# Long term storage of digital pics?



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

Now that I'm shooting digital photos, I'm concerned about how to safely store them. Seems like this is still a weak spot of digital. With film, I can simply keep the negatives in a box or envelope and as long as they're kept dry they'll last longer than my lifetime. 


With digital I can put them on CD, but CD-Rs are notoriously unstable and must be stored in darkness. (I didn't know this when I first started using CD-Rs to back up my software, and ended up with a bunch of useless silver "coasters" within a year or so.) 


 I can store the pics on my hard drive but hard drives can fail unexpectedly at any time. Really sucks when it happens while you're making a backup to an external drive -- then you can lose the backups too. (Been there, done that.)


How long can photos be safely stored on memory cards?  Are there any other alternatives for long-term storage of digital pics?


----------



## Mike O (Jan 2, 2008)

Ray, 

No easy answers, but there are a couple of thoughts based on what I do. I assume you don't want to go to a network back up service or use one of the the tape back up systems that are available. I have two hard drives on my work station. I normally back up things I'm working on to the second hard drive and keep several versions of it so I can go back if I need to. I also have an external hard drive connected via a UBS port. I periodically back everything up to that. it has a specific directory for images so I can access images that I have deleted from my hard drives quickly. When it is not in use, it is disconnected from the computer to minimize the chance of malware getting to it. Less frequently, I back up to non rewritable DVDs that are advertised to have long lives. I take these off site to secure storage. I don't delete any data from my internal hard drives until I have done a back up to DVDs so I am always fully redundant. the back ups run while I am doing other things (not using the data). 
Hope this helps. 
Mike


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

back up to DVD, then in 5 years, check them and see if they have degraded (there is error correction on the disks) - use the cd/dvd speed program free from nero... if no errors added, then check again in 5 years... when they start to degrade, copy them. 

Store in a cool dark place.... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Another option is to use one of the online backup services. Relatively inexpensive and they worry about keeping backups.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

a problem with backups, is that they need to be checked periodically.. sometimes a file gets corrupted, and then it keeps being backed up... these services do not check that your file is not corrupted, just that they can read and write it... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

One key thing to take into consideration in all this--storage formats change/improve over time. There's a very good chance that 10 years down the road, our storage options will be completely different, and probably much more stable than what we have today. (There's the equal chance that computers 10 years from now may not be able to read today's formats. Who still has a Zip drive, let alone a 5" floppy drive?) So long as we keep transfering our files from one format to the next over time, the longevity issue takes care of itself. 

The other issue is redundancy. This is an area we're particularly aware of at work now, as we've left the world of video tape. Everything's digital, from acquisition to broadcast. We now archive to a smirrored server over an array of hard drives. I don't know how many, but the theory is that saving across an array of smaller-capacity storage drives is safer than saving to one big one--the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" theory of archiving. Of course, right now, we lovingly refer to it as the "roach motel" archive, because we're having trouble getting stuff back from it, but that's a software issue. Gotta love technology. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 26 Jul 2009 10:29 PM 
One key thing to take into consideration in all this--storage formats change/improve over time. There's a very good chance that 10 years down the road, our storage options will be completely different, and probably much more stable than what we have today. (There's the equal chance that computers 10 years from now may not be able to read today's formats. Who still has a Zip drive, let alone a 5" floppy drive?) So long as we keep transfering our files from one format to the next over time, the longevity issue takes care of itself. 







That's kind of what bugs me about digital. To me, "long term storage" means file it and forget it. I can do that with film but not digital. Everything has to periodically be copied and recopied, to prevent both loss due to break down of the medium, and loss due to the medium becoming outdated.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Yes sir, the U.S. government almost lost the whole 1960 census because of technology creep, but they lucked out and recovered _most_ of it, whatever that translates into.


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 27 Jul 2009 12:24 AM 
Yes sir, the U.S. government almost lost the whole 1960 census because of technology creep, but they lucked out and recovered _most_ of it, whatever that translates into.


Steve, that means your info was the part lost when you ask them for it down the road.

