Linda

Advice I have received is that B&W prints on archival quality paper are
still preferable.  Colour prints are a no-no of course although I believe
there are photo papers that claim to be archival quality but I've seen no
reports on the accuracy of that claim.

I got around this issue recently by taking 35mm slides and having them
scanned at the same time.  That takes care of at least a reasonably colour
fast record (properly stored they'll last a few decades) and it's relatively
cheap, at least in Australia. Probably even cheaper in the US.  That way you
have slides and digital images (which on their own are not favoured at all
for archiving).  Convert the digital images to grayscale and print on
archival quality paper on your own colour printer.  Bingo, you've got the
lot and you can make the prints reasonably large.

Having said that I guess there are a myriad of other approaches out there.
i'll watch this discussion with interest.


Gordon Grimwade

> From: Linda Derry <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:18:14 -0600
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Archiving photos
>
> What is the current thinking on archiving site photos?  Is B&W film still
> considered better than digital images on CD (or other digital media)?  Where
> does Kodachrome rank archivally in relation to digital?
>
>
> I did a quick search of the listserve archive and NPS conservo-grams and was
> unable to find a good answer.
>
>
> Linda Derry
> Site Director
> Old Cahawba Archaeological Site
> 719 Tremont Street
> Selma, AL 36701-5446
> 334/875-2529
> [log in to unmask]