Print it or lose it!

Just spotted this on the website of my Dead Link Removed, there's also more info on the PMA site.

Basically, it's a campaign along the lines of a lot of threads I read around here, prints last and digital doesn't.
(well, to be fair, digital can last, but you gotta know what you're doing and update/backup/etc regularly. Prints can last by doing nothing more than being stored in an attic for 100 years and being not burned down).

but there's one thing about this campaign that piqued my interest:

We are currently creating more photographs than ever, and the value of any one image is very low... Just making prints will not help. We will be inundated with forests worth of prints... And because the [old silver-based] prints cost money, only a few were printed, only the most important images have survived. This is now an urgent situation. We are facing a catastrophic loss of our social history.

Click to expand...

So they're saying that in order to save our history, we should print (I know they're selling archival-quality inkjet whereas most readers here would prefer 'wet', but the sentiment is the same).
But we shouldn't just print everything, there's just too many photos taken these days.
In the olden days, people only printed a few photos because of the price (I know it wasn't unheard of for people to save for a year to pay for one portrait session on the daguerrotype).
So the shop, by charging more, are actually helping us to cut down and only print those special few* that we can afford, and because we spent more on it we're going to take care of it better.
Can't argue with that.

Unfortunately you need a PMA membership to download the full sized campaign posters, but I do love these images:



(*except when those who can afford it just print out hundreds of archival-quality lolcats shots. If there are humans around in a hundred years they're going to think we were all a bit nuts. I can just imagine some future archaeologists: "they were destroying their planet and knew about it, but they didn't try stop it. They seemed to be obsessed with cats, was there an epidemic of some contagious mental illness like siphylus going around at the time?")

I quite like that, actually. Take really good care of those pictures that are truly special, for whatever reason. Although I must say that in order to arrive at those really special pieces, it takes time and patience to wade through all of the pictures that are not. So in the end it becomes a thing of editing, and showing only your best work.

And cats.

Hmm. Doc, didn't realise you were in South Australia (!)

It's true, if it's not printed, you could very well lose it. But disasters happen. Tasmanian photographer Olegas Truchanas lost his life's work in 1969 when his house burnt down. He started again of course, but history was lost (chiefly Lake Pedder before damming). But you've also got to take reasonable care in storing negatives and transparencies, and prints; I think the majority of APUG people here have a good working knowledge of that.

Interesting stuff from a lab. I don't use local labs for cheapie prints because they are digital-centric and frown on the notion of film photographers. But my own prints at pro-level cost anything from $66 to $300 (then add framing cost). The best must, must, must be printed, no exception. They'll be around for a long, long time, much longer than the troves of data masquerading as "photographs" on millions of PCs. None of my early digi pics from around 2001 on CDs are readable now. Not that I care (I remember I kind of looked embarrassingly younger then...)

Wang Computer Co. published a report in the early 1980s warning that digital storage had no proven, established permanence. Working in actuarial administration at the time, it was recommended that we backed up data 3x a day, and "critical" content be copied "multiple times" with one copy established as "hard output" (e.g. printed) for security. This was done, albeit with a huge amount of paper used! I remain unmoved by overtures in digital that it has any degree of permanency because warnings were made many decades ago. But you can't tell today's generation of know-it-alls! Are their photographs ever going to be printed? Ever...?

Cats ARE a contagious mental illness. Talk to the little old lady down the road from me. Last count is 26.

Gerald C Koch said:

Cats ARE a contagious mental illness. Talk to the little old lady down the road from me. Last count is 26.

Click to expand...

One moggie here is quite enough. Can't imagine how a little old lady can feed 26 from her pension... catastrophic number, really...

Heh, I thought someone might post that from the Atkins newsletter. A Fuji campaign to get people to print (and therefore use lots of Crystal Archive ) is at the root of it.

Dr Croubie said:

(*except when those who can afford it just print out hundreds of archival-quality lolcats shots. If there are humans around in a hundred years they're going to think we were all a bit nuts. I can just imagine some future archaeologists: "they were destroying their planet and knew about it, but they didn't try stop it. They seemed to be obsessed with cats, was there an epidemic of some contagious mental illness like siphylus going around at the time?")

Click to expand...

Oh yes, and worse than you probably imagined: Toxoplasma gondii not only causes rats to lose their fear of cats, it seems to cause risk-taking behaviour in humans. While it's not quite as dramatic a mind-control parasite as Ophiocordyceps, don't be under any misapprehensions as to our feline overlords.

only stone tablets are proven to be archival.

RalphLambrecht said:

only stone tablets are proven to be archival.

Click to expand...

Only if stored properly and only if the next King does not want to erase what you wrote!

Pioneer said:

Only if stored properly and only if the next King does not want to erase what you wrote!

Click to expand...

Well, the current so called Prime Minister of Australia wants to re-write our history.....so I suppose you have a point.

Fancy this coming up after the conversation that was had on Monday night, Polyglot! Don't show this to Steve....

I'm pretty sure this campaign is what got him started! PS he is on here...

hoffy said:

Fancy this coming up after the conversation that was had on Monday night, Polyglot! Don't show this to Steve....

Click to expand...

Damn, makes me wish I'd made it on Monday (would have come, but it was this pesky business of the missus turning 30 that day...)

