If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
LR Kalajainen wrote:
Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the "elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something no one can predict or guarantee. Here are just a few considerations: 1. Software obsolescence: will the next generation(s) of programs be backward compatible?. 2. Technological hardware development and obsolescence: will the next machines render images inaccessible? 3. Media for storage; how many hard drives must one have? And even they have a mechanical shelf-life. No CD's known to this point are reliable long-term. 4. Digital print longevity: getting better, but nowhere near B&W silver images. I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now will have to work with if film loses to digital. Photographs, among other things, are records. We can study ancient Egypt because they carved their hieroglyphics in stone. We can appreciate the beauty of medieval manuscripts copied on paper with pigment inks. How will future generations study us? Both Kodak and Fuji have pushed for people to print their images. Both companies state that prints are the safest way to insure that you do not loose all your images due to a virus, computer crash, or future change in file formats and software. Hopefully, the prints will be good enough quality to last into the future. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Gordon Moat wrote:
Both Kodak and Fuji have pushed for people to print their images. Both companies state that prints are the safest way to insure that you do not loose all your images due to a virus, computer crash, or future change in file formats and software. Hopefully, the prints will be good enough quality to last into the future. That's really about all you can do. I've also started having "real" photo paper prints made of good images even if the inkjet ones are nice. $3 isn't much to pay to save the good ones "saved" as 8X10 prints and then store them somewhere safe. -- Stacey |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe in photo forums like this or among serious photographers, but not
very often in places like Photo Techniques or the like, which is where it needs to be. It gets the occasional article, but the vast majority of people that I talk to who are giving up their cameras for digital are so enamored by the gee-whiz of the digital process that they are unaware of the storage/longevity issues. Shelley wrote: Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the "elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something no one can predict or guarantee. Here are just a few considerations: (big snip) Left out of the discussion so frequently? Good grief, where have you been all these years? Everything you mention has been pointed out, talked about, discussed, debated, argued, hashed and rehashed endlessly ad nauseum over and over and over again here and everywhere else for years. Next you'll be telling us about Nikon's new F2 camera. "LR Kalajainen" wrote in message ... Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the "elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something no one can predict or guarantee. Here are just a few considerations: 1. Software obsolescence: will the next generation(s) of programs be backward compatible?. 2. Technological hardware development and obsolescence: will the next machines render images inaccessible? 3. Media for storage; how many hard drives must one have? And even they have a mechanical shelf-life. No CD's known to this point are reliable long-term. 4. Digital print longevity: getting better, but nowhere near B&W silver images. I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now will have to work with if film loses to digital. Photographs, among other things, are records. We can study ancient Egypt because they carved their hieroglyphics in stone. We can appreciate the beauty of medieval manuscripts copied on paper with pigment inks. How will future generations study us? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
That's a big hope! Currently, 75-100 years is the best anyone can hope
from a digital print under ideal storage conditions according to Wilhelm Research. Maybe they'll improve that. But I doubt they'll improve it much. Gordon Moat wrote: LR Kalajainen wrote: Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the "elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something no one can predict or guarantee. Here are just a few considerations: 1. Software obsolescence: will the next generation(s) of programs be backward compatible?. 2. Technological hardware development and obsolescence: will the next machines render images inaccessible? 3. Media for storage; how many hard drives must one have? And even they have a mechanical shelf-life. No CD's known to this point are reliable long-term. 4. Digital print longevity: getting better, but nowhere near B&W silver images. I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now will have to work with if film loses to digital. Photographs, among other things, are records. We can study ancient Egypt because they carved their hieroglyphics in stone. We can appreciate the beauty of medieval manuscripts copied on paper with pigment inks. How will future generations study us? Both Kodak and Fuji have pushed for people to print their images. Both companies state that prints are the safest way to insure that you do not loose all your images due to a virus, computer crash, or future change in file formats and software. Hopefully, the prints will be good enough quality to last into the future. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I do think they're being ignored, largely by the general,
