Creating "museum quality" ink-jet prints.
Roger P
sometimes used archival procedures (including toning, repeat washing, air
drying, etc.) to create prints that would last for a long time. Does anyone
know about archival procedures for digital printing on an inkjet. Is there
"museum quality" inkjet printing paper? Museum quality ink? I have an Epson
Stylus Color 800?
Roger
Kenny A. Chaffin
says...
I understand what you are saying, but I guess it strikes me as a bit
odd that you'd want to archive on paper when you have a digital version
of the image that could be copied/stored essentially forever and printed
in the future at perhaps even better quality, etc. etc.
Best Wishes,
--
KAC
Website Design, Programming, Graphics --> http://www.kacweb.com
ke...@kacweb.com
David Kyte
Epson at this time, but there are some companies out there who are creating
high quality Iris prints.
The best ones like Nash Editions http://www.nasheditions.com/ use high quality
paper and inks with better archival properties.
Roger P wrote:
> I used to print black and white professionally before digital came along. I
> sometimes used archival procedures (including toning, repeat washing, air
> drying, etc.) to create prints that would last for a long time. Does anyone
> know about archival procedures for digital printing on an inkjet. Is there
> "museum quality" inkjet printing paper? Museum quality ink? I have an Epson
> Stylus Color 800?
>
> Roger
--
David F. Kyte
http://home.att.net/~davekyte
"My God can beat up your God"
David Kyte
>
> I understand what you are saying, but I guess it strikes me as a bit
> odd that you'd want to archive on paper when you have a digital version
> of the image that could be copied/stored essentially forever and printed
> in the future at perhaps even better quality, etc. etc.
>
Maybe because you can hang a print on the wall, show it at an exhibition and
hopefully sell a print or two. Not may people would buy a work of art if it
came on a floppy disk.
Believe it or not some fine artist who work digital are creating limited runs
of signed and numbered Iris prints
and than destroying all copies of the electronic file. It adds value to the prints.
Anthony
>I used to print black and white professionally before digital came along. I
>sometimes used archival procedures (including toning, repeat washing, air
>drying, etc.) to create prints that would last for a long time. Does anyone
>know about archival procedures for digital printing on an inkjet.
You don't archive digital images on paper; you simply keep the original data
files. Prints will deteriorate over time, no matter how they are made,
whereas the original files will last forever and will never deteriorate.
There is no point in printing out images for archiving purposes. That is a
remnant of the old analog days.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>Maybe because you can hang a print on the wall, show it at an exhibition
and
>hopefully sell a print or two. Not may people would buy a work of art if it
>came on a floppy disk.
But that is exhibition, not archiving. If all you want to do is safely
archive, you keep the image in digital form, which is infinitely superior to
any analog copy of the image.
>Believe it or not some fine artist who work digital are creating limited
runs
>of signed and numbered Iris prints
>and than destroying all copies of the electronic file. It adds value to the
prints.
Whatever makes money. That's not archiving, either, however.
--
Anthony
David Goerndt
Anthony wrote:
>
>
> But that is exhibition, not archiving. If all you want to do is safely
> archive, you keep the image in digital form, which is infinitely superior to
> any analog copy of the image.
>
>
> Archiving and Archival are two different things. Archiving refers to storing
> something like digital data, whereas archival refers to a process of making
> photos or prints last a long time without deteriorating. I believe the
> original post was refering to how to make archival ink-jet prints.
Jim K
>Roger P wrote in message ...
>
>>I used to print black and white professionally before digital came along. I
>>sometimes used archival procedures (including toning, repeat washing, air
>>drying, etc.) to create prints that would last for a long time. Does anyone
>>know about archival procedures for digital printing on an inkjet.
>
>You don't archive digital images on paper; you simply keep the original data
>files. Prints will deteriorate over time, no matter how they are made,
>whereas the original files will last forever and will never deteriorate.
There is a lot of argument going on right now about the archival
"value" of digital files. There is a surprising short lifetime on
floppies and tapes. CDROMs are somewhat better, but their lifetime is
limited as well.
What seems to be a bigger worry is if there will be any thing around
that will be able to read/print a 40 year (or even 4 year) old file. A
lot of NASA data from the 70s has had to have special hard ware remade
because what was state of the art then is no longer around.
It's not that long ago that Electric Pencil and Scripsit were the
"hot" word processors. Try to find a current program that will read
those files.
I got one them stupid * in my name
Jim Kajpust - Personal Freedoms - Michigan
http://www.concentric.net/~jkajpust
Anthony
>There is a lot of argument going on right now about the archival
>"value" of digital files. There is a surprising short lifetime on
>floppies and tapes. CDROMs are somewhat better, but their lifetime is
>limited as well.
The two are unrelated. Most people have a poor grasp of what "digital"
means and tend to think in terms of analog storage media, such as tapes,
floppies, and the like. The lifetimes of analog media are definitely
limited, but the digital information itself never wears out. If a floppy
starts to wear out, you simply copy its contents to a new floppy. You can
do this an infinite number of times without ever causing any change or
deterioration in the information contained on the floppy.
>What seems to be a bigger worry is if there will be any thing around
>that will be able to read/print a 40 year (or even 4 year) old file.
This is not a problem if you copy the file to a newer storage medium before
40 years elapse.
>A lot of NASA data from the 70s has had to have special hard ware remade
>because what was state of the art then is no longer around.
But once the hardware was remade, the data was as good as it was on the day
it was created.
>It's not that long ago that Electric Pencil and Scripsit were the
>"hot" word processors. Try to find a current program that will read
>those files.
I should hope that files written by those would have been copied to
something else by now.
As I have pointed out before in other fora, an excellent example of digital
storage is the written word. We still have the text of Shakespeare's plays,
even if we don't have the paper he wrote them on--and that is because
writing is digital, like digital imaging. The same is not true of
Leonardo's paintings, unfortunately, because they were not digitally
encoded.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>> Archiving and Archival are two different things. Archiving refers to
storing
>> something like digital data, whereas archival refers to a process of
making
>> photos or prints last a long time without deteriorating. I believe the
>> original post was refering to how to make archival ink-jet prints.
Why not just reprint the image if the old one wears out. You don't need
archival prints if you have the original data file.
--
Anthony
David Kyte
Anthony wrote:
> Why not just reprint the image if the old one wears out. You don't need
> archival prints if you have the original data file.
Because a print is real and palpable thing that can be viewed touched and
sold for what it is. And as an artist if I make a limited run of a work I
have an obligation to guarantee when signed and numbered that it is only one
of a certain number.
And who will reprint the replacement? ME? What if I am not around or dead?
Do I have to worry about some technician cranking out prints in whatever is
the hot printer this year that may not meet my standards for what the print
should look like.
>
>
> --
> Anthony
David Kyte
Anthony wrote:
> As I have pointed out before in other fora, an excellent example of digital
> storage is the written word. We still have the text of Shakespeare's plays,
> even if we don't have the paper he wrote them on--and that is because
> writing is digital, like digital imaging. The same is not true of
> Leonardo's paintings, unfortunately, because they were not digitally
> encoded.
And if you did it would not approach the real thing for color texture and the
wonder of seeing brush strokes from the hand of the man himself. I would much
rather have a original Picasso on my wall instead of a picture of one.
Larry Preuss
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
">"Jim K wrote in message <35c4baed...@news.cris.com>...
">"
">">There is a lot of argument going on right now about the archival
">">"value" of digital files. There is a surprising short lifetime on
">">floppies and tapes. CDROMs are somewhat better, but their lifetime is
">">limited as well.
">"
">"The two are unrelated. Most people have a poor grasp of what "digital"
">"means and tend to think in terms of analog storage media, such as tapes,
">"floppies, and the like. The lifetimes of analog media are definitely
">"limited, but the digital information itself never wears out. If a floppy
">"starts to wear out, you simply copy its contents to a new floppy.
[snip]
How do you know when that floppy "starts to wear out"?
--
Larry Preuss
Ann Arbor, MI
USA
Charles Platt
> There is a lot of argument going on right now about the archival
> "value" of digital files. There is a surprising short lifetime on
> floppies and tapes. CDROMs are somewhat better, but their lifetime is
> limited as well.