Randy


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By rlvette on 27 Jul 2009 10:11 AM 
Posted By SteveC on 27 Jul 2009 12:24 AM 
Yes sir, the U.S. government almost lost the whole 1960 census because of technology creep, but they lucked out and recovered _most_ of it, whatever that translates into.
Steve, that means your info was the part lost when you ask them for it down the road.

Randy
Ah, another case of plausible deniability.


----------



## KVBarkley (Jan 9, 2009)

Here are some solutions from the luminous landscape: 
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hd-back.shtml 
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/storage_and_archiving.shtml 

I recommend several portable HD's with one stored offsite. 

As far as being easy to store negatives "forever", remember that this was a single-point failure. You can have multiple pristine copies of your files. 
I would also suggest for long term storage to use "jpegs", tiffs, or PSD's. future RAW files may not be read by future software, though I would hope that Canon and Nikon would always be readable!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually, at the risk of seeming argumentative, storing things on a hard drive is the most dangerous, it's a mechanical device, and any failure in it will normally render ALL the data gone.. 

Also, I would state that raw data can ALWAYS be used, since it mirrors how the data was taken, with no other information. jpeg, tiff, and PSD are all formats that have changed and evolved over time. I would say JPEG is the safest. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## KVBarkley (Jan 9, 2009)

"Actually, at the risk of seeming argumentative, storing things on a hard drive is the most dangerous, it's a mechanical device, and any failure in it will normally render ALL the data gone.. " 
Which is why I recommend *3*, and I guess I did not make it clear that these are removable/portable drives and spend most of their time in the off state. You could also spend some money and get the new solid state hard disks. 

"Also, I would state that raw data can ALWAYS be used, since it mirrors how the data was taken, with no other information. jpeg, tiff, and PSD are all formats that have changed and evolved over time. I would say JPEG is the safest. " 
The problem is that you need very detailed knowledge of the camera in order to interpret the data, including just what colors are contained in the bayer matrix of the sensor. Some folks also incorporate some RAW processing that fixes various camera defects like vignetting. I have heard that some mfg's actually encrypt the RAW data to prevent reverse engineering. Read the weeping and wailing on some photo sites complaining about RAW conversion quality, and this is from a current, supported camera! PSD's will be good as long as Adobe is around...


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ahh, the encrypting of the raw data, I did forget that some companies do that... of course I would always store it in an unencrypted format, but I see your point, the average person might not understand the dangers, or if their data was encrypted. 

Point well taken. 

On the hard drives, inactivity of a hard drive does not necessarily make it last longer, quite often failure happens at the first inrush of power, and nowadays, unless you buy expensive hard drives intended for servers, they do not last long at all, almost everything is designed to last just a bit longer than the warranty. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Remember also that jpeg is a destructive format. Every time you open the file and resave it, it compresses the file, losing more and more data. That does not to my knowledge extend to simply copying the files, but if you open the files to see what you have, then save them to a new media format (i.e, from CD to flash drive), you've just chipped away at the quality. .TIF is fairly standard for archival storage of images. Many museums use that for their digital archives. It is a non-destructive compression format. The files are larger, but you don't lose any data when you save the image. Also, it's non-proprietary, so there's a very good chance that 50 years down the line, whatever software company is making image processing software will be able to read them. .PSD files are good if you've got layers that you need to save as part of the overall image package, but that's the only advantage to saving in that format. Once it's flattened to one layer, save it as a .TIF and be done with it. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm not trying to be "right", but Kevin what you said is not completely correct. 


With a JPEG, the compression happens again only if you edit or resize the picture. Opening the picture does not change the structure of a JPEG. 

Not all TIFF files have a "lossless" (proper term) compression scheme, and I doubt that many people know how to tell what compression is used on their TIFF files.

see the first few paragraphs on this: http://www.scantips.com/basics9t.html

PSD is no way a good choice at all... does not even bear discussing. 

The safest file type is probably BMP, uncompressed, unencoded, and the color depth is specified in a nice simple header... straight RGB. Obviously the largest files, other than super "deep" raw files. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Some people do not understand the difference between, having the Operating System "Copy" an image file; and, using an image editing program to load and save an image file, to a different name or different place. 