Poisson Du Jour said:

Interesting stuff from a lab. I don't use local labs for cheapie prints because they are digital-centric and frown on the notion of film photographers. But my own prints at pro-level cost anything from $66 to $300 (then add framing cost). The best must, must, must be printed, no exception. They'll be around for a long, long time, much longer than the troves of data masquerading as "photographs" on millions of PCs. None of my early digi pics from around 2001 on CDs are readable now. Not that I care (I remember I kind of looked embarrassingly younger then...)
[...]
I remain unmoved by overtures in digital that it has any degree of permanency because warnings were made many decades ago. But you can't tell today's generation of know-it-alls! Are their photographs ever going to be printed? Ever...?

Click to expand...

Thankfully here, in Europe, there are many labs that work both with film and digital. In my city there is even a B&W+inkjet specialist.
I found an online photofinisher that does 75 free 4x6" prints, all the time, so I pay just shipping. They make the profits with all the more "gimmicky" stuff, as photobooks, albums, calendar and photo gifts. Meanwhile, I've printed just about all the snaps I have worthy for printing. Given some prints of friends to them. They like it.
And got printed some scans and files to Fuji Pearl paper (metallic), ironically, half of them were shot with kodachrome, so probably the original will outlast the print.
My dad loves his picture with a forest backdrop I took 3 years ago.

A rather overlooked feature that fuji minilabs have (at least both of the photofinishers above) is that they an print the name of the file at the back but all labs I know don't advertise it. Makes for perfect captions. Such as date+location.

Our current generation (I am 18) doesn't mind printing. An acquittance told me last summer "it's expensive, I just put them on Facebook and there it goes"... That triggered my interest in printing... Is it really that expensive? Perhaps but on smaller big sizes (A4/8x10) and for the worthy stuff, IMO, not.
Anyways, most of the cameraphones are ideous for prints. I suppose the high end smartphones are fine up to 5x7" on good light however.

I once lost two different folders of photos. One was of a school event and I got upset. Another would deem to be important as one of the persons (family friend) snapped would die at a young age (40s)... And we had almost no more pictures of her!

Pioneer said:

Only if stored properly and only if the next King does not want to erase what you wrote!

Click to expand...

I recommend slate.

Poisson Du Jour said:

One moggie here is quite enough. Can't imagine how a little old lady can feed 26 from her pension... catastrophic number, really...

Click to expand...

Cataclysmic, more like it. It would put me in a catatonic state. The whining around feeding time of our two mongrels already is hard to bear.

Boy this hit home.. Last week my Seagate 1 TB HD went belly up. Nearly had an heart attack. I work a phot lab at a AF base. My boss is a tech savy guy and he offered to stick the HD in a toaster device. After using a technique by using enersia, we got the plates to read and drop the digital images and other thing of importance on his computer and then tranfered them on a MAC My Passport Hd drive. It was scary..Before that, I call Disk Saver in San Fran in California and they qouted me a min of $750.00 to retrieve data. I dodged a bullet. I guess the closes thing to archival is photographic negitives. Unless they fall victim to water or fire. I was thinking..? How many layer of back up do you need? It seem infinant!! So yhea.. print your better things and go back to acid free photo Albums.

Todd

ToddB said:

Unless they fall victim to water or fire. I was thinking..? How many layer of back up do you need? It seem infinant!! So yhea.. print your better things and go back to acid free photo Albums.

Todd

Click to expand...

I had the misfortune of having to change accommodation while I was at university. I had my stuff stored for a week while I was away, and before I could move into the new accommodation. The storage room got flooded during a torrential downpour, and when I got back, there was damp in all my books, and also some of my sleeved films. A large part went unscathed, but I did lose a few films. Nowadays, I store my negatives a lot better. I try to scan everything, too, but it is time-consuming. At least that way I have an electronic copy if the analogue version is lost, but it is obviously not quite the same thing.

I should mention too. That I had minor mis happen in dark room. I tipped over my beer on some of negs. I took them out quickly rinsed them trough some photo flo and dried them. They are OK. After that.. I realized that I need to put thing away so that doesn't happen again.

Todd

Oh the irony.

Last night I went to dev the two B+W (9x12 apx100) shots I did on the weekend, in my 3-reel paterson and Mod54.
I've heard some stories about people using these too violently and the film slipping out.
So I was so careful, did a Rodinal 1hr semi-stand, no inversions just the occasional roll along the benchtop, same for the stop and the fixer. (I know they were fine after the fixer cos I took a peep before washing, still in place in the holder)
But then I was washing, and was too violent, the film slipped out of the holder, and with rolling it along the bench the Mod54 rolled around inside and put a nice big scratch along both (of course, 1/3rd from the top, right where the faces are).

So there's the digital karma gods getting angry with me, negatives aren't infallible either. (but yes, totally my fault, I'll only make that mistake once).
I'll pick up the Porta and Astia from Atkins today, hopefully there's something salvageable there...

I’m a fan of inkjet printing because now it is becoming really good and better than much darkroom stuff. If you work with alternative processes, you quite often reach chemical stages where the image changes colour, fogs, etc. But hey presto, scan it and print ink jet and we are into another ball park. This is where digital is an enhancement of the chemical process. No either or but a useful addition.

This thread was semi-timely for me, so thank you for starting it. I recently acquired a Mamiya RB67 for cheap, and have shot 5-6 rolls of various film with it. I really like how the big negatives scan but haven't got 'round to printing. Reading this, I got off my duff and brought my darkroom back to life last night. My Dektol was brown but it still worked (the powder was, I mean, I try and keep the bag airtight and only use what I need for a print session) and after 3 misprints I got a nice image to hang and dry, and I was only up til a quarter after midnight. Ah the joys of a non-light-tight laundry darkroom.

What an amazing machine, that RB67, and a lovely print of an old steam engine. Thanks for the prompt to get me going!