I keep having trouble finding these when I want to cite them, so I’m finally going to look through them once and take notes!
(The original archive has gone, but there seems to be a full archive here).
I keep having trouble finding these when I want to cite them, so I’m finally going to look through them once and take notes!
(The original archive has gone, but there seems to be a full archive here).
This came up in comments on TOP, and I realized I’d written enough that I wanted to make an article of it and keep it here where I could refer to it easily.
Craig Norris referred to this article about digital bit-rot that he had suffered, and that got me thinking about whether I’m covered against that sort of problem. He says he’s getting a stream of email from people who have had similar problems. I’ve never seen anything like that in my own collection—but I’m doing quite a few things to cover myself against such situations.
Here are things I’m doing to insure the integrity of my digital photo archive:
(I believe the BTRFS and NILFS filesystems for Linux also do block checksums. ZFS is available in Linux and BSD ports, but none of these are mainstream or considered production-ready in the Linux world (the original Solaris ZFS that I’m running is production-grade). You could simulate block checksums with a fairly simple script and the md5sum utility, making a list of the MD5 checksums of all files in a directory and then checking it each week.)
You’ll notice I can’t achieve these things with white-box hardware and mainstream commercial software. And that ongoing work is needed. And that I’m behind on a couple of aspects.
I won’t say my digital photos are perfectly protected; I know they’re not. But I do think that I’m less likely to lose a year of my digital photos than I am of my film photos. A flood or fire in my house would be quite likely to do all the film in, while my digital photos would be fine (due to off-site backups). (So would the scans I’ve made of film photos.)
Furthermore, I realized recently that I’ve been storing my film in plastic tubs, nearly air-tight, without any silica gel in there. I’m working to fix this, but that kind of oversight can be serious in a more humid climate. (If I lived in a more humid climate, I might have had enough bad experiences in the past that I wouldn’t make that kind of mistake!)
Anyway—the real lesson here is “archiving is hard”. Archiving with a multi-century lifespan in mind is especially hard.
Film, especially B&W film, tolerates benign neglect much more gracefully than digital data—it degrades slowly, and can often be restored to near-perfect condition (with considerable effort) after decades in an attic or garage, say.
Most people storing film are not doing it terribly “archivally”, though. Almost nobody is using temperature-controlled cold storage. Most people store negatives in the materials they came back from the lab in, which includes plastics of uncertain quality and paper that’s almost certainly acidic.
Digital archives are rather ‘brittle’—they tend to seem perfect for a while, and then suddenly shatter when the error correction mechanism reaches its limits. But through copying and physical separation of copies, they can survive disasters that would totally destroy a film archive.
A digital archive requires constant attention; but it can store stuff perfectly for as long as it gets that attention. My digital archive gets that attention from me, and is unlikely to outlast me by as much as 50 years (though quite possibly individual pictures will live on online for a long time, like the Heinlein photo).