"Copy" just makes duplicates of the binary data in one place to another place. 

But an image editing program reads the binary data and converts it to display it on a screen, then when it is told to save the file, it reads what it put on the screen, without regard to what the original data was, and converts it, using its own algorithms, to a new file. If the algorithm is not identical to the one that created the data originally, the output will not be the same. And due to the nature of the algorithm, even the exact same one may not create the actual original data again!

Nor do people understand how data gets lost in the conversion processes.


I used to do a demo for the graphics arts people where I worked. They were having the printer people come in to "adjust" the printers every other day because the company logo that got printed always looked "dirty"... like the printer was splattering ink when printing... They had no idea how a LASER printer worked! 

The company logo was just the company name under a circular shaped symbol, both in black on a white blackground. The white space between the letters in the text and around the symbol was always "speckly".

Some salesmen (and other higher-ups) with company printed business cards would send them back to the printing department because the text looked dirty and they didn't want to hand them out! 

I would take the logo file; actually a color file even if of just a B/W image, and change just the lower right most pixel to black and save the file, then reload it and change it to green and save it again. Then reload the file, change the pixel to red and save it yet again. After changing the pixel through the primary colors and black, saving and reloading the file each time I would change it back to white and save it again. At each save, I made a new file so I could show the progression of the degradation. 

Then I printed each file on view-cell transparencies. I would print the same files 4 or 5 times each.

Then by putting the view-cells up on a screen where everything is magnified greatly I could show that each print of the same file had the exact same pattern of "ink splatter", to show that it was data in the file, not random "splatter" in the printer. The many files showed how each successive Load, Edit and Save had made the "dirty image" worse. 

I gave that presentation several times to different groups over about 5 years and yet they still valued making the file smaller to save space over the quality of the printed image and still complained that their printers were bad. It was just ingrained in their minds that "the LASER splattered the ink". They would still demand the printer repair folk to turn down the power on the LASER so it would not make the ink splatter on the paper!

The last time the printer repair folk asked me to make the presentation, we all had new computers with new OS and image editing software and when I tried it out the day before, it didn't work! Apparently, newer image editing software does some sort of discernment as to where the change was made and keeps the rest of the image unaltered.

I did manage to show that a BitMap (.BMP) file would not have the splattering when you add text to the image, and that a JPEG (.JPG) file would, but just loading a JPG file, and making an inconsequential change had no effect on the rest of the image when saved. The problem that time was that they had gotten hold of an old image file where the splatters had not been cleaned up and saved a new copy as a highly compressed JPG file (which made it much worse) then printed a bunch of new business cards and most of them came back for replacement. I showed them how to clean up the image and save it as a .BMP file and to always start with the BitMap when laying out a new use for the logo and to erase and re-add the logo as the last step so it would be degraded the least when saving the file one last time for printing.

I also found that further degradation could occur if different a program was used for an edit than the one that last saved the file. If one program saved the file initially using one level of compression and then a second program was used to load and save it (even without making any changes) with a different level of compression there would be loss of image quality... even if the second program tried to save it in a higher quality form (less compression)!


As far as what media to save the files on... Hmmm... I believe all the present medias will probably outlast the hardware availability to read the media in the future.

How many of us can play a 78 RPM Record? 

How about a 16..66 RPM? 

An 8-Track tape? 

Anybody have an Edison Voice Writer to playback some Edison Wax Cylinders?

Dictaphone wide belts?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks Charles.. you have gone into finer detail than I did, but you did dispel the myth that merely displaying an image recompresses the file. 

Also, JPEG compression is relatively standard, but I completely agree that you cannot recompress and expect exactly the same results. 

You can get 100 year CD's and DVD's, but in 10 years, you would probably copy your DVD collection to a newer, faster, more dense format. 