I have Commodore 64 disks from 1980, still readable. I have Mac game
disks from 1983; none of them have become unreadable. I have analog audio
tapes from more than THIRTY YEARS ago which are still readable. Media have
improved since then. Of course if those audio tapes had been filled with
bits rather than sinewaves, a few bits would have been lost in dropouts by
now. Clearly, then, we need encoding with redundancy, or encoding that is
tolerant of gaps in the data stream. But my basic point is that I see no
big problem in the media, if it is stored carefully.
As for format redundancy, obviously when a new format comes along you
convert your old files. I used to use Syquests; now I use Zip disks; soon
I will burn CD-ROMs. In each case, I move the old data into the new media.
> It's not that long ago that Electric Pencil and Scripsit were the
> "hot" word processors. Try to find a current program that will read
> those files.
My early word processing was done on a program I wrote myself. Those files
have been copied and the embedded commands have been converted, long ago.
No doubt they'll go through another, similar process in the future.
I think the basic rule is, you only lose data if you're careless.
If you're really concerned about format redundancy, you can always save an
image in an uncompressed format that simply writes the RGB values for each
pixel. I find it hard to imagine this becoming unreadable. If you're
worried about magnetic fields or CD-ROMS delaminating, dump your image
data as hexadecimal codes onto a printer loaded with acid-free paper. This
will always be machine-readable if necessary. Too bulky? Transfer to
microfilm, which is specifically designed to have a long shelf life.
Mark Durgee
|How do you know when that floppy "starts to wear out"?
When the AOL sticker starts to peel off.
Mark Durgee
Zeitbauer
>From: jkajpus*t...@concentric.net (Jim K)
>Date: 8/2/98 10:05 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <35c4baed...@news.cris.com>
>
>"Anthony" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Roger P wrote in message ...
>>
>>>I used to print black and white professionally before digital came along. I
>>>sometimes used archival procedures (including toning, repeat washing, air
>>>drying, etc.) to create prints that would last for a long time. Does anyone
>>>know about archival procedures for digital printing on an inkjet.
>>
>>You don't archive digital images on paper; you simply keep the original data
>>files. Prints will deteriorate over time, no matter how they are made,
>>whereas the original files will last forever and will never deteriorate.
>
>"value" of digital files. There is a surprising short lifetime on
>floppies and tapes. CDROMs are somewhat better, but their lifetime is
>limited as well.
>
>lot of NASA data from the 70s has had to have special hard ware remade
>because what was state of the art then is no longer around.
>
>"hot" word processors. Try to find a current program that will read
>those files.
>
>
>Jim Kajpust - Personal Freedoms - Michigan
>http://www.concentric.net/~jkajpust
>
marginal.... the mootest is that you can save the digital file and that a
translator device will probably enable some sort of laser device to reprint....
if it must be, though, that a good little home has to have a trog computer
grafik on the wall, then the quality of the paper will be primary... and then a
finishing surface over the ink will protect....
i've an mfa in foto...and the worry in foto is mostly chemical residual and
deterioration of dye... my wife has cibachromes on our walls, from when i did
production printing in boston, and they are still saturate after 4 years in
hawaii light.... being ciba's, they look like placemats, of course.... but that
is more mooter.
may ur prints look as real as c-41's... that's what ansel adams is working on
in hell at this very moment.
m o i k
David Goerndt
Anthony wrote:
> David Goerndt wrote in message <35C4A338...@iag.net>...
>
> >> Archiving and Archival are two different things. Archiving refers to
> storing
> >> something like digital data, whereas archival refers to a process of
> making
> >> photos or prints last a long time without deteriorating. I believe the
> >> original post was refering to how to make archival ink-jet prints.
>
> Why not just reprint the image if the old one wears out. You don't need
> archival prints if you have the original data file.
> I think this issue comes into play when prints are sold and displayed. The
> value of a print is sometimes tied closely to it's longevity. Once an
> image is printed, whether it be digital or analog, it becomes essentially
> an original. Many artist strive to make those "originals" last a very long
> time, for monetary reasons. This issue is just now being addressed in the
> digital world and will become more important as the art world accepts
> digitally created art work and it commands the same prices.
David Goerndt
Anthony wrote:
> David Goerndt wrote in message <35C4A338...@iag.net>...
>
> >> Archiving and Archival are two different things. Archiving refers to
> storing
> >> something like digital data, whereas archival refers to a process of
> making
> >> photos or prints last a long time without deteriorating. I believe the
> >> original post was refering to how to make archival ink-jet prints.
>
> Why not just reprint the image if the old one wears out. You don't need
> archival prints if you have the original data file.
> I think this issue comes into play when prints are sold and displayed. The
> value of a print is sometimes tied closely to it's longevity. Once an
> image is printed, whether it be digital or analog, it becomes essentially
> an original. Many artists strive to make those "originals" last a very long
David Goerndt
> I have Commodore 64 disks from 1980, still readable. I have Mac game
> disks from 1983; none of them have become unreadable. I have analog audio
> tapes from more than THIRTY YEARS ago which are still readable. Media have
>
I have some puch cards from 1968, now all I need is a card reader to
translate them.
David Goerndt
Anthony wrote:
> David Goerndt wrote in message <35C4A338...@iag.net>...
>
> >> Archiving and Archival are two different things. Archiving refers to
> storing
> >> something like digital data, whereas archival refers to a process of
> making
> >> photos or prints last a long time without deteriorating. I believe the
> >> original post was refering to how to make archival ink-jet prints.
>
> Why not just reprint the image if the old one wears out. You don't need
> archival prints if you have the original data file.
> I think this issue comes into play when prints are sold and displayed. The
> value of a print is sometimes tied closely to it's longevity. Once an
> image is printed, whether it be digital or analog it becomes essentially
> an original Many artist strive to make those "originals" last a very long
Anthony
>And if you did it would not approach the real thing for color texture and
the
>wonder of seeing brush strokes from the hand of the man himself.
Yes, it would. It would look exactly like the real thing. You need only
digitize it with a high level of detail.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>How do you know when that floppy "starts to wear out"?
You don't, so you copy it well before its expected life has run out, and you
keep backups.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>Because a print is real and palpable thing that can be viewed touched and
>sold for what it is.
You can sell digital images, too.
>And as an artist if I make a limited run of a work I
>have an obligation to guarantee when signed and numbered that it is only
one
>of a certain number.
Quaint, but I suppose that people still like that sort of thing. If they
know it is digital they might not be too impressed, though.
>And who will reprint the replacement? ME? What if I am not around or dead?
Give the file to someone else.
>Do I have to worry about some technician cranking out prints in whatever is
>the hot printer this year that may not meet my standards for what the print
>should look like.
That depends on the instructions you leave.
--
Anthony
PlaneDoc
What electronic media format do you propose that will be readable 50
years or so from now?
On Sun, 2 Aug 1998 17:32:20 +0200, "Anthony" <mxsm...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>You don't archive digital images on paper; you simply keep the original data
>files. Prints will deteriorate over time, no matter how they are made,
>whereas the original files will last forever and will never deteriorate.
Steven
This only show you have no feel for art. But you already proudly admitted that yourself.
--
ste...@sifre.demon.nl
(remove * if present)
Jim K
to answer right now.
plan...@bizdistrict.com-nospam (PlaneDoc) wrote:
I got one them stupid * in my name
Jim K
manuscript copy (would that one be available at any price) of Hamlet
and a Word file of the text as there is between the original Mona Lisa
and a 500K jpg of her.
"Anthony" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As I have pointed out before in other fora, an excellent example of digital
>storage is the written word. We still have the text of Shakespeare's plays,
>even if we don't have the paper he wrote them on--and that is because
>writing is digital, like digital imaging. The same is not true of
>Leonardo's paintings, unfortunately, because they were not digitally
>encoded.
I got one them stupid * in my name
Larry Preuss
zeit...@aol.com (Zeitbauer) wrote:
">"i've an mfa in foto...and the worry in foto is mostly chemical residual and
">"deterioration of dye... my wife has cibachromes on our walls, from
when i did
">"production printing in boston, and they are still saturate after 4 years in
">"hawaii light.... being ciba's, they look like placemats, of course....
but that
">"is more mooter.
