Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-11 23:33 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote:\
One problem with this line of reasoning is that you are describing two
pools of photo takers.
Yes to the "two pools" notion, and the "conservators" being a much
smaller group. (I don't see that as a "problem" however).
Of course you don't, it's your position and you have repeatedly shown
you have no intent on ever bending your position no matter how much
evidence is thrown at you. I highly doubt the "conservators" are much
more than .1% of camera users, if even that. And of those an even
smaller % will be successful at even 100 year archival status of digital
data.
It's like you don't read.
What part of 1 in 1,000,000 is so hard for you to get? And even if the
number is 1 in 10,000,000 there will still be an immense number of
photos that go 500 years.
Where are you pulling these numbers from? I could just as easily say 1
in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 might survive. You have
absolutely nothing to base this on.
By your own statement, the digital images that
survive will be managed by those that take extraordinary care of their
data.
I'd characterize it more as "best reasonable effort." Which is orders
of magnitude better than ordinary neglect. And then an even smaller
group making extraordinary efforts.
The problem with digital "best reasonable effort" = failure. With film
that wasn't the case. So with digital ONLY the "extraordinary efforts"
What do you mean by that? Did all film and print images survive? Of
course not. Faded by direct light, attacked by fungus, burned in fires,
diluted by 3rd and more copy generations - only a fraction of film and
print images have survived. Digital images get the same notional
chance, no matter how small that chance is.
It's not even CLOSE to the same chance. Digital images are MUCH more
fragile.
And that smaller chance is
offset by sheer volume of images produced.
Based on what statistics?
will = success. I recently found some B&W negatives of my parents as
children, they are at least 80 years old and the only effort taken was
they were put in an envelope and put in a drawer, forgotten.
Forgotten in the dark, probably reasonable humidity and heat. At that
they've probably faded more than you think even if they are quite good
looking today.
But if a CD was this "faded" you'd get NOTHING off it. These still print
fine. I have some prints that were made on early color that all faded to
red but you can still see what they are. A digital file this "corrupted"
would be gibberish.
But that doesn't mean ALL film from ALL time has survived. Digital
images get the same chance. Some will survive much longer, esp. if
prepared to do so. And again, even of those that are prepared, a
fraction will squeak through.
But film "reasonably kept" i.e. put in a drawer in a house that didn't
catch on fire would survive with no action needed. THAT has been proven.
These accelerated tests can't take into account everything that happens
over time.
This is not likely to be the same group that will generate the
large number of images you are basing your "1 in 1,000,000 surviving
images" upon. Considering the archival replication processes necessary
Really to illustrate the vast number of photos taken that drive a
likelihood of a portion surviving.
Not a reasonable way to calculate this.
One can't make a certain calculation only a reasonable guesstimate - and
that's all I proposed.
Again your number are based on what?
Let's take 1 billion photos per day as a guessing point.
Guessed by who? You trying to make a point?
1 year = 365 billion images.
10 years = 3.65 trillion images.
If out of those 10 years, 1 in 1,000,000 survive, that makes well over
three million images that survive 500 years.
I could be off by 100 times. That still makes over 30,000 images.
And you think less than 30,000 film images survived the same time span?
That isn't a "deluge"...
All I'm saying is that there will likely be digital images from today
that survive. And of course those that are prepared to do so, are most
likely to do so, even if the chance is quite small.
As to film it requires no less or more chance to survive. Fading is not
the sole criteria.
As to film v. digital, well the photos that are being taken (digital in
the large) have a much larger chance of surviving than those that are
not (film has fallen a lot).
There are many people born in the last 10 - 20 years who have only ever
taken digital images and will never take a film image.
Just because of this, doesn't make film less archival, just means people
are naive if they think these digital ones will be around very long.
True enough, although many of the images in Corbis et al are not
professional, not even commercial. Many are historical in nature and
such will continue to accrete and gain in importance. The question here
is whether Corbis (and others) survive; if they die as a business does
someone else take over the images?
Then again maybe they don't..
Further, what is trivial today may become important in the future. I
recall one archeologist talking about some ancient finds at an Egyptian
site.
Decoded it was shopping lists, inventories, accounts and plain old gossip.
And this would be seen as "trivial" by the shooter and deleted to make
more room on the card before they ever got home. You quote a billion
images a day taken, I wonder how many of those ever make it off the
memory card.. I'd be shocked at 50%..
Stephanie