non-technologically-oriented public--the very people whose daily lives are of such interest to historians and archaeologists. For example, in our local newspaper, there is a guy who writes regular columns on using computers, and often writes about digital photos. Rarely does he mention the storage issues or the ephemeral nature of the media. Yet his audience, unless they're photo cognoscenti, won't ever hear the discussions in the circles that are talking about it and are rushing to buy the latest digital toys. Last year, we spent a week in San Miguel de Allende in the central highlands of Mexico. While visiting one of the many art galleries there, we stumbled across a show consisting of 16X20 black & white prints made from a recently discovered trove of glass-plate negatives in an attic in California while some relatives were cleaning it out after the death of the owner. These photos were all taken in the latter part of the 19th century in and around Guanajuaco, during the Mexican independence movement and some of them were photos of the funeral rites of Emperor Maximilian after his execution. The gallery owner told us that Mexicans from all walks of life had been flocking to the gallery for weeks to see the exhibit because it gave them back a piece of their history they'd never known about before. One of the big surprises to many of them was that many of the men in the photos were wearing those ridiculously giant sombreros that we used to see in very old Western movies. One of the Mexican women said, "We used to think that Hollywood was just stereotyping us when the Mexicans in those old movies wore those giant sombreros, because we didn't know anyone who wore them. But look, everyone's wearing them in these photos. They really did wear those back then." Digital played it's part in that show: the glass plates were turned into digital negs and cleaned up digitally to make the prints. And that's great. But if the originals had been digital, my guess is they would have been long gone by now. By the way, my Rollei SL66 is still my favorite camera. I never craved a Nikon F2. :-) Larry Shelley wrote: I support these concerns - yes, stored information can waste away ( fire or water on film as a good example) but nothing is worse than being aloof and thinking that everything has been pointed out, talked about discussed etc... I think these are legitimate concerns too. That wasn't the point. I could easily find literally thousands of messages talking about software obsolescence, technological hardware development, and the limited life of digital storage media, all the things this person seems to think have been ignored. And I don't think "everything" has been pointed out, talked about, discussed, etc., just everything that this person seems to think hasn't been. "Dr. Georg N.Nyman" wrote in message ... Shelley wrote: Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the "elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something no one can predict or guarantee. Here are just a few considerations: (big snip) Left out of the discussion so frequently? Good grief, where have you been all these years? Everything you mention has been pointed out, talked about, discussed, debated, argued, hashed and rehashed endlessly ad nauseum over and over and over again here and everywhere else for years. Next you'll be telling us about Nikon's new F2 camera. I support these concerns - yes, stored information can waste away ( fire or water on film as a good example) but nothing is worse than being aloof and thinking that everything has been pointed out, talked about discussed etc....Wait and see how all these wonderful digital storage media behave in 20 or 30 years from now, if they were able to store properly the bits and bites and if we still can read them. Tell me, how would you suggest to read files which have been saved on an Atari computer from the mid 80's (I am sure you know that Atari has produced very innovative office computers at that time) - their file format is not standard anymore, right? What will be standard in 30 years from now? How will we be able to retrieve visual information? I have got glass plates with travel photographs from the late 19th century and yes, I still can print them, reproduce them and look at them..... Oh, before I forget, the most recent camera from Nikon is not the F2 but the F6, which happens to be a film camera :-)) rgds George "LR Kalajainen" wrote in message ... Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the "elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something no one can predict or guarantee. Here are just a few considerations: 1. Software obsolescence: will the next generation(s) of programs be backward compatible?. 2. Technological hardware development and obsolescence: will the next machines render images inaccessible? 3. Media for storage; how many hard drives must one have? And even they have a mechanical shelf-life. No CD's known to this point are reliable long-term. 4. Digital print longevity: getting better, but nowhere near B&W silver images. I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now will have to work with if film loses to digital. Photographs, among other things, are records. We can study ancient Egypt because they carved their hieroglyphics in stone. We can appreciate the beauty of medieval manuscripts copied on paper with pigment inks. How will future generations study us? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