">"
">"may ur prints look as real as c-41's... that's what ansel adams is working on
">"in hell at this very moment.
">"
">"m o i k
What does "more mooter" mean?
--
Larry Preuss
Larry Preuss
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
">"David Kyte wrote in message <35C4F76C...@worldnet.att.net>...
">"
">">And if you did it would not approach the real thing for color texture and
">"the
">">wonder of seeing brush strokes from the hand of the man himself.
">"
">"Yes, it would. It would look exactly like the real thing. You need only
">"digitize it with a high level of detail.
">"
">"--
">"Anthony
I believe David referred to the fact that paint has substance. The brush
strokes are not an equivalent of pixels, but more nearly an equivalent of
low-relief sculpture. Digitizing with a high level of detail may reproduce
a photo of a painting well, but not the painting itself.
Larry Preuss
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
When has the "expected life" of a floppy run out?
Anthony
>What electronic media format do you propose that will be readable 50
>years or so from now?
What makes you think that information must be stored on the same medium for
50 years at a time? You still seem to be thinking in analog terms.
--
Anthony
Anthony
<902148954.3304.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>This only show you have no feel for art.
No, it shows that I actually understand the technology involved.
--
Anthony
jOn Nykänen
lpr...@provide.net (Larry Preuss) wrote:
> In article <6q3rpd$d2g$1...@platane.wanadoo.fr>, "Anthony"
> <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ">"David Kyte wrote in message <35C4F76C...@worldnet.att.net>...
> ">"
> ">">And if you did it would not approach the real thing for color texture and
> ">"the
> ">">wonder of seeing brush strokes from the hand of the man himself.
> ">"
> ">"Yes, it would. It would look exactly like the real thing. You need only
> ">"digitize it with a high level of detail.
> ">"
> ">"--
> ">"Anthony
With a holographic display (stereo 3D with both vertical and horizontal
parallax)
at 1200 ppi, which reacts to ambient lighting and voxels with alpha
channel for
glossiness / non-glossiness it would be closer to the real thing, though.
10 - 75 years ? ,
jO n
: jOn Nykänen
: New Media Center : Medialab : University of Art and Design Helsinki
: j...@mlab.uiah.fi
: http://www.mlab.uiah.fi
J. Duffin
David Kyte wrote:
> I don't think you can accomplish what you want with a desktop printer like the
> Epson at this time, but there are some companies out there who are creating
> high quality Iris prints.
>
> The best ones like Nash Editions http://www.nasheditions.com/ use high quality
> paper and inks with better archival properties.
>
> Roger P wrote:
>
> > I used to print black and white professionally before digital came along. I
> > sometimes used archival procedures (including toning, repeat washing, air
> > drying, etc.) to create prints that would last for a long time. Does anyone
> > know about archival procedures for digital printing on an inkjet. Is there
> > "museum quality" inkjet printing paper? Museum quality ink? I have an Epson
> > Stylus Color 800?
> >
> > Roger
How about a lightjet print?
That's a digital photographic print. Just got one in at work. Images files to
photographic paper, up to 50"x50" with RGB lasers. So it's a true photograph.
And not much more expensive than an inkjet print. Think that would hold up?
-Joe
--
jdu...@novachrome.com
http://www.novachrome.com/~jduffin
"Friendship is the only beast that's never known to bite...
...until it's dead."
Lawrence Dillard
Electronic archiving can be a tricky business. What if one archives on
a medium that, in the future, no longer exists. While the document may
still be archived the user may no longer have access to the image. Whereas
on paper the image is always available. The other issue is the amount of
time an archived item may remain can also be suspect. I believe you would
agree with me that anything archived on magnetic media is not dependable
such as floppies or zip drives. Even a CD is not completely dependable, it
can be scratched, damaged, broken etc...
And of course with all these types of media you could run the risk of
incompatibility as discussed earlier. We already see glimpses of this with
CD's. Some of the very early CD's that where mastered at the beginning of
the CD craze are no longer compatible with some of today's drives. The
industry is experimenting with smaller more compact forms of media storage
which would make the CD completely obsolete in a few short years. There
will not even be devices that a CD will fit into. So I say "while archiving
is not a bad thing I believe it not to be the be all and end all for
images." I believe one should still print on acid free paper with acid free
ink to insure the image can be preserved.
These issues are being hotly debated in Washington right now. Whether to
print to electronic or paper for storage. Obviously from a physical plant
point of view it would make since to store to electronic because less
physical space would be required, however who is to guarantee that 100 years
from now someone will still be able to access the information. What good
would it do anyone a hundred years from now to have a CD with no device
capable of reading the data.
There is also one issue I have failed to discuss and yes I know it might be
a little bit of paranoia but oh what the heck we should always plan for the
worst case scenario. What if we had a nuclear war and no one had access to
technology??? The CD would certainly become useless, however the image if
it survived would still be accessible. The twilight zone kind of handled
this idea quite well in a 1950's episode with Burgess Meredith. He was a
book worm that just wanted to have time to read books. There was a nuclear
strike and he was the only one that survived. He came across a library full
of books and suddenly he was the happiest he could ever be. He sat down to
start reading when his glasses fell off and the lens's broke. He no longer
had access to the one thing that mattered to him most, reading. This same
concept would also apply if everything was stored on electronic media in all
the libraries in the world, and when the bombs fell no one who survived
would have access to information to help rebuild society. All knowledge
would be lost forever and the world would be thrown into a new dark age from
which all knowledge would have to be relearned...
Just a few thoughts and ideas about electronic archival to ponder...
Anthony wrote in message <6q23t5$s8t$2...@platane.wanadoo.fr>...
>David Kyte wrote in message <35C4738F...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>Maybe because you can hang a print on the wall, show it at an exhibition
>and
>>hopefully sell a print or two. Not may people would buy a work of art if
it
>>came on a floppy disk.
>
>But that is exhibition, not archiving. If all you want to do is safely
>archive, you keep the image in digital form, which is infinitely superior
to
>any analog copy of the image.
>
>>Believe it or not some fine artist who work digital are creating limited
>runs
>>of signed and numbered Iris prints
>>and than destroying all copies of the electronic file. It adds value to
the
>prints.
>
>Whatever makes money. That's not archiving, either, however.
>
>--
>Anthony
>
>
Lawrence Dillard
probably about a week... = : )
Lawrence Dillard
players...
Charles Platt wrote in message <6q307l$s...@panix.com>...
>Jim K (jkajpus*t...@concentric.net) wrote:
>> There is a lot of argument going on right now about the archival
>> "value" of digital files. There is a surprising short lifetime on
>> floppies and tapes. CDROMs are somewhat better, but their lifetime is
>> limited as well.
>
>I have Commodore 64 disks from 1980, still readable. I have Mac game
>disks from 1983; none of them have become unreadable. I have analog audio
>tapes from more than THIRTY YEARS ago which are still readable. Media have
>improved since then. Of course if those audio tapes had been filled with
>bits rather than sinewaves, a few bits would have been lost in dropouts by
>now. Clearly, then, we need encoding with redundancy, or encoding that is
>tolerant of gaps in the data stream. But my basic point is that I see no
>big problem in the media, if it is stored carefully.
>
>As for format redundancy, obviously when a new format comes along you
>convert your old files. I used to use Syquests; now I use Zip disks; soon
>I will burn CD-ROMs. In each case, I move the old data into the new media.
>
>> It's not that long ago that Electric Pencil and Scripsit were the
>> "hot" word processors. Try to find a current program that will read
>> those files.
>
Steven
The technology involved in brushstrokes? Who are you trying to BS here?
Jeff Cochran
>>sometimes used archival procedures (including toning, repeat washing, air
>>drying, etc.) to create prints that would last for a long time. Does anyone
>>know about archival procedures for digital printing on an inkjet.
>You don't archive digital images on paper; you simply keep the original data
>files. Prints will deteriorate over time, no matter how they are made,
>whereas the original files will last forever and will never deteriorate.
>There is no point in printing out images for archiving purposes. That is a
>remnant of the old analog days.
Nice attempt, but...
1) Museums and galleries buy prints, and prints that don't last very
long aren't very valuable.