My prime recommendations are high resolution jpgs or BMP files if the pictures are really valuable, and DVD media, properly verified for 100% good sectors. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## nkelsey (Jan 4, 2008)

Remember good old Film is not file and forget either. Negatives, especially the early color ones will degrade over time if not stored in archival quality envelopes and boxes, in moderate to cool temperatures, in reduced light. Photos, especially those printed on the first generations of Kodak Color paper are turning orange. I know I had to have my wedding album restored. Again, store in archival quality envelopes and boxes, cool temps, reduced light. 
For my digital pictures, my hard drive backs up to an external drive each night, I back up on a regular basis to Tayio Yuden DVD R, not RW, R are more stable. 
A cheap method of on line storage is Gmail. Create a Gmail user account just for backups and send your pics as attachments to that address and store them in the archive. Prints from digital should be made using, again, archival paper, archival inks, stored etc... 
I have a box full of tintypes, daguerreotypes and old family photos that have to be restored, and archival stored that is a winter project waiting for me. Any questions about photos and saving them, talk to your local history society or a genealogist.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

To me, "long term storage" means file it and forget it. 

Like NASA and the tapes of the moon landing. Oops - we needed more tapes so we took the ones back from archive and wrote new stuff on them... 

Who still has a Zip drive, let alone a 5" floppy drive 

I have an 8" floppy disk, if that helps?


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Night shift in the computer center... the place where you took your deck of punch cards and gave them to an "Operator" (Teamster's Union!) to run your "job" when it was your "turn"... had an employee whose job was to take a cart into the mag tape library, put a dozen or so of these 12 inch diameter reels of 1/2 inch wide tapes on his cart and take them to the "drive room" where he would mount them on tape drives where the tape would be wound onto a take up reel and then rewound back to the supply reel. This was done often enough that each tape in the library got run through this at least once per month. 

Too often for my liking, my "job" got postponed because they could not find "MY" work tapes in the library (they were in the drive room being rewound!).

The first programmable calculators that used what looked like audio cassette tapes for data and program storage, (they were a much higher quality and had a tape that had the oxide deposited as a vertical fuzz instead of laying down the way audio tape has it) had tape drives that had a feature built-in that would run the tape all the way one way and then rewind it. The instruction books said to do this to the tapes weekly.

It was said this was to keep the tape supple and make them last longer. (I found that it also helped to get the tape uniformly wound on the supply reel. After they had been used a few times, being run forward and backward short distances as the computer needed the data, the tape would be zigzagged on the reel and would have read errors. Running them all the way forward and then rewinding them in one long operation helped to get the tape smoothly wound on the supply reel and reduced errors.)


I second the thought that you MUST verify that you can read your backups... not just that the file is there, but that it actually contains the data you expect! I have known people that very faithfully made Daily, Weekly AND Monthly backups of their harddrive and sometimes they were just making copies of corrupted data. It was panics-ville when they would discover that some seldom utilized file was no good and the backups made for the last YEAR were all bad, too! I learned a lot about file and directory structures so I could salvage what I could from these files. Sometimes it was only one disk sector that was bad, but if it was near the beginning it caused the loss of the whole file. If I could replace the bad sector with something that the program would accept we could at least recover the rest of the file and maybe figure out what had been lost.

I am actually a bit shocked that so many people here have said they make backups! I am way too lazy to do it for myself (and sometimes I "PAY" dearly for that privilege of being lazy!) and I don't know very many people that do better than I do at that "necessity"!


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Best way to preserve digital camera images? 
print them.. 

then if the worst ever happens, and you lose a hard drive with years of photos, at least you have the photos in SOME form.. 

I read a story where parents of an 8 year old girl lost ALL the photos of their child.. 
baby photos, toddler, birthday partys, christmas, vacations..they printed nothing in 8 years, left all the photos on the computer.. 
they now have literally no photograhic record of the first 8 years of their childs life.. 

you dont have to print literally every photo you take..but print at least the 25% that are priceless.. 
especially if you have children.. 

Scot


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Yes! Scatter your pictures far and wide.


Pre-Digital, I have some friends who had a fire. "Get the photo albums! They're under the coffee table," she said.


He brought out the coffee table. All the photos they have of Patty and Nic are ones they'd sent to grandparents.


