29th June 2007, 10:57 AM
I can't really understand one strand of this discussion which suggests that digital photographs are less stable than 'conventional' silver halide or colour-dye photographs. I mean that's just rubbish.
Digital photographs (as the name suggests) are created from a code sequence that once established is permanently stable. What is unstable (and untested) is the method of storage and display of photographs created from digital data. If in doubt about the carrier, isn't it possible to preserve the code sequence in some other form?
In the same way that archaeological archives have to protect their collections from insects, fungii, chemical and biological deterioration, what makes it so much more difficult (or expensive) to protect from technological obsolesence?
Digital photographs (as the name suggests) are created from a code sequence that once established is permanently stable. What is unstable (and untested) is the method of storage and display of photographs created from digital data. If in doubt about the carrier, isn't it possible to preserve the code sequence in some other form?
In the same way that archaeological archives have to protect their collections from insects, fungii, chemical and biological deterioration, what makes it so much more difficult (or expensive) to protect from technological obsolesence?