AfterMarket Inks Unreliability

[Michael Johnson, PE]

My point is there is a demand for VHS machines and it is being filled.
One day there won't be a demand and they will not be available. The
same will happen with DVDs/CDs one day too but with the new HD-DVD
technology being made backward compatible with current DVD/CD disks I
don't see this happening for a VERY, VERY long time. I have a cheap
($99) Sharp VHS machine that has been going strong for years and years
now. Granted, it doesn't get played much but it answers the call of
duty when asked. Considering it is used less than 1-2 times as year, at
best, it should last damn near forever. If it dies and I can't replace
it, which I doubt will be the case for another 5-10 years, I won't shed
a tear because anything important we have on VHS is also on DVD, which
isn't much. It is the consumer that determines when a technology
disappears and not the manufacturers. It there is a good enough demand
for a product then some company will always step up and provide it to
the public. That is one of the beautiful results of having a capitalist
based economy.

My guess is that libraries are culling their VHS collection because
newer storage medium is more reliable and takes up far less space and
can be networked much easier. I would wager the availability of VHS
players is likely a very small component of their decision to replace
the tapes with DVDs. Plus any new media they add is going to be DVD/CD
based and it makes little sense to have two viewing systems to maintain.

 

[Michael Johnson, PE]

Your approach is not typical of not only the average picture taker, but
also the average professional photographer. It also may not make
economic sense. Most people do not have several networked computers at
home with duplicate data and back up drives. And, as I stated before,
someone is going to have to be responsible at some point to continue the
hand off once you are dead, if you wish the images to remain within the
family.

I work out of the basement doing civil engineering and land development
so we have plenty of computers laying around (four desktops and two
laptops) and this is probably not the norm, although I would think
networking has become (or is becoming) the norm nowadays. However,
external USB hard drives are cheap and plentiful and are well within the
financial reach of the average person to employ one or two of these for
backup duty. Considering they are only used during backup they should
last for quite some time before failing, on average. Having two go down
at the same time is nearly impossible.

I doubt there will be much left of my photographic work in 100 years.
Can you imagine the sheer volume of digital data that will exist by
then? The advent of the digital camera has made us all drunk with the
ability to snap photo after photo of really worthless crap. At the rate
my wife and I are going we will have a bazillion gigs worth of photos by
the time we expire. Who in their right mind would go through all that
data to find those really good shots if we haven't done this for them?
I do know that the best chance my photos have to survive is to keep them
in digital form. In theory they can last forever with loss of any sort.
A print will ultimately fade and deteriorate unless it is stored like
the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.

A nicely printed permanent image seems to be a much more logical
approach. It is one of the reasons I have always liked black and white
silver halide images. They have worked amazingly well for the last 150
years now.

One advantage I see with prints is they are something a person can
physically touch and process without the aid of any technology. If a
meteor hits the planet then this might be something to consider.

 

[george]

Who makes / markets better quality aftermarket ink for the Canon
printers?

 

[Michael Johnson, PE]

I respectfully disagree.

Digital files, may indeed fade. The majority of current storage
technologies (CD-R and DVD+ or -/R) actually do fade (they use organic
dyes to make the digital record), and hard drive magnetic signatures can
also fail over time.

I would think of it as data corruption. Whenever we upgrade a computer
that has our files on it they get transfered to the new machine. I
don't see me backing up photos on a given medium and letting them stay
there indefinitely. I would want them at my disposal which means
transferring them from time to time to whatever the current medium may be.

Secondly, there have been so many changes in storage technologies and
file formats, that many are no longer readable due to changes of formats
(literally the file format becomes obsolete and no one has programs
that will read them) and/or the media themselves become obsolete... try
finding an 8" floppy drive, or many of the Syquest or PD disk systems.

This is why data storage isn't a one time operation. Most people will
want access to their data so it will be moved to newer storage media
when necessary. I always have ALL our photos on a computer that is
accessible at any given time. I would think most people are the same as
me in this regard.

Thirdly, I don't know about you, but I have family pictures in my
collection of people who died nearly 100 years ago. I don't have the
negatives from them, and I certainly don't have the digital files from
many newer ones. Once you die, who will take care of this service of
reprinting and redistributing images?

Many photos will likely fall by the wayside but it wouldn't be any
harder, and in fact it will probably be much easier, to maintain digital
data in the future than it is today. While it may not be used or
accessed it could easily be stored and passed on.