----------



## KVBarkley (Jan 9, 2009)

"Best way to preserve digital camera images? 
print them.. " 

Be careful, though, only the newer Inkjets are rated for 100 year print life. Some of the older ones can fade pretty quickly.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By KVBarkley on 28 Jul 2009 09:23 AM 
"Best way to preserve digital camera images? 
print them.. " 

Be careful, though, only the newer Inkjets are rated for 100 year print life. Some of the older ones can fade pretty quickly. 




good point!
I should have clarified..
most home printers are not the greatest quality..
unless you have a good printer specifically designed to make prints..
(as opposed to most home printers that are basically just document printers..but can print a photo on occasion, if necessary)
even then, its either thermal or inkjet..which might be good quality these days, but I dont know much about them..

you should really take them to someplace that can give you real old-fashioned silver-halide prints..
a digital minilab that uses real photopaper, that is run through chemistry..
the same kind of prints you used to get from film..modern minilabs still print on that kind of paper,
with film or digital input..

"dry labs" like the small walk-up Kodak and Fuji kiosks, the kind you can use yourself, use thermal or inkjet paper..
im not sure of the archival qualities of those..I only work with silver prints..

any store with a traditional "minilab" can give you regular prints..
Walmart, drug stores, etc..
they are getting harder to find, but they are still out there..

Scot


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

??? 

Now the best way is to print them on paper, so you can never have them in the same resolution again? Using inks that are PREDICTED to last 100 years? On paper that you have no idea about? 

No, the best way to store digital data is to back it up on a reliable media, verify the backup integrity, and do so on a regular basis. (so if the technology starts to become obsolete, you can copy it to a new media) 

Two copies in separate locations are better. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

I'll have to side with Scot's answer.

Next time you're in a flea market/tag sale etc. and happen to run across some old photographs, think about it. Sure they are most likely no where near the quality they once were, but then again with the rigors that they've most likely suffered, if you subjected any or all of your technology based storage to the same you'd have zip. Additionally, just think of the technology required to view them, again none, just the photograph, light, and your eyes.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 28 Jul 2009 01:44 PM 
??? 

Now the best way is to print them on paper, so you can never have them in the same resolution again? Using inks that are PREDICTED to last 100 years? On paper that you have no idea about? 


man..are people trying to be argumentative on purpose lately? just for the sake of arguing?
because I know you understood what I meant..










I dont think I said "print them, then *delete* the original files!" 

print them so you dont lose your photos forever *IF* something happens and you lose the digital files.. 
come on Greg..that was obvious..

Scot


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Hmm... I have floppy disks 20 years old I can read, and they were in boxes with photographs. The photographs were faded and some were chewed on by silverfish. 

I don't agree. 

Sure I don't have a 100 year old floppy, but when I re-copy my archived digital images in about 10 years, they will be just as good as today, and your photographs will be faded and cracked. 

Yep, it takes less technology to view hardcopy pictures, but I don't think computers are going away in my lifetime, so I'm sure there will be one close by. 

I got a gentleman's bet for Steve and/or Scot: you archive your pictures on paper now, and I'll put all mine on DVD's. 

Then on July 28, 2019, let's compare... 

Since we are archiving, let's also pick the number to archive. How about 500 pictures? Sound fair? 

Oh, to make it practical, you have to store them at your house. 

5 bucks to the winner? 

Regards, Greg


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg

Since the short span of 10 years is a total waste of time (and you know it), and since a true comparison would be way past the time allocated for either of us to be present, there's no way for either of us to prove the other wrong.









Oh yes, and the comparison between just two specific individuals wouldn't be a definitive answer either, now would it.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Another thing that I for got to ask regarding the 20 year old floppies, just how many high resolution photographic images are stored on them?


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 28 Jul 2009 03:17 PM 
Another thing that I for got to ask regarding the 20 year old floppies, just how many high resolution photographic images are stored on them?










It is not a matter of how many images per floppy but how many floppies per image.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 28 Jul 2009 03:01 PM 
Greg

Since the short span of 10 years is a total waste of time (and you know it), and since a true comparison would be way past the time allocated for either of us to be present, there's no way for either of us to prove the other wrong.









Oh yes, and the comparison between just two specific individuals wouldn't be a definitive answer either, now would it.

That was a "fun" post, from the "gentleman's bet" to the silverfish....









Lot's of smilies here just to make sure no misunderstanding... to each his own... although we could increase the time span to 20 years if you want...









Nothing was never meant to be a definitive answer.... of course...

Regards, Greg


p.s. Actually there were several pictures, but I did not have a digital camera 20 years ago... and the floppy was about 25 years old, just checked it.... by the way, I have DOS 1.0 on a floppy, and it is readable...


----------



## KVBarkley (Jan 9, 2009)

Well, if he used some of these compression algorithms he can fit his current files on a floppy: 
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/section-8.html 
8^P


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

by the way, I have DOS 1.0 on a floppy, and it is readable...
Good, then you can use that to verify that the keyboard keystrokes like {Ctrl+End} and such have been around since that version of 'edlin.'


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

ABSOLUTELY! I still have a wordstar disk around somewhere... 

Greg


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

I know that WordStar was originally written for CP/M, wasn't aware it was ported to MS/DOS. I used WordPerfect after it was ported to MS/DOS.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yep, and a major CP/M manufacturer was just a few miles down the road in Solana Beach, KayPro 

I had a KayPro laptop that had a black and white non-backlight display, no hard drive, and you could run either CP/M or DOS 

Regards, Greg


----------



## joe rusz (Jan 3, 2008)

Ah, the faith of the young. Although I'm as spry as ever and a kid at heart (my wife says I'm not a kid, just immature), the reality is that I am 71 and looking through the short end of the telescope. My mother died at 84 and so did my wife's mom. I had an uncle who lived to be 90-something (in case you're wondering, my father died of pneumonia at 47, which is kind of a wild card). We have a friend who's still on his game at 92. But the bottom line is this: chances are I ain't gonna outlive my storage media. 

Now I have two good friends, automotive photographers John Lamm and Bill Warner-- who depend on selling images of past and present events. They depend on a proper storage medium because their kids will someday be able to make a few bucks selling dad's or grandpaw's vintage images. But that's not my case and whether or not a DVD lasts more than a few years, is not an issue to me. Not to sound maudlin. I'm just sayin'... 

BTW, Scott Kelby, my Lightroom 2 book writer says Adobe DNG is the way to go, because Adobe, being the 800 pound gorilla of image processing software, will ensure that its programs are readable in the future. Thats's just what I read, so please don't dis me. I am only the messenger.


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

In the CP/M editor, almost any command you typed ended with ^Z0LT, which we pronounced "Zolt."


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

So, some of us can subtract a year, or ten years, from our taxes







. Does that make me ten years younger







. Endless possibilities







.


----------



## Dennis Cherry (Feb 16, 2008)

How do you unsubscribe a topic email notification.


----------



## KVBarkley (Jan 9, 2009)

We still have equipment that uses DR-DOS. 

"An 8-Track tape? " 

I heard that Cheap Trick is releasing there latest album on 8-Track tape.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dennis Cherry on 29 Jul 2009 09:17 AM 
How do you unsubscribe a topic email notification. 
At the top of the page, just below the title of the thread is a checkbox that is probably checked in your case with the text next to it that reads "You are subscribed to this topic." Click the checkbox to "un-check" it and you will no longer be subscribed to the topic.

You get subscribed automatically if you reply to a posting unless you "un-check" a similar checkbox in the Reply area of the form at the time you create the reply.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

{snip...}[/i] You get subscribed automatically if you reply to a posting unless you "un-check" a similar checkbox in the Reply area of the form at the time you create the reply. {snip...}[/i]
CT

What you say is true ,but only if the user has the 'Subscribe to Topics' setting on the My Preferences tab, set to by default subscribe to topics. Otherwise the user has to manually click the check box on the upper-left of each topic page, or just below and to the left of the 'Submit' button on the WYSIWYG Editor.


----------



## Off Track (Nov 9, 2008)

There are professional photo labs that offer a service to "write" digital files to film using what is called a "film recorder" which exposes the digital image onto film. The film is then developed, and the negative can be printed just like any other negative would be.
Here's a good place to start-
https://www.gammatech.com/html/recording35neg.shtml


----------

