One of America’s premier sources of arboricultural fact, Dear Abby (1/19/00), had a letter from a 1 hour film processor warning people about a few aspects of digital photography- 1.The obvious potential for catastrophic data loss through equipment failure, 2. The inks and paper used in standard computer printers are far less stable than the photographic counterpart that goes through a fixing process to stabilize the image. His suggestion is to always take some film photos and/or have negatives made of digital photos.

What are your thoughts? How long does a computer printed image stay as printed? What are costs and processes for making negatives of digital images? Anybody heard of a stabilization process for digital photo inks and paper?

Reply to post by Nathaniel Sperry, on January 20, 2000 at 12:01:04:

Computer printed images don't last a long time. The dyes in the ink fade quickly, especially if left exposed to light for long periods. The good news is they are cheaper to reproduce (by just a little) than new prints.

Saving your images to CD (or perhaps DVD) is now the best way to archive digital images. You can always print another copy that way. Many of the film services now can put your negatives or slides directly onto CD, too.

Transferring digital to film requires equipment that exposes the film to the image. It uses a tiny projector, with a film holder attachment. Not something most people will add to their hardware wish list. Cost is high for these.

You can also find processors that will print your digital images onto regular film or print on photo paper. Seattle Filmworks is one, and there are others. Cost is usually a few dollars each.