One thing I have learned in the digital age is that storing information
digitally is much more convenient than storing paper. I scan almost
everything I receive on the projects I work on and store the files in
the computer. Heck, I have every fax I ever received since 1998 on my
computer and at my finger tips. I can access data and information very
quickly and never leave my chair. I don't misfile it, spill coffee on
it, lose it etc. and I find storing information this way very
liberating. In 100 years this will be the norm and, IMO, handling and
maintaining old family digital data may be quite the norm and very easy
to accomplish. Unless that meteor hits.

Frouthly, even assuming the digital files survived the format and media
changes, how many of those disks will be saved by your heirs, when they
aren't well indexed or labeled? Digital media all looks identical from
the "outside" Is that CD an old version of Word Perfect, backups of
email, images, family pics, old correspondence, or some porn off the
web? Who is going to sort through it? On the other hand, it is very
easy to sort through a few photo albums or shoe boxes of prints and know
immediately what is what.

This is where we, as the original producers of the data, need to cull
out the really good photos for future generations. We shouldn't leave
them with a big mass of data that they will need to sift through. Maybe
have the equivalent of the Bill Board Top 100 for every years worth of
photographs. Really, all I can do it get the data in their hands and
what they do with it at that point is beyond my control and, quite
frankly, I plan to not care about it anymore.

It's not quite as simple as it may first appear, if you want there to be
a record of your family for others in the future. Prints are still the
most easily transferable method, since they require no technology to
access and view, but if they fade away, they become lost history.

I guess the best way is to give them both, digital and hard copies.

 

[measekite]

Interesting thought...Epson, HP, Canon, etc. may very well avoid
paying somebody like Wilhelm to test against the better aftermarket
inks because they aren't so confident that the OEM's would fare so
well in the test. They might only pay for tests they know they can win.

Very interesting thought, indeed. Thank you, Art.

TJ

Totally ridiculuous. Everybody knows that the generics are no where up
to the quality of OEM.

 

[measekite]

And you never know when you'll hit that "lemon". I bought an i860 and
within a month both the printhead

Oh Yeah but you should have used all Canon all of the time.

AND the paper feeder system failed. The replacement (same model)
worked the rest of the year perfectly with the same aftermarket inks
the failed model used.

I do not beleive it

It has since been put
in storage for lack of use.

You mean for lackof quality

My other printers, and iP5000 (nearing 2
years) and iP4000 continue to work perfectly with aftermarket refill
inks.

I doubt it

 

[measekite]

I work out of the basement doing civil engineering and land
development so we have plenty of computers laying around (four
desktops and two laptops) and this is probably not the norm, although
I would think networking has become (or is becoming) the norm
nowadays. However, external USB hard drives are cheap and plentiful
and are well within the financial reach of the average person to
employ one or two of these for backup duty. Considering they are only
used during backup they should last for quite some time before
failing, on average. Having two go down at the same time is nearly
impossible.

I doubt there will be much left of my photographic work in 100 years.

I think you have a couple of extra zeroes on that number.

 

[measekite]

Who makes / markets better quality aftermarket ink for the Canon
printers?

With all inks for Canon printers that are not Canon inks you are subject
to lower quality output, more rapid fading and a much higher risk of
clogging the printhead; essentially ruining the printer since a new
printer with a new printhead and new ink is about $20.00 more than a
replacement printhead. Wow and all of that for $80.00.

 

[Richard Steinfeld]

I've got an audio background that goes way, way back. I've had to deal
with some of the same issues, only in the analog world, where the
problem of magnetic permanence has more experience behind it simply
because it's older. In other words, there have been many more years
since its commercial introduction in 1950 for the problems to emerge.
So, some comments:

1. Black-and-white photographs have the best shot at image durability
for the reason that the image consists of silver. If the paper is good
and the chemical procedures have been carried out properly, we've got
something that will endure given decent storage.

2. The best "normal" film medium that I know of for stability and
permanence is the original Kodachrome process. The reasons are too
complicated for this discussion, but if you want to know why, read up on
how it works, how it's processed, and how other color materials are
different. Dye transfer prints are better (but this is a wonderful
painstaking custom procedure with custom materials). I think, also, that
one or two Polaroid media are superior even to Kodachrome, and when I
was into photography, a medium called "Cibacachome" for transparencies
and prints.

Old Ektachrome transparencies from my marriage have held up with the
same degree of excellence as did the marriage itself on which the images
were based.

