Plus black and white traditional photographs last much long than traditional color photographs. Many early color prints from the 60's are already faded beyond repair. Color slides did better than prints and newer prints do better than older.

...............................................................................
Nolene Sherman, Dir Records Management
Standard Pacific Homes * 949.727.9360 * 949.379.3379 Fax * [log in to unmask]
∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙


-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: [RM] photographic records

I am a records manager (& archivist) with a past life as a photographer.
John is completely correct in the difference between computer and silver halide printing processes. Both depend on the quality of the materials used. A digital print on high quality paper with high quality (near) permanent inks will last a long time under ideal conditions. But will never outlast a traditional photographic print made using medium to high quality materials.

As for the citation of 500 years for photographs, I believe that refers to dye-transfer prints - the most durable and stable photographic printing process -- and also expensive. Microfilm, a photographic process, is also estimated to last 500 years.


Stephen Cohen, MLIS

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance