| Pat Regan on 2 Nov 2005 01:03:14 -0000 |
|
Doug Crompton wrote: > Yea I guess that is kinda paranoid but since you can do it and it does not > take much effort then why not. I don't know of anyone that stored photos > offsite before we had digital. People did use bank boxes more though. I > guess we still should but somehow I can't be bothered. I think it is a matter of convenience. I seem to have over 7000 pictures. I am not saying they are GOOD pictures, I tend to snap more pictures when they don't need to be developed :p. If they weren't digital I'd have 300 rolls worth of negatives, and only one copy of them. I also imagine a box of 7000 pictures would be tough to lug around, and expensive. Instead they aren't much more than half a DVD. I burned my off site copy and a local copy and it only cost me 50 cents and an hour of my time :). I lost a months worth of pictures once when I was careless. I would be much more upset if I lost everything. Pat Attachment:
signature.asc ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|