The problems are simply different, not one is better than with the other. With paper and film, making backups is tedious and expensive and rarely happens. They get lost, mildewed, thrown away, looted, burned, flooded, blown up, eaten by insects, etc. Much of my family history got lost that way. Any piece of paper surviving 200 years is a miracle.
Paper archives have the unfortunate characteristic of concentrating treasures together. 9/11 apparently destroyed quite an archive of photos - we don't even know what all was there. The Vatican Library concentrates a huge collection of paper, and one little event could take it all away.
With digital, copies are cheap. I've been copying forward my old stuff for 40 years now (though I did lose my old IBM punchcard decks and paper tapes!), and it does get easier. With cheap terabyte drives, one drive will hold it all, and I can make copies to make it resistant to catastrophe.
The Vatican Library really needs to make it a priority to scan all those papers.
Paper archives have the unfortunate characteristic of concentrating treasures together. 9/11 apparently destroyed quite an archive of photos - we don't even know what all was there. The Vatican Library concentrates a huge collection of paper, and one little event could take it all away.
With digital, copies are cheap. I've been copying forward my old stuff for 40 years now (though I did lose my old IBM punchcard decks and paper tapes!), and it does get easier. With cheap terabyte drives, one drive will hold it all, and I can make copies to make it resistant to catastrophe.
The Vatican Library really needs to make it a priority to scan all those papers.