General Discussion Type Thing-y 2: the wrath of con

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Michael

General Discussion Type Thing-y 2: the wrath of con

Legg inn av Michael » 18 sep 2004 06:11:08

Hi again,
I'd like to thank everyone who posted to my first topic, and
especially Mick for posting to my previous thread and, at the same
time, swerving into my next question<g>. Hard copies vs digital. Is
it an all or nothing proposition? Is there something more tangible
about having THE paper in your hand? In my earlier thread, someone
mentioned having copies that aren't readable with a newer unit.
However, so far (and I know we've only been in the computer age for
about 25 years or so), there are no files that could not have survived
from the first saved disk until now. However, there are no 8 inch
floppy drives around, and not many more 5 1/4 inch floppy drives
around, let alone in use. So, if you haven't migrated yet, you MIGHT
be too late! :-) But, even though I've scanned a lot of the papers I
have inherited from my grandmother, I haven't thrown ANY of them away.
I think there is something awesome about having THE deed to my great
great great grandfather's land, signed by his hand in the late 1800's.
But for the life of my, it's hard to say WHY. The copy looks just as
good, and it can be reproduced precisely over and over again, with the
tenth copy of the image file looking just the same as the first. And,
unless I lose every single copy I can make, I'll always have it. Paper
will more than likely disintegrate. And, all the old census records
everyone here posts, are all images. Do the originals still exist? Or,
is it just the microfilm, or even, just the images of the microfilm?
Do you print out a copy of the microfilm images for your records? Or,
in that case, is the digital enough?
And now for some personal questions... Where do you store your
documents? If you digitize, how many backups, and where are they? If
you keep the originals, where? Are there any preservation tips that
are not obvious to us newbies? More to follow
Michael

Michael

Re: General Discussion Type Thing-y 2: the wrath of con

Legg inn av Michael » 18 sep 2004 19:04:58

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:11:08 GMT, Michael
<mhardyNOSPAM@NOSPAMgt.rr.com.com> wrote:

Hi again,
I'd like to thank everyone who posted to my first topic, and
especially Mick for posting to my previous thread and, at the same
time, swerving into my next question<g>. Hard copies vs digital. Is
it an all or nothing proposition? Is there something more tangible
about having THE paper in your hand? In my earlier thread, someone
mentioned having copies that aren't readable with a newer unit.
However, so far (and I know we've only been in the computer age for
about 25 years or so), there are no files that could not have survived
from the first saved disk until now. However, there are no 8 inch
floppy drives around, and not many more 5 1/4 inch floppy drives
around, let alone in use. So, if you haven't migrated yet, you MIGHT
be too late! :-) But, even though I've scanned a lot of the papers I
have inherited from my grandmother, I haven't thrown ANY of them away.
I think there is something awesome about having THE deed to my great
great great grandfather's land, signed by his hand in the late 1800's.
But for the life of my, it's hard to say WHY. The copy looks just as
good, and it can be reproduced precisely over and over again, with the
tenth copy of the image file looking just the same as the first. And,
unless I lose every single copy I can make, I'll always have it. Paper
will more than likely disintegrate. And, all the old census records
everyone here posts, are all images. Do the originals still exist? Or,
is it just the microfilm, or even, just the images of the microfilm?
Do you print out a copy of the microfilm images for your records? Or,
in that case, is the digital enough?
And now for some personal questions... Where do you store your
documents? If you digitize, how many backups, and where are they? If
you keep the originals, where? Are there any preservation tips that
are not obvious to us newbies? More to follow
Michael


While I'm at it, I might as well add another thought. Are
photocopies as powerful as the originals? I have a copy of an inquest
into the death of a long distant uncle who drowned as a teenager. It's
a copy of the original, but I do not know where the original is, or
even if it still exists. Does that have the same impact as if it were
the original? I guess it's a similar argument to the digital
reprint/original question in a way. Anyway, there's $0.02 more for you
Michael