2) Properly archived printed materials last longer than digital
media. Magnetic media has a rather poor archival record, and CD
storage media has yet to pass the archival standards that most papers
must for museum use.
3) 100 years from now, people will still have eyes. People will
assuredly not have the means to display the particular graphic format
you choose to save your work in.
To answer the original question, no there are no archival inkjet inks,
though you can print on low acid or acid free paper to extend the life
of the image. The proper way to archivally present digital art is by
photo engravure, which is an art form unto itself. There are some
very good offshore printers, usually Japanese, that can provide you
with limited run digital prints that are acceptable in galleries, but
you better be a succesful artist if you plan on this expensive route.
The other option is Iris prints, which are not cheap either and still
not archival, but there are many artisits selling these in galleries.
The key is to do like print-makers do, limited run, signed and
numbered, destroy the original file.
Hope it helps...
Jeff
Jeff Cochran
>means and tend to think in terms of analog storage media, such as tapes,
>floppies, and the like. The lifetimes of analog media are definitely
>limited, but the digital information itself never wears out. If a floppy
>starts to wear out, you simply copy its contents to a new floppy. You can
>do this an infinite number of times without ever causing any change or
>deterioration in the information contained on the floppy.
I see you've never lost a backup tape or had a floppy crash. The
digital information lasts forever, but that's useless if the storage
media fails. And no, you simply cannot update all didgital
information to new storage media every year or two.
>>What seems to be a bigger worry is if there will be any thing around
>>that will be able to read/print a 40 year (or even 4 year) old file.
>
>This is not a problem if you copy the file to a newer storage medium before
>40 years elapse.
That option simply isn't viable. There's too much information.
>>A lot of NASA data from the 70s has had to have special hard ware remade
>>because what was state of the art then is no longer around.
>
>But once the hardware was remade, the data was as good as it was on the day
>it was created.
No, actually it wasn't much of it had been lost due to bit migration
in the tape storage media. Similar to deterioration of old film
stock, even though new equipment was manufactured to run the old
movies, the quality had been lost.
The other problem on new hardware is that sometimes the new media and
hardware produces too good a copy, and the new format can hold more
data than was in the original. An example is digital re-mastering of
older recordings. The new recordings are better than the originals,
and there's the problem. Digital disks cannot reproduce the pops of
vinyl. It' simply gone.
>As I have pointed out before in other fora, an excellent example of digital
>storage is the written word. We still have the text of Shakespeare's plays,
>even if we don't have the paper he wrote them on--and that is because
>writing is digital, like digital imaging. The same is not true of
>Leonardo's paintings, unfortunately, because they were not digitally
>encoded.
First off, we do have the paper copies of Shakespeare's plays, as well
as the paper copies of the Gutenberg Bible, Da Vinci's Codex and the
Dead Sea Scrolls. We also have Da Vinci's paintings.
As for the written word being excellent digital storage, please give
us the deciphering to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the language is dead so
there's no translation to a modern medium. Even Welsh literature of
several hundred years ago, after Shakespeare's time, has disappeared,
there are no native speaking Welsh alive.
Also, Shakespeare's plays are loaded with commentary, inuendo and even
jibes at the audience that are lost to today's reader, we no longer
have a solid grasp of the English language of Shakespeare's time. The
nursery rhyme Little Jack Horner is actually an old English political
barb, similar to one of Jay Leno's jokes about Clinton/Lewinsky.
Everybody knows the rhyme, but few know the meaning.
Keep in mind, data, whether digital or analog, has no meaning if the
storage media fails, or if there is no way to translate the meaning of
the data.
Jeff
Jim K
This is what an archive is. It is a long term storage of information.
Not just for 50 years or 5 years, but for 500 years or 5000 years.
That is an archive. Manuscripts on paper from 1000 A.D., cuniform on
clay from 2000 B.C. and chipped rock from 5000 B.C. are archives. A
text on a 5 year old floppy isn't.
PlaneDoc
Well said!
Anthony's glib response of "simply keep the original data files" is
far to simplistic an approach for storing image data for even a paltry
50 years. Storing data in electronic format for that long requires an
ongoing commitment to maintenance of the data, as well as an astute
technical knowledge. Even then, there is real potential for a
mis-step, resulting in permanant data loss.
PlaneDoc
David Kyte
Anthony wrote:
> David Kyte wrote in message <35C4F49E...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
> >Because a print is real and palpable thing that can be viewed touched and
> >sold for what it is.
>
> You can sell digital images, too.
Not the same thing.
>
>
> >And as an artist if I make a limited run of a work I
> >have an obligation to guarantee when signed and numbered that it is only
> one
> >of a certain number.
>
> Quaint, but I suppose that people still like that sort of thing. If they
> know it is digital they might not be too impressed, though.
But that is how the art world works.
>
>
> >And who will reprint the replacement? ME? What if I am not around or dead?
>
> Give the file to someone else.
But you don't get the point here. IT WOULD NOT BE ME . Art is a personal thing,
I controil every aspect of the image creation so why would I leave it to
someone else, and why would this other person take the time to oversee some
other guys stuff.
>
>
> >Do I have to worry about some technician cranking out prints in whatever is
> >the hot printer this year that may not meet my standards for what the print
> >should look like.
>
> That depends on the instructions you leave.
Great now I have to spend time I could be using to create art writing out
precise instructions on how to print out my file just because it work with
digital files.
Here is a much better idea, I create the art and print the files to the best
paper and archival inks, If the prints meet my standard for quality I number
and sign it and perhaps add a small pencil or pen sketch in the corner as a
personal touch. Mat and mount the print with high quality mat board and perhaps
frame it too.
Now what I have is a quality product that should last maybe hundreds of years
to sell or give away as I see fit. And if I destroy the original digital file I
don't have to worry about some hack printing out a second rate print.
>
>
> --
> Anthony
--
David F. Kyte
http://home.att.net/~davekyte
"My God can beat up your God"
David Kyte
Anthony wrote:
> David Kyte wrote in message <35C4F76C...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
> >And if you did it would not approach the real thing for color texture and
> the
> >wonder of seeing brush strokes from the hand of the man himself.
>
> Yes, it would. It would look exactly like the real thing. You need only
> digitize it with a high level of detail.
I am sorry but it is not, That is obvious to any one who has tried. you can
get close with large format photographs but it is still not perfect.
David Kyte
>
> I believe David referred to the fact that paint has substance. The brush
> strokes are not an equivalent of pixels, but more nearly an equivalent of
> low-relief sculpture.
Well said. A point I am not getting across very well.
Digitizing with a high level of detail may reproduce
> a photo of a painting well, but not the painting itself.
>
> --
> Larry Preuss
> Ann Arbor, MI
> USA
--
David Kyte
jOn Nykänen wrote:
> With a holographic display (stereo 3D with both vertical and horizontal
> parallax)
> at 1200 ppi, which reacts to ambient lighting and voxels with alpha
> channel for
> glossiness / non-glossiness it would be closer to the real thing, though.
>
> 10 - 75 years ? ,
Why deal with a holograph at all. Why not just pipe the signal right into the
brain.
I remember a movie called Brainstorm where scientist recorded the brain signals of
a person to a digital tape recorder and it could be played back to another person
who would see, feel, taste etc. what the original person experienced.
>
>
> jO n
>
> : jOn Nykänen
> : New Media Center : Medialab : University of Art and Design Helsinki
> : j...@mlab.uiah.fi
> : http://www.mlab.uiah.fi
David Kyte
David Goerndt wrote:
> I have some puch cards from 1968, now all I need is a card reader to
> translate them.
I got some paintings I did in school, look just as good as the day I did them
.... Well lets just say they a pre digital.
>
>
> --
> http://www.iag.net/~davidg
David Kyte
Anthony wrote:
> You don't, so you copy it well before its expected life has run out, and you
> keep backups.
Copy.... Backup.... back up the back up... got to be sure Every few years or
so start the process over again.
Sorry... can't paint today, got to copy my back-ups to new recordable DVD disk
Better idea... Paint on canvas, let dry, Hang on wall, It will be there for a
long long time, just don't burn the house down.
>
>
> --
> Anthony
Jerry Kindall
wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> > David Kyte wrote in message <35C4F49E...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> > >And who will reprint the replacement? ME? What if I am not around or dead?