3. All traditional color media fade. The question is simply how fast and
under what conditions.

4. For environmental reasons, all color film and print processes were
changed during the 1970s. The replacements, although environmentally
better, are inferior in permanence. That's when Kodak introduced their
statement that they're not responsible for color shifts.

5. The most permanent way to store any information that's yet been used
is the historic shellac phonograph disk. (I believe that a statement to
this effect was issued by The Smithsonian Institution.) This is
especially true if the disk hasn't been dropped.

6. Optical storage has interesting potential, and I don't think that we
can make any positive overall statements about it yet. One thing for
sure: where permanence is concerned, many commercial optical disks
(regardless of the format) are junk. I have some premium Maxell CDRs
sold at a premium price; their archival quality is touted on the
package. Maxell, a major media manufacturer, did not make these disks;
they only packaged them. The actual manufacturer is Taiyo-Yuden. To my
eye, they look like ordinary TY disks. Hmmmmm.

7. One thing that's consistently overlooked in discussions about optical
recorders ("burners") (and readers, too, for that matter) is the quality
of the equipment and software. In other words, how accurate is the
aligmnent in all modes of a super high-speed DVD burner when recording
one medium vs. another? Was the burn intensity optimum or just close
enough? Have you ever seen any product review that dealved into this? Is
the silence deafening or what?

8. Magnetic degredatation is a fact. Because I watched established
mastertape recording practices in major recording studios many years
ago, and am now able to listen to CD reissues from the same tapes
decades later, I'm able to identify the underlying reasons for, and the
nature of, the degredation.

9. I know how to retrieve magnetically-degraded computer data. In many
or most situations, it can be recovered. I'm not talking. Yet.

(c) copyright Richard Steinfeld 2006

 

[Olin K. McDaniel]

Look at the Logan Simplex 750 for about $230.00. What printer did you
settle on?


Absolutely do not use them for you do not know what you are getting.


I would try them also if they would disclose what they are selling so I
could determine that they would not clog the printer and that the
quality is good and they do not fade more rapidly but I know that is not
the case.

Let's cut to the chase! What qualifies you to judge these factors IF
they did disclose their ingredients? Are you technically trained?
Are you an organic chemist? You just gave us the golden opportunity
to show what a fraud you really are, if you don't disclose your
qualifications. Some of us DO have some qualifications, but we don't
have to prove them since we don't make such outlandish claims as do
you! Moosecrap, you are indeed a bigmouth fraud, as it appears on
here.

Olin

 

[Taliesyn]

Let's cut to the chase! What qualifies you to judge these factors IF
they did disclose their ingredients? Are you technically trained?
Are you an organic chemist? You just gave us the golden opportunity
to show what a fraud you really are, if you don't disclose your
qualifications. Some of us DO have some qualifications, but we don't
have to prove them since we don't make such outlandish claims as do
you! Moosecrap, you are indeed a bigmouth fraud, as it appears on
here.

Olin

If you hang around here long enough you'll note EVERYONE has come to the
EXACT same conclusion about Measekite. He is indeed a minority of one.

-Taliesyn

 

[drc023]

Art,

What really is a permanent print? Sadly, B/W silver halide prints aren't too
common these days. I've got numerous professionally done photos of my family
which have faded horribly over a period of only a few years. These aren't
inexpensive discount store prints, but from professional studios. Some of
them faded to a sepia tone within a short time and are now quite faint. The
oldest one is about 28 years. All the prints from the package faded - some
in closed albums, some in the original paper envelopes and some which were
framed. All went bad. Yet other prints made around the same time - usually
from Sears and discount store studios or mall kiosks have held up very well
over the same period in exactly the same storage conditions as the much more
costly prints which deteriorated. I have many inkjet prints dating back to
the late 1980's which still look good. Some were made on a Lexmark 5700
(with refill ink from MIS) and some on a HP 722C using refill ink from
Computer Friends. I've been refilling my Canon inkjets since 2000 using
Formulabs and now HobbiColors ink and have seen absolutely no fading. I've
got ordinary snapshots done over the same period which have already shown
deterioration. My experiences directly contradict those of Wilhelm and the
absurd statements from the troll and Ron from Downunder. The whole point to
what I've written is that original cost or OEM ink status hasn't been a
factor in which prints lasted and which ones didn't. I know the cause of the
failures on the more expensive prints were due to improper developing
methods and/or poor supplies. Like Michael Johnson, I feel the best solution
at present is to make adequate backups of all prints. If they aren't already
digital, then I scan them using my trusty old Epson 1660. While it's true
storage media will also deteriorate over a period of time, the integrity of
the images can be maintained by doing periodic backups of the files. Sure it
may be a pain and the majority of users won't do it anyway, but what other
choice do they have. All prints, regardless of origin will likely go bad or
be destroyed by fire, flood, theft, etc... Multiple backups on the other
hand with at least one copy kept offsite offer much greater chances of being
recovered than any other method. How much protection does one have if they
can't find or don't have original negatives or prints? You can't reprint one
of those, but you sure can with digital files. Like Michael, I use an
external hard drive for backup and I also have DVD copies as well. Sure it's
overkill - or is it?