Doug Chadduck

Re: General Discussion Type Thing-y 2: the wrath of con

Legg inn av Doug Chadduck » 18 sep 2004 19:28:17

Michael wrote:
Hi again,
I'd like to thank everyone who posted to my first topic, and
especially Mick for posting to my previous thread and, at the same
time, swerving into my next question<g>. Hard copies vs digital. Is
it an all or nothing proposition? Is there something more tangible
about having THE paper in your hand? In my earlier thread, someone
mentioned having copies that aren't readable with a newer unit.
However, so far (and I know we've only been in the computer age for
about 25 years or so), there are no files that could not have survived
from the first saved disk until now. However, there are no 8 inch
floppy drives around, and not many more 5 1/4 inch floppy drives
around, let alone in use. So, if you haven't migrated yet, you MIGHT
be too late! :-) But, even though I've scanned a lot of the papers I
have inherited from my grandmother, I haven't thrown ANY of them away.
I think there is something awesome about having THE deed to my great
great great grandfather's land, signed by his hand in the late 1800's.
But for the life of my, it's hard to say WHY. The copy looks just as
good, and it can be reproduced precisely over and over again, with the
tenth copy of the image file looking just the same as the first. And,
unless I lose every single copy I can make, I'll always have it. Paper
will more than likely disintegrate. And, all the old census records
everyone here posts, are all images. Do the originals still exist? Or,
is it just the microfilm, or even, just the images of the microfilm?
Do you print out a copy of the microfilm images for your records? Or,
in that case, is the digital enough?
And now for some personal questions... Where do you store your
documents? If you digitize, how many backups, and where are they? If
you keep the originals, where? Are there any preservation tips that
are not obvious to us newbies? More to follow
Michael

You can make copies of copies of copies all day long in any way shape
or form you want. But they will never look exactely like the original,
or feel like the original, or smell like the original, or carry any of
the sense of the original. They'll just be copy.

You can never make another original!

Get a http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com catalouge. Just about everything
you need to know and need to store originals.

Doug Wishing I had more of the originals but cherishing every one
that I do have.

W.E.Cole

Re: General Discussion Type Thing-y 2: the wrath of con

Legg inn av W.E.Cole » 27 sep 2004 13:25:16

As a research tool, a photocopy is usually as good as the original, provided
both sides of the original are copied if there was any information on the
back. As a legal document, photocopies are nearly worthless unless they are
properly certified (assuming that photocopies of the particular document can
be certified).


"Michael" <mhardyNOSPAM@NOSPAMgt.rr.com.com> wrote in message
news:geqok0lb28phvg3m119l7tlpsjjobufhsp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:11:08 GMT, Michael
mhardyNOSPAM@NOSPAMgt.rr.com.com> wrote:

Hi again,
I'd like to thank everyone who posted to my first topic, and
especially Mick for posting to my previous thread and, at the same
time, swerving into my next question<g>. Hard copies vs digital. Is
it an all or nothing proposition? Is there something more tangible
about having THE paper in your hand? In my earlier thread, someone
mentioned having copies that aren't readable with a newer unit.
However, so far (and I know we've only been in the computer age for
about 25 years or so), there are no files that could not have survived
from the first saved disk until now. However, there are no 8 inch
floppy drives around, and not many more 5 1/4 inch floppy drives
around, let alone in use. So, if you haven't migrated yet, you MIGHT
be too late! :-) But, even though I've scanned a lot of the papers I
have inherited from my grandmother, I haven't thrown ANY of them away.
I think there is something awesome about having THE deed to my great
great great grandfather's land, signed by his hand in the late 1800's.
But for the life of my, it's hard to say WHY. The copy looks just as
good, and it can be reproduced precisely over and over again, with the
tenth copy of the image file looking just the same as the first. And,
unless I lose every single copy I can make, I'll always have it. Paper
will more than likely disintegrate. And, all the old census records
everyone here posts, are all images. Do the originals still exist? Or,
is it just the microfilm, or even, just the images of the microfilm?
Do you print out a copy of the microfilm images for your records? Or,
in that case, is the digital enough?
And now for some personal questions... Where do you store your
documents? If you digitize, how many backups, and where are they? If
you keep the originals, where? Are there any preservation tips that
are not obvious to us newbies? More to follow
Michael


While I'm at it, I might as well add another thought. Are
photocopies as powerful as the originals? I have a copy of an inquest
into the death of a long distant uncle who drowned as a teenager. It's
a copy of the original, but I do not know where the original is, or
even if it still exists. Does that have the same impact as if it were
the original? I guess it's a similar argument to the digital
reprint/original question in a way. Anyway, there's $0.02 more for you
Michael

Michael

Re: General Discussion Type Thing-y 2: the wrath of con

Legg inn av Michael » 28 sep 2004 02:41:54

I wasn't really thinking of the legal aspect of the copies, but that
is a good point. I was wondering about the thought of digitally
archiving everything, versus boxes and boxes of old, yellowing paper.
From the standpoint of historical awe (the fact that my great
grandparents held this same document), versus a photocopy of the same
piece of paper, with the original lost, unattainable, or even
destroyed. If all you have is a copy, is there a problem? Again,
legality not withstanding. And, if the photocopy is just as good, what
about the digital reproduction? Those can be copied (digitally) at
will with the same quality, unlike photocopies of photocopies. Perhaps
I'm making a tempest in a teapot, but I'm just curious.
Michael

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:25:16 -0500, "W.E.Cole" <wecole.nospam@ev1.net>
wrote:

As a research tool, a photocopy is usually as good as the original, provided
both sides of the original are copied if there was any information on the
back. As a legal document, photocopies are nearly worthless unless they are
properly certified (assuming that photocopies of the particular document can
be certified).