> >
> > Give the file to someone else.
>
> But you don't get the point here. IT WOULD NOT BE ME . Art is a personal
> thing, I controil every aspect of the image creation so why would I leave
> it to someone else, and why would this other person take the time to
> oversee some other guys stuff.
As a practical matter, I very much doubt that you'll care one way or
another what's being done with your work after you're dead. ;)
> Now what I have is a quality product that should last maybe hundreds of years
> to sell or give away as I see fit. And if I destroy the original digital file
> I don't have to worry about some hack printing out a second rate print.
_Destroy_ your work? Intentionally? Well, OK, lots of artists do that
when they make something they can't stand, but to do it to something you
like? The very thought gives me a serious case of the heebie-jeebies. To
spend all that time creating something and then delete it just seems...
counter-sane.
--
Jerry Kindall mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com Technical Writing
Manual Labor http://www.manual.com Web Design, etc.
Q: What animal would you be if you could be an animal?
A: You already are an animal. -- "Microserfs," Douglas Coupland
Larry Preuss
kin...@mail.manual.com (Jerry Kindall) wrote:
">"_Destroy_ your work? Intentionally? Well, OK, lots of artists do that
">"when they make something they can't stand, but to do it to something you
">"like? The very thought gives me a serious case of the heebie-jeebies. To
">"spend all that time creating something and then delete it just seems...
">"counter-sane.
">"
">"--
">"Jerry Kindall mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com Technical Writing
It's done all the time, Jerry. It's called "limited edition prints."
--
Larry Preuss
Doug Venator
David Kyte wrote in message <35C68656...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>Anthony wrote:
>
>> David Kyte wrote in message <35C4F76C...@worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>> >And if you did it would not approach the real thing for color texture
and
>> the
>> >wonder of seeing brush strokes from the hand of the man himself.
>>
>> Yes, it would. It would look exactly like the real thing. You need only
>> digitize it with a high level of detail.
>
>I am sorry but it is not, That is obvious to any one who has tried. you can
>get close with large format photographs but it is still not perfect.
>
image to brush strokes and daubs of color. They have to be viewed from a
certain distance to be seen as the artist intended. At this distance, a
highly detailed digital reproduction can be good enough so as to be
undistinguishable from the original. "Up close" viewing is for appraisers or
those looking at brush-stroke technique.
Doug V.
dv...@borg.com
Doug Venator
Lawrence Dillard wrote in message
<35c604de...@news.harland.net-MINC>...
>I have some old 8-track tapes, and beta movies ,now if I could only find
the
>players...
>
in the event of a nuclear disaster, someone will have the knowledge to
reproduce/find the technology.
Doug V.
dv...@borg.com
Larry Preuss
">"Only if examined up close. Paintings are the same, up close they lose the
">"image to brush strokes and daubs of color. They have to be viewed from a
">"certain distance to be seen as the artist intended. At this distance, a
">"highly detailed digital reproduction can be good enough so as to be
">"undistinguishable from the original. "Up close" viewing is for appraisers or
">"those looking at brush-stroke technique.
">"
">"Doug V.
">"dv...@borg.com
Not always true, Doug. It depends on the degree to which the brush
technique contributes to the painting. At a "certain distance" from Van
Gogh's Sunflowers the brush strokes and the mass of the paint are clearly
observable at the same time that the entire composition can be appreciated.
A second point is your contention that up-close viewing is only for those
with special interests. Not true, any more than listening for the
contribution of individual instruments in an orchestra is only for
conductors. Those who often look at oil paintings look both far and close
as part of their viewing experience.
Jerry Kindall
I always thought that just meant that only a limited number of prints
would be made, not that the original would be destroyed. Guess I'm
showing my ignorance of the fine art world here.
Of course, with a computer file, who can tell whether you really destroyed
_all_ the originals -- since every backup copy is an original?
--
Jerry Kindall mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com Technical Writing
Lawrence Dillard
original still available and worth $100,000 a print if destroyed. That's
why they call them limited edition prints. It drives up the price if the
collector knows there are only so many in existence. The fewer the number
the more rare it becomes and the higher the price can be. All of that is
assuming of course ones work is worth the paper it is printed on...
Jerry Kindall wrote in message ...
>In article <35C68402...@worldnet.att.net>, dave...@worldnet.att.net
>wrote:
>
>> Anthony wrote:
>>
>> > David Kyte wrote in message <35C4F49E...@worldnet.att.net>...
>> >
>> > >And who will reprint the replacement? ME? What if I am not around or
dead?
>> >
>> > Give the file to someone else.
>>
>> But you don't get the point here. IT WOULD NOT BE ME . Art is a personal
>> thing, I controil every aspect of the image creation so why would I leave
>> it to someone else, and why would this other person take the time to
>> oversee some other guys stuff.
>
>As a practical matter, I very much doubt that you'll care one way or
>another what's being done with your work after you're dead. ;)
>
>> Now what I have is a quality product that should last maybe hundreds of
years
>> to sell or give away as I see fit. And if I destroy the original digital
file
>> I don't have to worry about some hack printing out a second rate print.
>
>_Destroy_ your work? Intentionally? Well, OK, lots of artists do that
>when they make something they can't stand, but to do it to something you
>like? The very thought gives me a serious case of the heebie-jeebies. To
>spend all that time creating something and then delete it just seems...
>counter-sane.
>
>--
>Jerry Kindall mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com Technical Writing
Anthony
> With a holographic display (stereo 3D with both vertical and horizontal
>parallax)
> at 1200 ppi, which reacts to ambient lighting and voxels with alpha
>channel for
> glossiness / non-glossiness it would be closer to the real thing,
though.
>
> 10 - 75 years ? ,
>
I don't know, but it sounds cool, as long as it runs reasonably fast.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>Electronic archiving can be a tricky business. What if one archives on
>a medium that, in the future, no longer exists.
Media do not disappear overnight. You simply copy the archives to a new
medium when it becomes apparent that the existing medium is losing currency.
>While the document may still be archived the user may no
>longer have access to the image.
You can always _build_ equipment to read old media, if need be.
>I believe you would agree with me that anything archived
>on magnetic media is not dependable such as floppies or zip
>drives.
I dunno; what do you mean by "dependable"? I'd say that magnetic recordings
can last for at least half a century or so.
>Even a CD is not completely dependable, it
>can be scratched, damaged, broken etc...
It will take a lot more abuse than a paper print.
>I believe one should still print on acid free paper with acid free
>ink to insure the image can be preserved.
Unfortunately, once you put it on paper, it starts to deteriorate. In fact,
it is probably never equal to the original image, even at the moment of
printing. Digital images do not have this failing, since they do not
deteriorate, and they can be copied an infinite number of times with no
deterioration.
>What if we had a nuclear war and no one had access to
>technology???
Anything that would wipe out all commonly used technologies would also
render them pretty irrelevant, so this is not a problem.
>The CD would certainly become useless, however the image if
>it survived would still be accessible.
But one day, centuries later, you could build a new CD drive and still read
the CD, and there would be no deterioration in the image; whereas a paper
copy would have deteriorated by then.
>He sat down to start reading when his glasses fell
>off and the lens's broke.
So much for printed archives, eh? At least with a digital archive he could
enlarge the print, or have it spoken to him.
--
Anthony
Jerry Kindall
<LDILLARD/ITD/Harland@Harland> wrote:
> I'm sure you would do it if the work was worth only worth 2 cents with the
> original still available and worth $100,000 a print if destroyed. That's
> why they call them limited edition prints. It drives up the price if the
> collector knows there are only so many in existence. The fewer the number
> the more rare it becomes and the higher the price can be. All of that is
> assuming of course ones work is worth the paper it is printed on...
Ah yes, the old "let's artificially limit supply to drive up prices and
make it 'collectible'" ploy. But I guess you're right, can't blame 'em;
might do the same myself. Human psychology is a pretty odd thing.
(Then again, maybe I'd just _tell_ everyone I deleted the files and keep a
backup copy.)
Jim K
>Only if examined up close. Paintings are the same, up close they lose the
>image to brush strokes and daubs of color. They have to be viewed from a
>certain distance to be seen as the artist intended.