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Hi George,

In spite of the many and varied comments regarding Henry Wilhelm's
research and testing of photographic and inkjet materials, and
regardless what anyone may say here or elsewhere, he pretty
single-handedly has written the bible on image permanence of
photographic materials, the full text of which is downloadeable free of
charge from his website at: www.wilhelm-research.com

I recommend people interested in the permanence of both traditional
photographic and inkjet materials look over his many free papers on that
site.

Whether you agree with the methodology of his testing or not (and I
suggest you read about it before deciding) the numbers he offers are
based upon consistent conditions used for all the materials, which
should give you some concept of the relative permanence of the ink and
paper combinations he has tested. No accelerated testing method can
replicate real life aging conditions, but unless you are willing to wait
100 years for the results, a bit of faith in the science is required.

We have known for many years that the environmental factors that tend to
age images and paper substrates are UV, white light, infrared light
(heat), humidity and certain oxidizing factors found in the atmosphere.

Wilhelm mainly emphasized UV and white light until the last few years
when a surprising failure of some dyes occurred due to ozone and
humidity levels. Since then, he has begun to look at those factors as well.

Rather than get into specifics, since he goes into them in detail, I
will give some general guidelines.

1) In general, pigment colorant inks have higher fade resistance to all
environmental factors, including UV, visible light, ozone, humidity,
etc. They tend to be waterproof when dry, and assuming a reasonable
binder in the ink, they hold well to the paper. They do tend to sit on
the surface of the paper, however, so they are more apt to be scuffed or
scratched. They tend to create surface reflective changes so a glossy
paper may show more matte in heavily inked areas. this may result in
the need for two types of black ink, one for photo images, which isn't
as dense, but maintains the surface qualities, and matte which has
higher pigment levels, but can only be used with matte surfaced papers.
Their color gamut is usually not as wide a dye inks. They don't work
with swellable polymer papers (more on this later)

2) Dye inks tend to have a wider gamut, allowing for somewhat brighter
colors. They tend to be less resistant to fading and other
environmental factors such as ozone. They are rarely waterproof on
their own, although may become so with use of some microporous papers.
They will often work with both microporous and swellable polymer papers.
Newer dye formulations tend toward improved permanence.

3) Swellable polymer papers can improve dye ink permanence by 10% up to
1000% (ten times) their permanence with either plain paper or
microporous papers. Swellable papers tend to be slow in drying, and
with some inks, won't dry at all. These papers tend to be more
vulnerable to fingerprints and moisture. Once well dried they stand up
fairly well, but are not waterproof. Microporous papers are "instant
dry", sometimes waterproof even with dye inks, tend to be accepting of
many more ink formulations, but aren't as fade resistance.

4) Images that are kept in the dark generally last longest. Next best
is under glass. For instance, Canon Chromalife 100 inks are rated for
100 years when the images are kept in the dark of a photo album. If your
area has high ozone levels, they can do a quick job or dye inks,
particularly the cyan color. Most ozone fading occurs while the ink is
drying and setting.

5) Paper is almost as critical to permanence as the inks are. Using
systems (OEM inks and paper) together often give the better results,
simply because they are designed together. I am not promoting OEM
products per se, but I am suggesting that more research is required with
3rd party inks and papers to determine what works best together.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Just as long as we are clear about the differences, especially from
someone making demands of proof and facts.

Art

Nice try Frank, but don't demand "proof" and facts if you can't supply
them yourself. What's good for the goose...

Proof and facts usually don't begin with "Let's say..." or "I'm
probably correct in my assumption".

Art

Ron wrote:

To quote you Frank....(see your post below). "let's say....[etc]".
This is merely hearsay on your part. Where is your proo?. Where are
your facts, as you previously asked me, re: your below post?

