The Digital Elephant

"Robert Feinman" wrote in message
...

[...] If you want a sample just try to do a search for some images
on Google or Yahoo. They primarily use the file name as the key,
ignoring the metadata (if any) included in the file.

That's not true, Robert. Google uses plenty of other data to find
photographs - from text, of course, but not even a majority of hits are on
titles in many, many searches.

Libraries and others are seriously concerned with these issues and have
been discussing it for at least twenty years.

Yes we have, and serious progress has been made. Librarians are a
conservative lot on the whole - slow to implement standards as the
technology is emerging. For starters, see this:
http://www.xerox.com/innovation/image_categorizer.shtml

We can dispense with speculation regarding the ability to decode certain
formats, such as JPEG, GIF and TIFF. We will always be able to do that
because they are _standards_. If the image was made according to the
standard, it can be unwound. The code is trivial and complete.

However, there is no industry standard for hard-drive storage, and we do
have some ephermeral oddball media such as Zip drives. Therein is my worry.
And of course for media _standards_ must be followed when they exist. Foo
upon those Macs that still screw up ISO9660!)

The best digital storage is analog.

--
jjs who lost his raid array 'backup' due to a fan that failed and smoked the
CPU.

Recently, jjs john@xstafford.net posted:

We can dispense with speculation regarding the ability to decode
certain formats, such as JPEG, GIF and TIFF. We will always be able
to do that because they are _standards_. If the image was made
according to the standard, it can be unwound. The code is trivial
and complete.

Oh, I wouldn't bet on that, John. There are more flavors of TIFF files
than one might think, and the image editors that used to be able to open
and use them have been beaten out of the marketplace by Photoshop, which
can't.

Neil

In article ,
says...
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?

In the late '80's I ran my photographic business on an Atari 800
with AtariWriter and DataPerfect...text files, inventories, tax records,
the whole ball o' wax. It took me a year and a half to learn how to
transfer these files into Mac application files (Claris Works). Null
modem connections didn't work, uploading to storage on a Unix mainframe
and then down loading to the Mac didn't work, but finally I got the
transfer over Ma Bell landlines with two 14K modems.
Transfering those files to PC formats took only a couple of days
to learn using Claris Works 3.0 as the rosetta stone between platforms.
Tranfering them to Linux applix takes a matter of minutes with a thumb
drive.

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

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:17:44 GMT, "Shelley"
wrote:

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.


I'm curious about this claim traditional colour prints. Our family
photo album has photographs from the early 70s (me as baby, for
example) that look fine. No apparent fading or damage.

They are stored in a photo album so not generally exposed to light,
but there's nothing special about them apart from that.

All of my own photos from school in the mid 80s - the ones I still
have anyway - still look fine too. [Although now that I've been using
decent 35mm and medium format cameras they all look horribly out of
focus and grainy....]

Do the photographs need to be exposed to light for this damage to
occur?

Or have we just been lucky?

Matt

In article ,
Matthew McGrattan wrote:


I'm curious about this claim traditional colour prints. Our family
photo album has photographs from the early 70s (me as baby, for
example) that look fine. No apparent fading or damage.

They are stored in a photo album so not generally exposed to light,
but there's nothing special about them apart from that.

All of my own photos from school in the mid 80s - the ones I still
have anyway - still look fine too. [Although now that I've been using
decent 35mm and medium format cameras they all look horribly out of
focus and grainy....]

Do the photographs need to be exposed to light for this damage to
occur?

Or have we just been lucky?

Matt

Because a lot of things factor your probably lucky to an extent,

Sunlight largely does contribute to fading, without a doubt
in my mind. But also who processed the paper, the type
of color paper and ultimately the type of book one stores
ones images in will over time effect the prints.

From the 70-80's EP2 papers had yellowing problems notable
in the white border areas. RA papers have eliminated a lot of those
issues,....but the best way to assure the image exists 200 years from now
is perhaps to make it using B&W materials.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article , "jjs"
wrote:

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.

LOL.

Lets beam you into space instead.

"jjs" john@xstafford.net wrote:

However, there is no industry standard for hard-drive storage, and we do
have some ephermeral oddball media such as Zip drives. Therein is my
worry. And of course for media _standards_ must be followed when they
exist. Foo upon those Macs that still screw up ISO9660!)

I'm forming the opinion that you don't copy data to the latest trendy
storage device, you keep it on your hard drive and keep it regularly backed
up. With the ever increasing size of hard drives you simply copy your old
stuff to your new one each time you upgrade.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:05:47 GMT, Gregory Blank
wrote:

In article ,
Matthew McGrattan wrote:


I'm curious about this claim traditional colour prints. Our family
photo album has photographs from the early 70s (me as baby, for
example) that look fine. No apparent fading or damage.

They are stored in a photo album so not generally exposed to light,
but there's nothing special about them apart from that.



issues,....but the best way to assure the image exists 200 years from now
is perhaps to make it using B&W materials.

Yes, I'm sure this is the case. Although it's easier said that done.

I suspect most of the prints I get back from labs - from black and
white films - are produced by scanning the negative and then printing
using the same type of printer used for digital prints onto colour
(photographic) paper.

The negatives will survive, of course, but I wonder about the
prints...

Matt

In article ,
Matthew McGrattan wrote:

I suspect most of the prints I get back from labs - from black and
white films - are produced by scanning the negative and then printing
using the same type of printer used for digital prints onto colour
(photographic) paper.

The negatives will survive, of course, but I wonder about the
prints...

Matt

True.

Unless your paying specifically for fiber based prints
or doing them your self in a darkroom your getting RC (Resin Coated
paper) And a lot of labs are using the same color paper by scanning the
image.

To most people it won't matter until they realize there's an issue with
the print, hence there is no incentive for a lab to produce a print that
has a guaranteed life span,...its up to us to care.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918