> snipped
>
Just a bit of a wander but...
That is like the difference between digital and analog music
recordings. While I admit my ears are not good enough to tell, there
is a difference. An instrument emits an analog signal -- nice and
curvy with some sawtooth peaks and valleys. Digital is a stairstep --
granted with teeny-tiny stairs, but still discrete stairs.
This is I believe an ongoing point of contention for those with
zillion dollar stereos. Can a musical signal composed of discrete
steps really accurately mirror an original signal that is without
those steps?
This leads to the question of what resolution and depth is needed to
dupe a painting?
Jim K
>>I have some old 8-track tapes, and beta movies ,now if I could only find
>the
>>players...
>>
>They exist. If the information is important enough it can be retrieved. Even
>in the event of a nuclear disaster, someone will have the knowledge to
>reproduce/find the technology.
>
be deciphered. There needs to be an equivalent of a Rosetta stone for
any communication.
Actual physical difficulties also stand in the way. Some of the
archived NASA tape data I referred to earlier were lost because of
physical deterioration of the tape medium. I just read were 80% of all
films(movies) from the pre1930s have been lost. Much because the film
deteriorated. Others just because they were tossed.
Charles Platt
> Only if examined up close. Paintings are the same, up close they lose the
> image to brush strokes and daubs of color. They have to be viewed from a
> certain distance to be seen as the artist intended. At this distance, a
> highly detailed digital reproduction can be good enough so as to be
> undistinguishable from the original. "Up close" viewing is for appraisers or
> those looking at brush-stroke technique.
Have you ever seen an ORIGINAL Van Gogh?
To make a "perfect" copy of it, including the paint textures, at the very
least you would need stereoscopic image capturing at 1200 dpi, and even
then I believe the process of redisplaying the captured image would
introduce artifacts, no matter what system you used. If it was projected
on a screen, for instance, there would be some light scatter, some
distortion, and some flare. Any known form of video display would of
course be much worse.
The aesthetics of fine art are not merely visual, they are tactile (even
if you're not supposed to touch). Current methods of image capture are
hopelessly inadequate.
Anthony
>I see you've never lost a backup tape or had a floppy crash.
I keep multiple, verified tape backups, and I don't use floppy disks for
critical information.
>The digital information lasts forever, but that's useless if the storage
>media fails.
The failure rates of digital media are no greater than the "failure rates"
of media use for analog representations.
>And no, you simply cannot update all didgital
>information to new storage media every year or two.
You do this every time you take a backup. It's not difficult.
>That option simply isn't viable. There's too much information.
It is extremely practical; in fact, it is done every day.
>No, actually it wasn't much of it had been lost due to bit migration
>in the tape storage media.
They should have copied data to new media earlier.
>The other problem on new hardware is that sometimes the new media and
>hardware produces too good a copy, and the new format can hold more
>data than was in the original.
I don't see that as a problem.
>An example is digital re-mastering of older recordings. The new recordings
>are better than the originals, and there's the problem.
Why is that a problem? In any case, new recordings cannot contain any more
information than was available in the originals.
>Digital disks cannot reproduce the pops of vinyl. It' simply gone.
Why would you want to reproduce defects?
>First off, we do have the paper copies of Shakespeare's plays ...
Not the copies he wrote himself. We have copies (digital copies) of those
originals, however.
>As for the written word being excellent digital storage, please give
>us the deciphering to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the language is dead so
>there's no translation to a modern medium.
The fact that it cannot be translated does not change the reality that the
scrolls still contain the original information.
You're comparing apples and oranges, and drawing inaccurate conclusions as a
result, as far as I can tell.
>Also, Shakespeare's plays are loaded with commentary, inuendo and even
>jibes at the audience that are lost to today's reader, we no longer
>have a solid grasp of the English language of Shakespeare's time.
This has nothing to do with the way in which his work was recorded, nor is
this any different from the problems that would arise with analog
representations.
>Keep in mind, data, whether digital or analog, has no meaning if the
>storage media fails, or if there is no way to translate the meaning of
>the data.
Neither of these problems is frequent, but they occur with equal frequency
for both types of representation.
--
Anthony
Anthony
<902177597.18046.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>The technology involved in brushstrokes? Who are you trying to BS here?
The technology involved in representating information in digital form.
Information theory, in other words. Most people appear to be unfamiliar
with it, particularly those who obstinately insist that there is something
inherently inferior about digital representations of information.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>I am sorry but it is not, That is obvious to any one who has tried. you can
>get close with large format photographs but it is still not perfect.
I'm sorry, but it is. Increase the resolution until there is no longer any
perceptible difference.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>Copy.... Backup.... back up the back up... got to be sure Every few years
or
>so start the process over again.
Correct.
>Sorry... can't paint today, got to copy my back-ups to new recordable DVD
disk
Only if you wish to keep the work you've already done.
>Better idea... Paint on canvas, let dry, Hang on wall, It will be there for
a
>long long time, just don't burn the house down.
A long, long time isn't forever. The Mona Lisa today doesn't look anything
like it did when it was painted.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>Manuscripts on paper from 1000 A.D., cuniform on
>clay from 2000 B.C. and chipped rock from 5000 B.C. are archives.
And they are all digital representations (if they represent writing). Be
glad that they aren't analog sound recordings.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>Not always true, Doug.
It is always true. Information theory, again.
>At a "certain distance" from Van Gogh's Sunflowers the brush
>strokes and the mass of the paint are clearly observable at
>the same time that the entire composition can be appreciated.
You have no way of knowing that. All you perceive is an image projected
onto discrete receptor cells of your retina, each of which sends _digital_
signals to your _digital_ brain. The fact is, the image that you "see" has
already been digitized, even if no computer, printer, or digital camera was
involved. Duplicate that digital stream (and yes, it _can_ be done), and
you won't know whether you are seeing the real thing or just a digital copy.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>Anthony's glib response of "simply keep the original data files" is
>far to simplistic an approach for storing image data for even a paltry
>50 years.
It has been in daily use for half a century or so, and it works very well.
It is simple, not simplistic.
>Storing data in electronic format for that long requires an
>ongoing commitment to maintenance of the data ...
So does any type of archive.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>That is like the difference between digital and analog music
>recordings. While I admit my ears are not good enough to tell, there
>is a difference.
There is no difference that anyone can hear. It's not your ears.
>An instrument emits an analog signal -- nice and
>curvy with some sawtooth peaks and valleys. Digital is a stairstep --
>granted with teeny-tiny stairs, but still discrete stairs.
The stairs are too small to perceive individually.
>This is I believe an ongoing point of contention for those with
>zillion dollar stereos. Can a musical signal composed of discrete
>steps really accurately mirror an original signal that is without
>those steps?
Absolutely.
Your ear doesn't sample the soundwaves, anyway. Instead, it produces a
_digital_ signal that represents the frequency spectrum of the sound behind
heard, and sends that to your _digital_ brain. There is a limit to how
accurately your ear can track soundwaves in any form, and any digital
representation that goes beyond that limit is indistinguishable from the
original sound. Any difference heard at that point is auditory
hallucination.
>This leads to the question of what resolution and depth is needed to
>dupe a painting?
Enough to represent it in more detail than you can perceive.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>2) Properly archived printed materials last longer than digital
>media.
But they do not last as long as digital _information_, because that is
independent of the medium (unlike analog representations).
>3) 100 years from now, people will still have eyes. People will
>assuredly not have the means to display the particular graphic format
>you choose to save your work in.
I suggest copying it to a more current format as necessary between now and
then.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>I got some paintings I did in school, look just as good as the day I did
them
>.... Well lets just say they a pre digital.
I have some stuff I did when I was little, and it deteriorated quite a bit
before I scanned it. Now that it is in the digital realm, at least what's
left of it will last forever.
--
Anthony
Lawrence Dillard
the old school of having to have a hard copy in front of me, something
tangible that I can hold and feel, so I have a hard time giving up the
paper...
Maybe my children will not be so tied to the paper that I cling too, lets
only hope. I guess I just worry that some day in the future all the world's
libraries will be on-line and the whole system will collapse and all the
knowledge of the world will be lost and no books will be available from
which to go back too. yeah, I know it is a very paranoid view, however I
guess it all goes back to having that tangible object in front of me.