Cheers
from Ron Downunder.

*snip*

Or let’s say an ink manufacturer in the Far East has multiple ink
factories that manufacturer ink to certain specifications given to
them by one of the majors. They're doing 'contract manufacturing'.
Their agreement states that they cannot sell the same ink to anyone
else. But they make more ink than the major called for and are
selling it "out the back door" so to speak.
If tested, both inks would product exactly the same results. The
distributor who buys the inks "out the back door" would never want
to have the ink tested. Nor would the manufacturer.
Now knowing the reputation and their proclivity for bending the
rules of patents, proprietarily and intellectual property in this
part of the world, I believe this behavior is both common and rampant.
Just one real reason why you’ll never see after market inks from
that part of the world tested alongside the majors.
Frank






Nice try Ron but no cigar. As most readers of my post would
immediately ascertain I'm speculating albeit with a very high degree
of probability.
In other words, I'm probably correct in my assumption.
Frank

Can you say "speculating', or “assumptions”? If you can, then you
clearly understand that "proof & facts" have no place in any
speculations or assumptions.
Just as I stated.
Do I have any proof that chemically formulated products that are
proprietary in nature, developed for a fortune 100 company, have been
sold 'out the back door"?
You bet I do, cause I personally purchased them at the factory "back door".
Do I believe this is rampart in the ink industry? You bet I do. Do I
have any proof? None, just pure speculation, assumptions and deductions
on my part.
Frank

 

[Arthur Entlich]

In the area of storage technologies, the demand is not made by the
consumer. The demand is fostered by manufacturers to the consumer, and
if necessary is forced upon the consumer. People didn't suddenly lose
interest in laserdisk movies or in Beta tapes. The manufactures very
unceremoniously dropped production, and orphaned the media format.

The reason my local library system is fazing out videotapes for DVD is
because the manufacturers have stopped distributing films on DVD.
The DVD industry offered DVD players for less than the cost of one
commercial movie on DVD (under $19 CAN). I am sure those are relatively
subsidized sales, relative to the copyrighted media.

I have literally hundreds of videotapes filled with personal materials,
and probably a similar collection of commercial tapes. I already paid
for the licensing rights on these, and I have neither the inclination
nor the time to transfer the stuff to yet another temporary medium so I
pick up VCRs from people who are discarding them, after my very top of
the line models have slowly failed and for which parts are no longer found.

I think CDs and DVDs are great, but not everything is transferred
commercially, and certainly all personal information will not be. The
same thing is true of my LP collection. I was told by the music
industry that I bought a license right to these albums, so why did I
have to pay for a new license when I replaced them with the CD version,
the same as someone who never bought the license to the LP?

Media manufacturers intentionally manufacture new and incompatible
formats to keep their markets moving. Often they have the product on
the drawing board or beyond that will obsolesce the product just about
to be released as the current leading edge. They have been known to
hold back on already invented and designed features to have something
new to eclipse the current technology they have coming off the factory
store.

I'm looking at my telephone and thinking that other than the ability to
use tone to dial, which, after about 20-30 years of tone dialing being
available is just now being dropped to be made fully obsolete.

Pretty much, any land phone made in the last 70 years will basically
work with the current land phone services. It may not have all the
bells and whistles but it will work as well or better than it did when
made on current phone lines. That's how good mature technology is designed.

Data storage media and drives seem to be an area that is always
changing, regardless how effective the previous method may be, so it is
the one I am most skeptical of.

My point is just that unless you are willing to either maintain older
systems for reading them, or constantly recopying to new digital images
or movies things will be lost, so a high permanence print becomes a
reasonably transferable open, but...

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I don't disagree with you that we are drunk on documenting things now
that it has become cheap and accessible. Years ago only wealthy people
owned cameras or had access to developing, and so an occasional family
portrait wa steh only documented image most families had. As the
availability to cameras and processing, movie cameras, video and finally
digital media has come about, the cost of production of an image of
movie has become almost free.

Again, one advantage of making prints that last is that the time and
cost do cause some editing process to occur, unlike the use of internet
to send everyone in your address book a copy of a capture of baby's
first sneeze.

My brother is a library archivist at a major university, and this issue
is a major point of discussion. As documents become electronic and
there are no longer original manuscripts or letters, how will we
distinguish those of importance, and how will will store them? Will we
even be able to read some formats as time goes on, etc?