"Michael" <mhardyNOSPAM@NOSPAMgt.rr.com.com> wrote in message
news:geqok0lb28phvg3m119l7tlpsjjobufhsp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:11:08 GMT, Michael
mhardyNOSPAM@NOSPAMgt.rr.com.com> wrote:

Hi again,
I'd like to thank everyone who posted to my first topic, and
especially Mick for posting to my previous thread and, at the same
time, swerving into my next question<g>. Hard copies vs digital. Is
it an all or nothing proposition? Is there something more tangible
about having THE paper in your hand? In my earlier thread, someone
mentioned having copies that aren't readable with a newer unit.
However, so far (and I know we've only been in the computer age for
about 25 years or so), there are no files that could not have survived
from the first saved disk until now. However, there are no 8 inch
floppy drives around, and not many more 5 1/4 inch floppy drives
around, let alone in use. So, if you haven't migrated yet, you MIGHT
be too late! :-) But, even though I've scanned a lot of the papers I
have inherited from my grandmother, I haven't thrown ANY of them away.
I think there is something awesome about having THE deed to my great
great great grandfather's land, signed by his hand in the late 1800's.
But for the life of my, it's hard to say WHY. The copy looks just as
good, and it can be reproduced precisely over and over again, with the
tenth copy of the image file looking just the same as the first. And,
unless I lose every single copy I can make, I'll always have it. Paper
will more than likely disintegrate. And, all the old census records
everyone here posts, are all images. Do the originals still exist? Or,
is it just the microfilm, or even, just the images of the microfilm?
Do you print out a copy of the microfilm images for your records? Or,
in that case, is the digital enough?
And now for some personal questions... Where do you store your
documents? If you digitize, how many backups, and where are they? If
you keep the originals, where? Are there any preservation tips that
are not obvious to us newbies? More to follow
Michael


While I'm at it, I might as well add another thought. Are
photocopies as powerful as the originals? I have a copy of an inquest
into the death of a long distant uncle who drowned as a teenager. It's
a copy of the original, but I do not know where the original is, or
even if it still exists. Does that have the same impact as if it were
the original? I guess it's a similar argument to the digital
reprint/original question in a way. Anyway, there's $0.02 more for you
Michael

Herman Viaene

Re: General Discussion Type Thing-y 2: the wrath of con

Legg inn av Herman Viaene » 28 sep 2004 21:02:00

Michael wrote:
I wasn't really thinking of the legal aspect of the copies, but that
is a good point. I was wondering about the thought of digitally
archiving everything, versus boxes and boxes of old, yellowing paper.

If original docs are eg. handwritten (and thus open to reading faults
etc...), these should better be preserved if possible at all.
Paper produced since end of the 1800's is most probably not going to
last for much longer - there are people who can explain the intricacies
of the paper composition better than I can, but I know a lot of paper
since then is "self-destructing".

From the standpoint of historical awe (the fact that my great
grandparents held this same document), versus a photocopy of the same
piece of paper, with the original lost, unattainable, or even
destroyed. If all you have is a copy, is there a problem?

In view of the above, taking copies seems wortwhile - providing the
copies are of very good quality, since future generations might have to
copy the copies ....
Again,
legality not withstanding. And, if the photocopy is just as good, what
about the digital reproduction?

Digital reproduction sounds very attractive - good resolution possible,
no further loss due to further copying for some of the formats (try to
find some reading on the unexpected side effects that opening and
re-saving JPG files might have).
But the big stumble block might be the media on which those digital
copies are saved. Since about 40 years these media exist now, there has
been a bewildering variety of such carriers/devices and if no action is
taken, one could end up with perfectly saved media, but no devices
anymore available. I remember reading some years ago about the American
Congres (I believe) who stored their records on 14-inch wheel magnetic
tapes and then found out 20 years later hardly any readers where still
available.

Herman Viaene

>

Svar

Gå tilbake til «alt.genealogy»