Many books are now online and on CD, however I cannot bring myself to read
them that way. I would much rather have the actual book in front of me that
I can flip the pages and read the book in bed. I still print out just about
everything I create online when there really is no value in doing so. The
information can just as easily be viewed online. I find many more mistakes
in my writing when I edit it offline on paper than if I edited the same
document online. I know its crazy...
I remember at the beginning of the PC craze, PC's were going to do away with
paper and we would have a completely paperless office, in fact just the
opposite has come to pass. The paper companies are printing more paper than
ever and they are actually having trouble keeping up with the demand. I
guess its because of old fuddy duddys like me who insist on printing
everything out, go figure...
Larry Preuss
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
">">First off, we do have the paper copies of Shakespeare's plays ...
">"
">"Not the copies he wrote himself. We have copies (digital copies) of those
">"originals, however.
">"Anthony
A small but important point, Anthony; we do not have any copies of
Shakespeare's plays that he wrote himself.
--
Larry Preuss
Larry Preuss
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sophistry at its very best.
David Kyte
d this other person take the time to
> > oversee some other guys stuff.
>
> As a practical matter, I very much doubt that you'll care one way or
> another what's being done with your work after you're dead. ;)
As an Atheist I believe when I am gone that is it, But that does not mean
while I am here I would not take action to make sure that thing I care abut
are well care for when I am gone.
>
> _Destroy_ your work? Intentionally? Well, OK, lots of artists do that
> when they make something they can't stand, but to do it to something you
> like? The very thought gives me a serious case of the heebie-jeebies. To
> spend all that time creating something and then delete it just seems...
> counter-sane.
But it is not destroyed, the well created and hopefully archival prints will
still exist. It is just that I do not see the digital files I used to make
those print to be all that important.
>
> --
> Jerry Kindall mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com Technical Writing
> Manual Labor http://www.manual.com Web Design, etc.
>
> Q: What animal would you be if you could be an animal?
> A: You already are an animal. -- "Microserfs," Douglas Coupland
--
Jim K
>Have you ever seen an ORIGINAL Van Gogh?
>snipped
>The aesthetics of fine art are not merely visual, they are tactile (even
>if you're not supposed to touch). Current methods of image capture are
>hopelessly inadequate.
I agree here. For paintings there has to be some sort of 3D capture
for the textures of the process. Digital storage has some great
advantages but it is a long, LONG, way from offering perfect
reproduction.
I think part of it is that people are used to reproductions. No matter
how many bits of data, there is still no way to exactly reproduce an
analogue original. Think of Joan Jett in concert Monet on canvas
versus CD Rom.
This archival thread reminds me of the font thread I've been in. The
difference between a $100 and a freeware font. My eyes usually can't
tell -- but there is a difference.
Steven
How do you pin this digital information theory on a museum wall?
Would you prefer a ultra high res digital file containing all visible
information of Rembrandt's Nachtwacht over the real painting?
--
ste...@sifre.demon.nl
(remove * if present)
David Kyte
Anthony wrote:
> >At a "certain distance" from Van Gogh's Sunflowers the brush
> >strokes and the mass of the paint are clearly observable at
> >the same time that the entire composition can be appreciated.
>
> You have no way of knowing that. All you perceive is an image projected
> onto discrete receptor cells of your retina, each of which sends _digital_
> signals to your _digital_ brain. The fact is, the image that you "see" has
> already been digitized, even if no computer, printer, or digital camera was
> involved. Duplicate that digital stream (and yes, it _can_ be done), and
> you won't know whether you are seeing the real thing or just a digital copy.
But fact is it has not been done, Yet.
I would challenge anyone to show a digital display that could present a
representation of an oil painting and fool people into thinking they are
looking at the real thing. I don't thing anyone with any kind of visual acuity
would have a problem in telling if it was real or Memorex.
I work now in 1998 and can't wait for technology to catch up.
At the graphics company I work for we do a lot on the computer but we also know
the limitations of the medium and so as a matter of circumstance we still do
some things traditionally. We have found it is faster and better at times. And
we have taken away jobs from other companys who have made the mistake of trying
to do it all digital.
Sorry but digital has limits.
>
>
> --
> Anthony
David Kyte
Anthony wrote:
> David Kyte wrote in message <35C68E8A...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
> >Copy.... Backup.... back up the back up... got to be sure Every few years
> or
> >so start the process over again.
>
> Correct.
You would have to be a real geek to want to spend that much time pushing files
around on a computer.
>
>
> >Sorry... can't paint today, got to copy my back-ups to new recordable DVD
> disk
>
> Only if you wish to keep the work you've already done.
I do have the work I did. It's hanging on the wall.
>
>
> >Better idea... Paint on canvas, let dry, Hang on wall, It will be there for
> a
> >long long time, just don't burn the house down.
>
> A long, long time isn't forever. The Mona Lisa today doesn't look anything
> like it did when it was painted.
Still looks good, May even look better, But that is a another can of worms.
David Kyte
PlaneDoc wrote:
Well said!
Anthony's glib response of "simply keep the original data files" is
far to simplistic an approach for storing image data for even a paltry
50 years. Storing data in electronic format for that long requires anLike some file clerk decides there are far too many disk floating around and shit cans some stuff.
ongoing commitment to maintenance of the data, as well as an astute
technical knowledge. Even then, there is real potential for a
mis-step, resulting in permanant data loss.
Steven
>
> Anthony wrote:
> >
> > A long, long time isn't forever. The Mona Lisa today doesn't look anything
> > like it did when it was painted.
>
> Still looks good, May even look better, But that is a another can of worms.
Right. If traditional art is decay, non deteriorating digital information is death.
>
> --
> David F. Kyte
> http://home.att.net/~davekyte
--
Steven
I agree. Pigments used in traditional art, espacially oil paintings have a
richness that can not be matched by any printing method. Add to that the fact
that many oil paintings consist of several layers with different pigments
giving even more depth of color and richness which can be compared to the
colors of natural stones and gems. To perceive this "glow" one needs stereo
vision: two eyes. The painter has many more ways to combine and simulate
colors than the four or six colors that are used in print. Understanding how
colors are perceived takes much more than understanding the measured color
values, the mechanics of the eye, even more than understanding the brain.
Kenny A. Chaffin
>
> Lawrence Dillard wrote in message
> <35c604de...@news.harland.net-MINC>...
> >I have some old 8-track tapes, and beta movies ,now if I could only find
> the
> >players...
> >
> They exist. If the information is important enough it can be retrieved. Even
> in the event of a nuclear disaster, someone will have the knowledge to
> reproduce/find the technology.
>
> dv...@borg.com
>
>
>
>
And actually as society (and art) become ever more digital, I see it as
the function of (art) museums to maintain update and transfer digital art
to new media as it becomes commonplace in order to protect and maintain
it. After all isn't that what museums do?
Best Wishes,
--
KAC
Website Design, Programming, Graphics --> http://www.kacweb.com
ke...@kacweb.com
William J. Browning
present an accurate representation of his creative intent.
If a fine artist chooses to use his computer as a tool to generate a
print, then only he can print the work because of the individual
interpretations that are possible to determine what is an acceptable
output.
An analogy would be the surviving negatives from a deceased fine art
photographer. One could print the negatives and get an idea of what the
photographer was photographing but not necessarily his interpretation.
If the a fine artist chooses to use the computer as both the means and
the ends, i.e., intends to exhibit his creation electronically then your
arguments are more valid.
Anthony
>I guess I just worry that some day in the future all the world's
>libraries will be on-line and the whole system will collapse and all the
>knowledge of the world will be lost and no books will be available from
>which to go back too. yeah, I know it is a very paranoid view, however I
>guess it all goes back to having that tangible object in front of me.
I agree--it's a very paranoid view.
I think that conventional books still have quite a rosy future ahead of
them, however. They are still much more convenient than online books for
most purposes.
>I remember at the beginning of the PC craze, PC's were going to do away
with
>paper and we would have a completely paperless office, in fact just the
>opposite has come to pass. The paper companies are printing more paper
than
>ever and they are actually having trouble keeping up with the demand. I
>guess its because of old fuddy duddys like me who insist on printing
>everything out, go figure...
