BBC: Why your early 2000s photos are probably lost forever

[lynnb]

Both analog and digital images can be lost. The difference is in how they are lost. The beauty of digital is that it can me copied endlessly insuring a freedom from loss that analog cannot. My two cents.

This is why I scan my film, printing any significant pictures. Also, digital files can be more easily catalogued and therefore found.. if you can’t find something you have effectively lost it.

I label my negative sleeves and slide mounts, but those labels can’t describe the subject of every frame like Lightroom can. That creates another problem: what happens when Lightroom or whatever DAM software no longer exists? The best protection is for all the tags and keywords to be platform-independent. Storing digital files in folder/categories is a good idea but not as efficient as key-wording. An image that fits into more than one category creates a problem within the folder heirarchy.

In the end I want my kids to be able to identify and access the pictures that are important to them. Digital files are easier for them to work with. Every so often I give them copies of family pictures on their portable hard drives. I give them prints of the ones they like.

 

[Alpsman]

If I cut a negative in half, I can still see what's on it.
If I cut a hard drive in half...

Of course, I scan all my negatives. Why wouldn't I use this technique?
And everything is stored on three hard drives. In case two of them fail...
. . .
(Only the paranoid survive)