Anyway, we are getting far afield from printing, but I think much of
this needs to be considered when trying to determine how important to
each of use the permanence of a print may be from a personal historical
perspective. If someone never shows any interest in looking at family
pictures of past generations of their family, then perhaps it doesn't
matter for them or their or relatives, but for those who wish to
maintain a document of their history, prints may still provide the best
transferable method.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I agree with much you state here. I still think you are the exception
rather than the rule when it comes to your scrupulous backup and
modernizing of your files and media. I know myself that I am not nearly
as organized or dedicated.

Also, my wife and I are both photographers and we produce many thousands
of images a year. We have literally well over 100,000 slides alone.
It's becoming worse with the digital files due to the lack of
self-retraint with almost no media cost ;-) We are also finding it more
difficult ot find the time to properly store and index the digital stuff
because, it has no physical presence. At least the slides exist
tangibly, as do the prints produced from the files.

I only raise these issues because I'm not sure most people have really
thought about their images in the "light" of generations, and maybe for
many they just don't consider it important, but I wanted to at least
throw it out there for people to consider.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

As you stated Kodachrome is great for dark storage, but is worse the
wear for use in light (projected often). The film is actually a
multi-layer black and white and turned into color film in the lab using
higher fade resistant dyes. The problem with Kodachrome is that besides
the process being very complex and costly (in terms of infrastructure)
it was highly polluting. Ektachromes tend to do better in projected
situations, but some E-6 films were miserably bad for fade resistance.
Processing quality also had a huge effect upon longevity.

In terms of CD R materials, there are several issues, the quality and
anti-oxidizing nature of the reflective coating and how well it is
adhered to the disk surface, the quality of the dyes and the scratch
resistance of the label surface.

Sputtered gold as the metal surface seems to be very good in terms of
both adherence and lack of likelihood to corrode. Some dyes have ben
found to be more resistance to breakdown than others.

RW materials may even be more archival than -R materials, since they use
a completely unique method of being written to involving change of state
of the recording material from amorphous to crystalline and bad with
certain temperatures and light frequencies.

I own several CD burners and several DVD burners of several vintages and
many media do not read between the drives.

Never believe the manufacturers' names on the CD or DVD. They are
brokered between numerous sources and excess inventory is bought and
relabeled. Have Memorex CD-Rs made by Fuji, while my Fuji brand disks
are made by yet another company.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I have raised the issues I have to make people better able to determine
their level of comfort with the various options, admittedly with my own
personal bias thrown in.

Current pigment black inks like the Epson K3 inks, make a print that is
probably equal to, or nearly to black and white halide ink prints.

Current color prints (photographic) vary from Fuji Crystal prints which
probably last about 50-60 years in moderate light and 100 years in
albums. Many Agfa color papers have vastly shorter lives.

Wilhelm rates most pigment ink prints (color) as more stable and
reliable than Ciba(Ilfo)chrome prints, which he gives something like
18-29 years.

Some dye inks on swellable polymer papers may provide 100 or more years
(Vivera inks on HP Swellable polymer papers). Epson has a new ink
called Claria, which may show promise.


Art

 

[Paul B]

Thus spake Arthur Entlich:

I have neither the inclination
nor the time to transfer the stuff to yet another temporary medium so
I pick up VCRs from people who are discarding them, after my very top
of the line models have slowly failed and for which parts are no longer
found.

The subject of archiving has been aired before on photography forums where
the conclusion with photos at least, was to print them on to archival paper.
Hard disc bearings dry up, CDRs fail probably a lot more than many want to
admit to & won't be around forever, NAND based flash memory probably has a
20yr shelf-life so it currently boils down to jockeying to the next
last-word in media storage. I'm no expert on archiving media but the need
for it will likely drive some sort to long-term storage medium eventually.
Your point that a floppy failing results in the loss of 1 or 2 pictures but
the loss of a dual sided DVD can result in the loss of a life's work is
worth pondering & allowing for. Backing up is something few home users take
seriously enough & companies have lost important data despite religiously
backing up for years because they never tested the ability to *restore*
their information.

A friend once pompously stated to me that he couldn't afford to tweak, tune
or otherwise fool around with his PC like me 'cos he used it
"professionally". When I asked what method he used to backup this
income-generating data, I was met with silence. I pointed out that if I
buggered up the installation of my OS or lost data I would perhaps loose a
couple of days stuff at the worse & that it would only take 30mins to
restore images of various partitions. I don't feel too smug though - he will
have a decent pension compared to mine!