Perhaps. I work in a paperless office and I don't even have a pen. It is
very rare that any paper crosses my desk for any reason. We all have
physical mail baskets to receive paper, but they are empty most of the time.
Everything is done electronically.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>A small but important point, Anthony; we do not have any copies of
>Shakespeare's plays that he wrote himself.
All copies of Shakespeare's plays are copies of the originals he wrote
himself. They are digital copies. Sounds like you're still thinking in
analog terms.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>But fact is it has not been done, Yet.
Nobody has felt like doing it yet. But it's perfectly possible.
>I would challenge anyone to show a digital display that could present a
>representation of an oil painting and fool people into thinking they are
>looking at the real thing. I don't thing anyone with any kind of visual
acuity
>would have a problem in telling if it was real or Memorex.
Digital displays aren't designed to imitate paintings, but they could be, if
there were a demand for it.
>I work now in 1998 and can't wait for technology to catch up.
In some cases it is more social and economic inertia than technology itself.
We've had the technology for gigabit-per-second Internet connections for
years, but just because it exists unfortunately doesn't guarantee that it
will be installed in all our homes tomorrow.
>Sorry but digital has limits.
Then so does your brain--since it is a _digital_ computer.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>You would have to be a real geek to want to spend that much time pushing
files
>around on a computer.
Depends on what you use the computer for. Having a vault to store your
wealth doesn't mean that you're an obsessed locksmith.
>I do have the work I did. It's hanging on the wall.
It won't be there a thousand years from now. My drawings will be, if anyone
wants them.
>Still looks good, May even look better, But that is a another can of worms.
Actually, it looks pretty bad. It's very dark, the paint has cracked and
deteriorated substantially, and about the only color that remains is a
sickly yellow. It looks like it might have been nice when it was new, but
it's no longer possible to verify that. And it's only 400 years old. Had
Leonardo done the work with Photoshop, it would look exactly as it did when
he created it.
--
Anthony
Anthony
<902270938.398.0....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>How do you pin this digital information theory on a museum wall?
You don't. You can make an analog print that approximates the information
contained in the file, though. You can display it on a screen, too.
>Would you prefer a ultra high res digital file containing all visible
>information of Rembrandt's Nachtwacht over the real painting?
Yes. A file I could store on my PC, whereas I'm never likely to own the
real painting. Indeed, everyone could own a Rembrandt in the form of
digital image files.
--
Anthony
Anthony
thrown out, too.
--
Anthony
David Kyte wrote in message <35C7B871...@worldnet.att.net>...
Anthony
>Sophistry at its very best.
No such luck, I'm afraid. It's information theory at its best.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>I agree here. For paintings there has to be some sort of 3D capture
>for the textures of the process. Digital storage has some great
>advantages but it is a long, LONG, way from offering perfect
>reproduction.
The vast majority of paintings I've seen look the same way in real life that
they do in photographs. Few artists paint with a spatula.
>I think part of it is that people are used to reproductions. No matter
>how many bits of data, there is still no way to exactly reproduce an
>analogue original. Think of Joan Jett in concert Monet on canvas
>versus CD Rom.
The differences are unrelated to the use of digital technology for the
reproductions. Digital can reproduce anything with any desired degree of
accuracy except infinite accuracy; and since you cannot hear or see anything
with infinite accuracy, it is never necessary, and digital can provide a
reproduction that you will not be able to distinguish from the original.
--
Anthony
PlaneDoc
WHAT " has been in daily use for half a century or so"? Digital data
storage? Maybe so, but as others have said, digital data from the 60's
and 70's is in real danger of being totally lost. In fact, a
signifigant portion of the data from the early space program is
damaged. I suppose YOUR far smarter and better able to preserve data
than the folks over at NASA. It's easy to say "save the data
digitally", but history has shown that the implementation is not that
easy. Even for people with much time and talent to devote to the
problem.
I've grown tired of your shallow, poorly thought out responses to
complex issues. Of course, it's far easier to dash off a couple of
quick lines than it is to actually preserve data for decades, much
less centuries.
On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 19:21:41 +0200, "Anthony" <mxsm...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>PlaneDoc wrote in message <35c87392...@news.supernews.com>...
>
>>Anthony's glib response of "simply keep the original data files" is
>>far to simplistic an approach for storing image data for even a paltry
>>50 years.
>
>It has been in daily use for half a century or so, and it works very well.
>It is simple, not simplistic.
>
>>Storing data in electronic format for that long requires an
Larry Jaques
>I remember a movie called Brainstorm where scientist recorded the brain signals of
I wish that all of those wasting so much bandwidth would simply watch the full
video... It would make things so much easier here on c.g.a.p. <g>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The more we gripe, * http://diversify.com/ljaques/stees.html
the longer God makes us live. * Graphic Design - Humorous T-shirts
Mark Dunlop
>David Kyte wrote
>
>It won't be there a thousand years from now. My drawings will be, if anyone
>wants them.
>
>>Still looks good, May even look better, But that is a another can of worms.
>
>Actually, it looks pretty bad. It's very dark, the paint has cracked and
>deteriorated substantially, and about the only color that remains is a
>sickly yellow. It looks like it might have been nice when it was new, but
>it's no longer possible to verify that. And it's only 400 years old. Had
>Leonardo done the work with Photoshop, it would look exactly as it did when
>he created it.
>
restored/repainted several times during their life, sometimes to their
detriment. Its usually a matter of debate what a painting originally
would have looked like. The National Gallery in London shows some
examples of paintings cleaned and restored according to their latest
practice, and the colours are a *lot* brighter than not-recently-cleaned
work from the same artist. I like them that way, some people don't. A
digital version would give the chance to compare more/less cleaning.
They probably already do that in fact.
Just to take a different tack on this 'museum quality prints' theme, the
colours of printed reproductions of paintings in museum and art gallery
catalogues and posters sold to the public are often *waaaay* out,
compared to the actual paintings on the wall.(Even allowing for
differences in lighting, surface texture, scale etc.). Digital
reproduction does offer the potential for reasonably accurate colour
reproduction of paintings and images within an agreed device-independent
colour space, if Chris Cox and co. can get everyone, and especially
museum staff and their printers, to agree on and use a standard space.
(I'm only just starting to get my head round the concepts involved
myself.) This would be a boon to artists who might be considered
colourists, such as Rothko, Hodgkin, Seurat...well, all of them really.
That's got to be a definite big plus for digital IMO.
--
Mark Dunlop
Jerry Kindall
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Then so does your brain--since it is a _digital_ computer.
I don't think they know enough about the brain to determine whether it
operates at a digital or analog level. Indeed, some of the computer
techniques designed to simulate the workings of the brain (neural
networks, fuzzy logic, etc.) seem to me to be attempting to simulate
analog workings digitally.
Jim K
>Just to take a different tack on this 'museum quality prints' theme, the
>colours of printed reproductions of paintings in museum and art gallery
>catalogues and posters sold to the public are often *waaaay* out,
>compared to the actual paintings on the wall.
I just finished reading an old ('94?) article about a company doing a
poster for the Getty museum. I don't remember too many specifics but
the initally scanned file was 450 meg. and it took several back and
forths from printer to company to Getty before everyone was satisfied.
As I recall quite a bit of effort was expended on individual sections
of the painting to make sure all appeared as it should. (at least as
it appeared to somebody).
Zeitbauer
>From: jkajpus*t...@concentric.net (Jim K)
>Date: 8/5/98 9:54 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <35c8b78a...@news.cris.com>
that's all... there was an article in (i think) publish mag a few yrs ago about
a woman who published her own work, then paid the printer special for special
care... how she had to actually stand over the production lines to make the
guys match and repeat colors and even bleeds....
you get what you pay for... and getty hasn't the hightest standard for
reproduction anyway... most breeders don't.
this whole topic of printing from artwork is really neurotic making-o.
tenderly,
moiik.
G W Martin
>
> Right. If traditional art is decay, non deteriorating digital information is death.
> >
> --
> ste...@sifre.demon.nl
> (remove * if present)
Great line. Didn't know ya had it in ya...
-G
Steven
Maybe God did give you a densitometer for a brain...?