Print or purchase?

The link I put up describes in more detail about the technology. And it is my understanding and have been told by a lab technician that the right combination of paper and good ink is supposed to last 25 years provided certain recommendations are followed such as not displaying the image in direct sunlight etc

Quite amazing that 'real' photographs are still with us from the middle of the 19th century then, I dont expect digital prints to last anywhere nearly as long since many dyes are inherently fugitive.

Ken

Oh okay. That must be some pretty amazing ink and paper combo then! I sometimes put a few snapshots of my son on our notice board by the back door. There is no glass cover or frame, they are just attached to a steel board with a magnet. This location gets maybe an hour a day of direct sunlight very early in the morning when the sun is very low. You should see how much the photos fade after a year! I'll try and post some photos this evening comparing an original (new) print to how they look now.

I've recently been asked by wifey to print a few photos of a friend's son to be framed as a gift for the friend. Rather than have to warn her to not put it in direct sun I've got it printed at Boots to ensure a non-fading photo.

FTo the best of my knowledge fading ink jet prints has always been an issue. A few years back dye sublimation printers and thermal wax printers were considered to be expensive but possible future alternatives. Do those technologies see any use in home photo printing these days?

I wonder what the life expectancy of an image on DVD, or other electronic storeage might be: Assuming it is stored properly, and the technology for play back is still available. I heard some place that electronically stored media decays over time, any thoughts on this:

DVDs are optical media, and the dyes do degrade with time.

Non-volatile memory may also decay, but magnetic media are pretty resilient. We still have all those 1950s and 1960s master tapes from the music industry, and, with a bit of care and some restoration work, we can still remaster from the original videotapes where the BBC didn't actually re-use them.

However, formats do become obsolete, for example the 5.25 inch floppy disk, and reading them might be a problem in the future.

Having said that, how often do we look at our 30 year old negatives? Maybe we are getting a bit too anxious about the future of images that, largely, we may not really need any more. We shoot new ones, don't we?

I read somewhere that it was 100 years.

As a long term project, I have been creating a Family Tree. I use Family Tree Maker software, this enables me to save photographs, birth certs etc in idividuals Albums. I have acquired b&w photographs from elderly aunts, www, etc, I take photos of houses and cottages they once occupied, wedding photos etc. It is all very boring for todays generation but I feel it will become an interesting historical record in 30 to 40 years time. The data base currently has some 6,000 individuals and approx 200 photographs and goes back to 1710. If I printed a hard copy of the 'Tree' I would be able to paper the lounge with it How to preserve this,securely with its attached photos and documents, for the long term: Any suggestions on secure archives:

That sounds like a great resource for your family, but I'd be inclined to preserve it as a paper record of all the material, with an attached CD or DVD version for day to day use. You might also consider a Blurb book version.

I'm afraid that whatever you do, unless someone else eventually takes up the task, sooner or later it will fall into disuse and have to be repeated by some future generation.

It's very difficult to keep anything for ever.

JR said: It's very difficult to keep anything for ever.

I fear you may be right. The paperless office has not really happened. Back to hard copies

What you need is some kind of write-once-read-many (WORM) media, where the writing process is irreversible (i.e. cannot be erased by magnetic fields, or sunlight). So that would rule out Rewritable CDs and DVDs, magnetic tape, hard and floppy disc and solid state media.

Hmmm .... punched cards anyone?

Actually I suppose you could get it all put on CDs. I mean 'real' CDs, where the laser is reading a small physical depression in the CD media and not the difference in dye colour in that location. Sounds expensive though, I have no idea how much having such a 'master' CD made would cost.

The use of pigment, instead of dye inks, in certain inkjet printers, is said to greatly increase the fade resistance. Epson with its K3 Ultrachrome pigment ink is claiming up to 108 years in specified conditions using epson media. Although they don't guarantee the life of the print.

A colour print on photographic paper won't stand up to direct sunlight - you need a Cibachrome, Ilfochrome or whatever it's called now to do that.

It's sensible to wall mount any picture out of direct sunlight. After all, art galleries shield their windows to keep the paintings safe.

Who knows of good online photo printers to do A2 and A3 size photo prints?

I've always used Epson A4 printers from the Stylus Photo range and the results have been indistinguishable from lab-produced prints. My latest model, the R265 (now discontinued), uses Claria inks that Epson claims will last 98 years (there's precision for you) on a wall or 200 years in an album. I'm sceptical, but may not be around to prove them wrong unless I give up smoking. Judging by the prices quoted in this thread for larger prints, an A3 printer wouldn't make financial sense for me, although others may prefer the control and instant gratification that in-house printing gives you. I bought my first Sylus Photo, the 830, after reading very positive magazine reviews and haven't looked back. The cheaper models don't have the lifespan of professional kit but the results seem just as good and the replacement cost is low.

Al

I use these ones and they did a pretty decent job. Got a few A2 and A1 sizes at reasonably good prices and the quality was pretty good. Ended up without any prints already as everyone who came home and saw them wouldn't budge without one print.