That's a big hope! Currently, 75-100 years is the best anyone can hope
from a digital print under ideal storage conditions according to Wilhelm Research. Maybe they'll improve that. But I doubt they'll improve it much. Of course 75-100 years is much better than traditional color prints and most color slides but I don't recall hearing the incessant moaning and groaning about the brief life of those media that I hear about digital. While black and white silver negatives and prints have the potential to last longer than 75-100 years there's nothing inherent in black and white film and printing that automatically achieves that result. Look at what museums have to go through to make sure their silver collections last. Plenty of my grandparents' family snapshots are fading and turning strange colors (and I've never seen a negative among the thousands of family photographs saved by the three previous generations). The life of black and white media depends on the chemicals used for processing, the paper used for printing, and on how well the negatives and prints are fixed, toned (in the case of prints), washed, and stored. And even when everything is done right the prints can still go bad - remember all the RC paper debacles that have occurred over the years? Some people cared enough about their black and white prints to go take the steps necessary to preserve them, many didn't. Same with digital - the people who care enough will back up their files, switch as technology becomes obsolete, reprint as necessary, etc. and their files and prints will be around for a very long time. People who don't care won't do those things and their work will be lost. That's not the fault of the medium, it's the fault of the people involved. "LR Kalajainen" wrote in message ... That's a big hope! Currently, 75-100 years is the best anyone can hope from a digital print under ideal storage conditions according to Wilhelm Research. Maybe they'll improve that. But I doubt they'll improve it much. Gordon Moat wrote: LR Kalajainen wrote: Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the "elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something no one can predict or guarantee. Here are just a few considerations: 1. Software obsolescence: will the next generation(s) of programs be backward compatible?. 2. Technological hardware development and obsolescence: will the next machines render images inaccessible? 3. Media for storage; how many hard drives must one have? And even they have a mechanical shelf-life. No CD's known to this point are reliable long-term. 4. Digital print longevity: getting better, but nowhere near B&W silver images. I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now will have to work with if film loses to digital. Photographs, among other things, are records. We can study ancient Egypt because they carved their hieroglyphics in stone. We can appreciate the beauty of medieval manuscripts copied on paper with pigment inks. How will future generations study us? Both Kodak and Fuji have pushed for people to print their images. Both companies state that prints are the safest way to insure that you do not loose all your images due to a virus, computer crash, or future change in file formats and software. Hopefully, the prints will be good enough quality to last into the future. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The way to preserve a digital image is to beam the digital signal into space
via high-power laser and leave it to posterity to recapitulate the signal later. Much later. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I do think they're being ignored, largely by the general,
non-technologically-oriented public--the very people whose daily lives are of such interest to historians and archaeologists. Yes, I agree. I didn't realize you were talking about newspapers, TV, the general public, etc. when you posted your first message. Since you posted here I thought you were talking about these things being ignored here and other photo forums. But I think you're right when it comes to general consumers, many of them haven't been properly educated about the short life of CDs and some digital prints, file deterioration, etc. Of course I don't think the general public realized that traditional prints, especially color, would be lost in a few decades either so that they should save the negatives, organize them in a manner such that the negatives could be matched with the prints and reprints made, store them in a cool, dark place, etc. "LR Kalajainen" wrote in message ... I do think they're being ignored, largely by the general, non-technologically-oriented public--the very people whose daily lives are of such interest to historians and archaeologists. For example, in our local newspaper, there is a guy who writes regular columns on using computers, and often writes about digital photos. Rarely does he mention the storage issues or the ephemeral nature of the media. Yet his audience, unless they're photo cognoscenti, won't ever hear the discussions in the circles that are talking about it and are rushing to buy the latest digital toys. Last year, we spent a week in San Miguel de Allende in the central highlands of Mexico. While visiting one of the many art galleries there, we stumbled across a show consisting of 16X20 black & white prints made from a recently discovered trove of glass-plate negatives in an attic in California while some relatives were cleaning it out after the death of the owner. These photos were all taken in the latter part of the 19th century in and around Guanajuaco, during the Mexican independence