full' chips)

"Continuous Inking System(1)"
"Continuous Inking System(2)" (not necessarily affiliated with each other.

"Continuous Flow Systems"
(automatic chip resetter at this company)
Parts for building your own feed system for an un-supported printer.

"Continuous Charging System"
(carries continuous refill systems for Canon printers in addition to Epson models and option of buying smaller [cheaper] bottles.)

"Camel Ultra-FLO CRS(TM)"
CRS(TM) - abbreviation for the term Continuous Re-inking System(TM)"
(Carries Canon as well as Epson)

Inkjet Buying Guide(with printer recommendations, and refill companies, drivers, etc.)
"I have two Canon BJ-200 printers that have made a total of at least 150,000 copies without any problems...The gallon of black ink is about $32 including shipping."
"Other than the Canon BJ-200, all other CANON PRINTERS are off my buy list because the HIGH COST of operation."

(The author doesn't give definitive numbers nor methodology --duhhhh...he's not "testing" either)
His copy rate for ink is running at almost 1/50th of a cent ($0.00021) at a fraction of a laser printers speed I suppose --Though he is running two in parallel, and is adding a 3rd I believe; that could speed things up.

For comparison Samsung ML-1430 Laser Printer (a nice printer IMHO) runs at 1/5 of a cent per page at higher print speeds.

continuous inking systems allow you to modify your inkjet to use external pressure fed ink bottles. you can buy the ink by the pound(!), and only fill those colors which need refilling. most vendors also offer a range of specialty inks, and archival quality inks if you're a photographer trying to sell the print. google shows me a few like this:

http://www.getink.com
http://www.inkjetart.com/cis/index.html
http://www.nomorecarts.com
http://mediastreet.com/n2