 |
||||||||||||
The art of archiving by Michael Maunder, from Ag27 |
||||||||||||
Page 2 0f 9 |
If a screen is to be the final method of display, that is not the same thing as a permanent display through the same screen, something often overlooked in the discussion. The actual screen technology is irrelevant. What we are discussing in archival terms is the equivalent of an 1820s original photo, hanging on a museum wall somewhere. Doing that through the same screen for more than a few days is beyond our technology due to subtle ageing changes in phosphor layers on the tube, to say nothing of colour balance against the standard brilliance as conceived. Flat screen technology is a lot better than cathode-ray tubes, but not perfect yet. For permanent displays, the same or similar media to photographs have to be adopted. Many of these have the same origins - a layer of something on paper. All the questions on permanence come down to this same problem: making the coating layer up to the job. Only time will tell. That is all we can say about it. Technical polymers are bound to be more consistent than biological gelatin. But what about adhesion to the paper, discolouration, dust collection and all the other problems associated with a domestic environment? Museums know how to prolong the life of the image, but millennia-old cave paintings can still show us a trick or two. Then, what about the paper itself? Polythene was supposed to be indestructible - it lasts a mighty long time, but landfill is full of discoloured and broken stuff. Substitute another plastic material and you only beg the question until sufficient time has passed to prove genuine superiority. Modern paper is quite remarkable, totally unlike the newsprint of only a few years ago. Weekend magazines prove the point. Read about some paper alternatives in Tim Daly’s detailed discussion on ‘Alternative inkjet printing papers’ (Ag Vol 22), he says: ‘If you’re bored with printing your digital images onto high gloss papers, there are plenty of other materials to try.’ It is a recommended guide through the options. The rate of change is phenomenal, and it keeps going. And therein lies a potential problem. When I bought the pc on which I’m writing (in 1998) it had 128MB memory, and then thought way ahead of its time and intended for picture ‘crunching’. That specification has already become the low end of standard and now the processing speed of a new pc is 10-fold faster. To that extent we can be confident that the basic electronics in a computer system is retro-proofed and will cope with anything from the past. Next Page >> |
|||||||||||
• Latest Issue |
||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This website is © 2008 |
||
|
|
|