The beginning of the article is great. He's focused on a mere 600 images and a lot (or as much data as he could glean) of detail about those images. Great stuff.
The ending is the sad truth. Unless printed in some number and passed around the family, such memories will fade or die. Passing them around electronically is a near sure way to kill them. People do not back up or organize their data adequately and eventually a disk lies with data on it, on a shelf or in a dump, never to be seen again.
For most of us with a digital workflow (of sorts or very deliberate) the data is likely to survive at least one generation beyond our leaving this earth ... however, unless you print the best, most important and most meaningful images - they are near doomed to die digitally. And annotate those digital images as much as possible. Further, consider releasing them into the cloud as public images as long as it's reasonable that the data will remain intact within the images (and there is nothing too personal about the images).
I recently attended a 50th anniversary party and photographed discretely and formally just about everything. Part of this was a great outdoor group shot, with rain, flash and sunlit dappled horizon. I printed this large (and it has been framed). The family is having a dozen copies of a bound book with many of the photos of the day printed for the family (they will add the appropriate captions). That will be an enduring memory for the family.
Alan Browne wrote: > I recently attended a 50th anniversary party and photographed discretely > and formally just about everything. Part of this was a great outdoor > group shot, with rain, flash and sunlit dappled horizon. I printed this > large (and it has been framed). The family is having a dozen copies of > a bound book with many of the photos of the day printed for the family > (they will add the appropriate captions). That will be an enduring > memory for the family.
I really must get back to the wet darkroom. Even my inkjet prints are fading. The B/W laser prints are OK but wet looks better.
Murray wrote: > Alan Browne wrote: >> I recently attended a 50th anniversary party and photographed >> discretely and formally just about everything. Part of this was a >> great outdoor group shot, with rain, flash and sunlit dappled >> horizon. I printed this large (and it has been framed). The family >> is having a dozen copies of a bound book with many of the photos of >> the day printed for the family (they will add the appropriate >> captions). That will be an enduring memory for the family.
> I really must get back to the wet darkroom. Even my inkjet prints are > fading. The B/W laser prints are OK but wet looks better.
I use a pigment based printer. I don't expect displayed photos to fade for a very long time.
Murray wrote: > Alan Browne wrote: >> I use a pigment based printer. I don't expect displayed photos to >> fade for a very long time. > Are they available for Canon?
It's an Epson formulation for Epson high end printers (3800 in my case). I believe the high end Canon's likewise have high lifetime pigment based carts.
Murray wrote: > Alan Browne wrote: >> I use a pigment based printer. I don't expect displayed photos to >> fade for a very long time. > Are they available for Canon?
|