movement and some of them were photos of the funeral rites of Emperor Maximilian after his execution. The gallery owner told us that Mexicans from all walks of life had been flocking to the gallery for weeks to see the exhibit because it gave them back a piece of their history they'd never known about before. One of the big surprises to many of them was that many of the men in the photos were wearing those ridiculously giant sombreros that we used to see in very old Western movies. One of the Mexican women said, "We used to think that Hollywood was just stereotyping us when the Mexicans in those old movies wore those giant sombreros, because we didn't know anyone who wore them. But look, everyone's wearing them in these photos. They really did wear those back then." Digital played it's part in that show: the glass plates were turned into digital negs and cleaned up digitally to make the prints. And that's great. But if the originals had been digital, my guess is they would have been long gone by now. By the way, my Rollei SL66 is still my favorite camera. I never craved a Nikon F2. :-) Larry Shelley wrote: I support these concerns - yes, stored information can waste away ( fire or water on film as a good example) but nothing is worse than being aloof and thinking that everything has been pointed out, talked about discussed etc... I think these are legitimate concerns too. That wasn't the point. I could easily find literally thousands of messages talking about software obsolescence, technological hardware development, and the limited life of digital storage media, all the things this person seems to think have been ignored. And I don't think "everything" has been pointed out, talked about, discussed, etc., just everything that this person seems to think hasn't been. "Dr. Georg N.Nyman" wrote in message ... Shelley wrote: Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the "elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something no one can predict or guarantee. Here are just a few considerations: (big snip) Left out of the discussion so frequently? Good grief, where have you been all these years? Everything you mention has been pointed out, talked about, discussed, debated, argued, hashed and rehashed endlessly ad nauseum over and over and over again here and everywhere else for years. Next you'll be telling us about Nikon's new F2 camera. I support these concerns - yes, stored information can waste away ( fire or water on film as a good example) but nothing is worse than being aloof and thinking that everything has been pointed out, talked about discussed etc....Wait and see how all these wonderful digital storage media behave in 20 or 30 years from now, if they were able to store properly the bits and bites and if we still can read them. Tell me, how would you suggest to read files which have been saved on an Atari computer from the mid 80's (I am sure you know that Atari has produced very innovative office computers at that time) - their file format is not standard anymore, right? What will be standard in 30 years from now? How will we be able to retrieve visual information? I have got glass plates with travel photographs from the late 19th century and yes, I still can print them, reproduce them and look at them..... Oh, before I forget, the most recent camera from Nikon is not the F2 but the F6, which happens to be a film camera :-)) rgds George "LR Kalajainen" wrote in message ... Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the "elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something no one can predict or guarantee. Here are just a few considerations: 1. Software obsolescence: will the next generation(s) of programs be backward compatible?. 2. Technological hardware development and obsolescence: will the next machines render images inaccessible? 3. Media for storage; how many hard drives must one have? And even they have a mechanical shelf-life. No CD's known to this point are reliable long-term. 4. Digital print longevity: getting better, but nowhere near B&W silver images. I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now will have to work with if film loses to digital. Photographs, among other things, are records. We can study ancient Egypt because they carved their hieroglyphics in stone. We can appreciate the beauty of medieval manuscripts copied on paper with pigment inks. How will future generations study us? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Shelley" wrote in message
news:%xCXd.58034$EL5.19404@trnddc05... Some people cared enough about their black and white prints to go take the steps necessary to preserve them, many didn't. Same with digital - the people who care enough will back up their files, switch as technology becomes obsolete, reprint as necessary, etc. and their files and prints will be around for a very long time. People who don't care won't do those things and their work will be lost. That's not the fault of the medium, it's the fault of the people involved. One small point: pictures can be tossed into a shoebox and ignored by unconcerned generations and be appreciated later while digital archiving is a contiguous effort; it cannot be ignored for long. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | January 18th 05 10:01 PM |
How should I permanently store digital photographs? | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 182 | January 3rd 05 03:21 PM |
NYT article - GPS tagging of digital photos | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 4 | December 22nd 04 07:36 AM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |