A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Going back to film...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 9th 10, 09:56 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Going back to film...


wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:

A major attraction of digital is that you can shoot a lot
more, with no cost, loss or penalty and of course
convenience.


This is one of the reasons for me to stop shooting
digital.

On the analog issue, when you shoot film and optically
print it in the darkroom, that's pretty much an analog
process don't ya think? There isn't much analog about a
digital camera other than the light hitting the sensor.
After that point, it's all digital. The image is converted
to digital data before it ever leaves the sensor.

Stephanie


Digital properly refers to a method of storage and
transmission that samples the original continuous data in a
discontinuous way and further codes it into numbers. There
are discontinuous methods that are not digital such as pulse
coding. These can have some of the advantages of digital in
that they are immune from non-linearities in the storage and
transmission system. For instance, pulse coding can be
adapted to magnetic recording. Digital goes another step
from simply sampling the data, it codes it into numbers
following some set plan so that the original data can be
exactly reconstructed. In practice, because of limitations
of bandwidth in both transmission and storage media digital
data is often compressed. Some compression methods loose
some of the original information and some don't. The common
JPEG compression scheme used for digital images on the
internet is a "lossy" compression method. It assumes certain
statistical characteristics of the original in order to
reconstruct an approximation of it. A low compression JPEG
can be nearly as good as the original but, if its decoded
and recoded some additional information is lost so it can go
only a limited number of generations. By this I mean
generations where decoding and recoding are required such as
editing. Other compression schemes are do not have data loss
and can be reapplied essentially without limit.
The main advantages of "digital" photography is that it
is electronic and would have many of the same advantages
even if digital encoding were not used. However, properly
applied, digital encoding and decoding can eliminate many
problems with imperfect transmission and storage methods.



--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



  #12  
Old March 9th 10, 11:52 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Going back to film...

On 10-03-09 15:56 , Richard Knoppow wrote:

Digital properly refers to a method of storage and
transmission that samples the original continuous data in a
discontinuous way and further codes it into numbers. There


snipped

The main advantages of "digital" photography is that it
is electronic and would have many of the same advantages
even if digital encoding were not used. However, properly
applied, digital encoding and decoding can eliminate many
problems with imperfect transmission and storage methods.


The main reasons for digital photo popularity remain its _convenience_
and low recurring cost, low cost of experimentation, high image quality,
immediate feedback (try again if you screwed up), post processing
convenience and cost, ease of storage and storage maintenance - not that
everyone practices good storage habits.

That the data is loss-lessly manageable after the fact is a huge
benefit. Digital photography also lends itself to the information
exchange age so well. Snapshooters and journalists share the trait of
shooting and transmitting images in short periods of time.

In 500 years, a lot ( say 0.0001% ) of the digital photography of today
will be available to future historians. It will be very well documented
in many cases. Those who preserve the data well will be more likely to
document it well.

And yes, I know common CD/DVD ROMs don't last more that 5 - 10 years,
but there are other archival media that will easily do 200 years. Some
of that will survive much longer.

A lot of key data will be attached to these images in tag/exif form, and
I wouldn't doubt that they will be linked to very descriptive documents
(or be in the documents).

For those with other photographic pursuits, where film has its
advantages or character, film will continue for a very long time. (All
predictions of film's demise having so far been way off the mark).

Most movies (and many television shows) are still shot on film, often
because the cinematographer, producer and director have agreed on a
certain look that digital fails to capture. But I bet that digital
cinematography will improve (mainly in highlight capture) that film
cinematography will become quite rare. (Some cinematographers are
shooting mixed film and digital now...).

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #13  
Old March 10th 10, 06:50 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Going back to film...

Alan Browne wrote:


In 500 years, a lot ( say 0.0001% ) of the digital photography of today
will be available to future historians. It will be very well documented
in many cases. Those who preserve the data well will be more likely to
document it well.

And yes, I know common CD/DVD ROMs don't last more that 5 - 10 years,
but there are other archival media that will easily do 200 years. Some
of that will survive much longer.



If anything, MOST of the digital images shot today will disappear in 10
years or less. I highly doubt very many people do any sort of archival
storage and since very few people even make prints, most of the images
from this "digital age" won't be around for anyone to see even one
generation from now. At least with film people HAD to make prints and
unless you intentionally throw them away or otherwise destroy them, they
are still around many years later.

If I had even $1 for each time I heard someone say "My computer
crashed and I lost all the pictures of my children" etc. And if you
think a computer 500 years from now will understand digital data from
today... I'd be shocked if even 50% of people have anything other than
the copy on their hard drive for a back up, much less a "200 year
archival" form.

http://www.archivaladvisor.org/shtml...digmedia.shtml

While some disks may claim "Archival for 300 years", until they have
actually done this, IMHO it's just marketing... With B&W and even RA4
prints, we know in RL aging what we can expect.

Stephanie
  #14  
Old March 10th 10, 09:55 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Going back to film...

On 10-03-10 0:50 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:


In 500 years, a lot ( say 0.0001% ) of the digital photography of
today will be available to future historians. It will be very well
documented in many cases. Those who preserve the data well will be
more likely to document it well.

And yes, I know common CD/DVD ROMs don't last more that 5 - 10 years,
but there are other archival media that will easily do 200 years. Some
of that will survive much longer.



If anything, MOST of the digital images shot today will disappear in 10
years or less. I highly doubt very many people do any sort of archival


That's why I said 1 in 1,000,000 surviving images. Considering the
number of photos shot today, it will still be a deluge of images.

storage and since very few people even make prints, most of the images
from this "digital age" won't be around for anyone to see even one
generation from now. At least with film people HAD to make prints and
unless you intentionally throw them away or otherwise destroy them, they
are still around many years later.


On the other hand the time period has been shorter. The documentation
of most of these prints is close to nil forcing researchers to spend a
lot of time or abandon interpretation.

If I had even $1 for each time I heard someone say "My computer crashed
and I lost all the pictures of my children" etc. And if you think a
computer 500 years from now will understand digital data from today...
I'd be shocked if even 50% of people have anything other than the copy
on their hard drive for a back up, much less a "200 year archival" form.


Again, as I stated above, a 1:1,000,000 survival rate is still a deluge
of information given the amount of photography taken today.


http://www.archivaladvisor.org/shtml...digmedia.shtml

While some disks may claim "Archival for 300 years", until they have
actually done this, IMHO it's just marketing...


Fortunately it's not based on your opinion but accelerated life cycle
testing, a proven method of determining fading characteristics over time.

Further, while not all "archival" data will keep, a goodly number will.
And that principle applies to film as well (a portion will be lost one
way or another).

And film images will still likely have less accompanying documentation
than digital.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #15  
Old March 10th 10, 10:31 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Going back to film...

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-10 0:50 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:


In 500 years, a lot ( say 0.0001% ) of the digital photography of
today will be available to future historians. It will be very well
documented in many cases. Those who preserve the data well will be
more likely to document it well.

And yes, I know common CD/DVD ROMs don't last more that 5 - 10 years,
but there are other archival media that will easily do 200 years. Some
of that will survive much longer.



If anything, MOST of the digital images shot today will disappear in 10
years or less. I highly doubt very many people do any sort of archival


That's why I said 1 in 1,000,000 surviving images. Considering the
number of photos shot today, it will still be a deluge of images.

storage and since very few people even make prints, most of the images
from this "digital age" won't be around for anyone to see even one
generation from now. At least with film people HAD to make prints and
unless you intentionally throw them away or otherwise destroy them, they
are still around many years later.


On the other hand the time period has been shorter. The documentation
of most of these prints is close to nil forcing researchers to spend a
lot of time or abandon interpretation.


You assume a lot thinking people "will document it well". I doubt any
more will document their digital images than did with film images. And
the information added to the file by the camera really isn't anything
other than camera specific things like what model and f stop etc.
Assuming someone bothered to set the date on the camera that MIGHT be
there, depends on the file format used.


If I had even $1 for each time I heard someone say "My computer crashed
and I lost all the pictures of my children" etc. And if you think a
computer 500 years from now will understand digital data from today...
I'd be shocked if even 50% of people have anything other than the copy
on their hard drive for a back up, much less a "200 year archival" form.


Again, as I stated above, a 1:1,000,000 survival rate is still a deluge
of information given the amount of photography taken today.


I highly doubt there will be a deluge of images from this era. It's much
more likely that very little will survive, especially family records,
childhood pictures etc. I know too many people personally who have lost
them all for the very reasons you stated, too many pictures to archive
so none are. It's not like 1 image will be archivally kept by someone
and the rest they just put on a CD-R (or do nothing) and hope.. Thats
the problem with digital storage, it's all too likely for the whole lot
to just disappear. The only hope most have is if someone took the card
somewhere to get RA-4 prints made.



http://www.archivaladvisor.org/shtml...digmedia.shtml

While some disks may claim "Archival for 300 years", until they have
actually done this, IMHO it's just marketing...


Fortunately it's not based on your opinion but accelerated life cycle
testing, a proven method of determining fading characteristics over time.


Until actual times passes, no one knows how archival these will actually
be. Especially data storage. People assumed CD-R's would last until it
was proven they don't. These other optical disks could have a failure
they aren't testing for. You can't accurately recreate everything that
can happen with age.



Further, while not all "archival" data will keep, a goodly number will.


It's much more likely that most won't, than a goodly number will. The
only scenarios that look even somewhat promising have to be actively
maintained. Something very few people will do.

I could point to hundreds of web sites that explain this stuff but you
would dismiss even MIT as being a "hobby site", so there is not much
point in doing that. Once again, Allen has spoken against what most
places agree on and all he has to base this on is his mouth.

Stephanie
  #16  
Old March 11th 10, 02:05 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Going back to film...

On 10-03-10 16:31 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-10 0:50 ,
wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:


In 500 years, a lot ( say 0.0001% ) of the digital photography of
today will be available to future historians. It will be very well
documented in many cases. Those who preserve the data well will be
more likely to document it well.

And yes, I know common CD/DVD ROMs don't last more that 5 - 10 years,
but there are other archival media that will easily do 200 years. Some
of that will survive much longer.



If anything, MOST of the digital images shot today will disappear in 10
years or less. I highly doubt very many people do any sort of archival


That's why I said 1 in 1,000,000 surviving images. Considering the
number of photos shot today, it will still be a deluge of images.

storage and since very few people even make prints, most of the images
from this "digital age" won't be around for anyone to see even one
generation from now. At least with film people HAD to make prints and
unless you intentionally throw them away or otherwise destroy them, they
are still around many years later.


On the other hand the time period has been shorter. The documentation
of most of these prints is close to nil forcing researchers to spend a
lot of time or abandon interpretation.


You assume a lot thinking people "will document it well". I doubt any


What part of 1 in 1,000,000 says to you "a lot"?

You have to abandon the notion of "everyone" and "all data" and start
looking at the slivers.

more will document their digital images than did with film images. And
the information added to the file by the camera really isn't anything
other than camera specific things like what model and f stop etc.
Assuming someone bothered to set the date on the camera that MIGHT be
there, depends on the file format used.


First off I stated that very few images will survive. However, those
that survive are those that were the most taken care of so they would
survive. The same applies to documents of the time and by the same
author or entourage.

Again: very few survivors, but well prepared and documented.


If I had even $1 for each time I heard someone say "My computer crashed
and I lost all the pictures of my children" etc. And if you think a
computer 500 years from now will understand digital data from today...
I'd be shocked if even 50% of people have anything other than the copy
on their hard drive for a back up, much less a "200 year archival" form.


Again, as I stated above, a 1:1,000,000 survival rate is still a
deluge of information given the amount of photography taken today.


I highly doubt there will be a deluge of images from this era. It's much
more likely that very little will survive, especially family records,
childhood pictures etc. I know too many people personally who have lost


Again, 1 in 1,000,000 _is_ very little. But it is still a deluge when
there are billions of photos taken daily.

I never mentioned what kind of images will survive. You're right that
many family photos will be lost. OTOH, there are in some families
people who treasure family history and who want the record to survive.
They will prepare it to do so and out of those, some, not all will
survive for a long time.

them all for the very reasons you stated, too many pictures to archive
so none are. It's not like 1 image will be archivally kept by someone
and the rest they just put on a CD-R (or do nothing) and hope.. Thats
the problem with digital storage, it's all too likely for the whole lot
to just disappear. The only hope most have is if someone took the card
somewhere to get RA-4 prints made.


No different. My parents took hundreds if not a couple thousand rolls
of film in their non-photography-interested lifetime. I have about 300
slides and 200 prints left out of all of that. The bonus here is that I
scanned those of people I don't know and e-mailed those out - and
immediately received messages to help me identify the subjects.

The rest is gone. Nobody knows where. Some might yet turn up.

But the few that did survive, I will push further into the future along
with documents from the era that I have in hand.

http://www.archivaladvisor.org/shtml...digmedia.shtml

While some disks may claim "Archival for 300 years", until they have
actually done this, IMHO it's just marketing...


Fortunately it's not based on your opinion but accelerated life cycle
testing, a proven method of determining fading characteristics over time.


Until actual times passes, no one knows how archival these will actually
be. Especially data storage. People assumed CD-R's would last until it
was proven they don't. These other optical disks could have a failure
they aren't testing for. You can't accurately recreate everything that
can happen with age.


Who said accurately? The claim is based on accelerated life testing.
(for CD/DVD's this is heat at the limits, intense light and moisture).
Where an ordinary CD/DVD only survives weeks or months in such testing,
the "gold" CD/DVD's go for years in the same conditions. This is
extrapolated out to indicate that in benign (room temperature, low
humidity and no light) that the same media can go well in excess of 100
years.

From there, it's a statistical likelihood that some of the media will
go 2, 4, 8 times as long.

It's a certainty that ordinary media will have long since faded away and
that prints and film will do not much better than 100 - 200 years. And
even there, some, not all, will go further.

Further, while not all "archival" data will keep, a goodly number will.


It's much more likely that most won't, than a goodly number will. The
only scenarios that look even somewhat promising have to be actively
maintained. Something very few people will do.


Again, it's those that take archival seriously that will document the
most. And with the right media, this can be quite passive.

I could point to hundreds of web sites that explain this stuff but you
would dismiss even MIT as being a "hobby site", so there is not much
point in doing that. Once again, Allen has spoken against what most
places agree on and all he has to base this on is his mouth.


I never said all images will survive. Only a very small number as a
proportion.

The sites you refer to talk about carelessness. Entropy. Neglect.
Ignorance. They are right. But it doesn't apply to 100% of images.

I'm talking about deliberate care and preparation and the few who do it.
The few who do it include archivists, scientists, historians, etc. and
hobbyists too.

I'm not claiming you're wrong, just that there is that small slice of
digital information that will survive because somebody today makes sure
it does. Film (kept in benign condition) will go a long way; prints
too, but less than film.

And that small slice (digital, film, print) will still be a huge find
500 years from now and more data that they can handle easily.

Again, it's not about all of it surviving, but a very small slice of it.
And that will be an awful lot data. (See last weeks Economist).

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #18  
Old March 11th 10, 10:31 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Going back to film...

On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 10-03-10 16:31 , wrote:
If anything, MOST of the digital images shot today will

disappear in 10
years or less. I highly doubt very many people do any sort of

archival

That's why I said 1 in 1,000,000 surviving images. Considering

the
number of photos shot today, it will still be a deluge of images.


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).

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.

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.

in order to keep a digital image for 500 years, I'd say that your
notion is grossly overestimated, if for no other reason than the cost
of the effort to preserve them.


To be clear: I'm really addressing "survivors" on a statistical basis.
And of course survival favours the prepared.

The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use archival
CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly. There is a very high
probability that a small number of the disks will be well kept. Out of
those, a fraction will retain their data in whole or in part.

It's just big, big, big numbers and the survival of some of the data.
But some small part of a really big number is still a lot.

I should mention the image agencies such as Corbis which amass images
(film and digital) and go to great lengths to preserve those images.
Most of the images they own are very ordinary and some are important.
All are cataloged and preserved. Given the value of image businesses,
these images are destined to survive for a very long time even as the
business changes hands and purpose, technology changes and so on.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #19  
Old March 12th 10, 05:33 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Going back to film...

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.



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"
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.



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.



in order to keep a digital image for 500 years, I'd say that your
notion is grossly overestimated, if for no other reason than the cost
of the effort to preserve them.


To be clear: I'm really addressing "survivors" on a statistical basis.
And of course survival favours the prepared.


But you just pulled the statistics out of thin air. You have absolutely
nothing to base your assumptions on.


The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use archival
CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly. There is a very high
probability that a small number of the disks will be well kept. Out of
those, a fraction will retain their data in whole or in part.


You ignore that these disks almost never keep data "In part", they
usually fail 100% or work 100%.



It's just big, big, big numbers and the survival of some of the data.
But some small part of a really big number is still a lot.


You totally ignore that this data is MUCH more fragile than prints or
film is. You have to physically destroy them for them to 100% fail.
Given lots of the "billions of images taken" never are even saved to a
hard drive (most are garbage and just are deleted)the chances of a
"deluge of images" being around even 10 years from now is being naive..
In fact MOST people predict the exact opposite, this era will be a
vacuum of images.


I should mention the image agencies such as Corbis which amass images
(film and digital) and go to great lengths to preserve those images.
Most of the images they own are very ordinary and some are important.
All are cataloged and preserved. Given the value of image businesses,
these images are destined to survive for a very long time even as the
business changes hands and purpose, technology changes and so on.


Sure and these "professional images" aren't what most people consider
important to save. They want to see pictures of their childhood or their
grandmother as a child etc. Those will mostly disappear in a short
period of time.

Stephanie

  #20  
Old March 12th 10, 04:38 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Neil Gould[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Going back to film...

"Alan Browne" wrote:
On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 10-03-10 16:31 , wrote:
If anything, MOST of the digital images shot today will

disappear in 10
years or less. I highly doubt very many people do any sort of

archival

That's why I said 1 in 1,000,000 surviving images. Considering

the
number of photos shot today, it will still be a deluge of

images.


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).

One might see it as a problem, if the fact that "conservators" will
not be in the larger pool of folks making digital images. My WAG is
that there are closer to a billion shots *a day* being taken, and due
to the many factors that lead to the loss of digital data, it is a
reasonable guess that less than 1% of those will survive for 10 years.
That's a pretty drastic difference from your notion, and from a
cultural perspective, it can be considered a problem.

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.

I don't know what you mean by "best reasonable effort", but what I'm
referring to is that for digital data to survive longer than one
generation, the interest in preserving the data has to be continued
across generations. If one considers the preservation of collections
of any type to be a guide, it is easy to see that less than
extraordinary efforts in maintaining digital data will be inadequate.

in order to keep a digital image for 500 years, I'd say that your
notion is grossly overestimated, if for no other reason than the

cost
of the effort to preserve them.


To be clear: I'm really addressing "survivors" on a statistical

basis.
And of course survival favours the prepared.

For that many generations, the statistics favor retentions closer to
zero.

The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use

archival
CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly.

I suggest you do some research on "archival" digital storage media.
The writable materials will not survive for even a small fraction of
500 years.

It's just big, big, big numbers and the survival of some of the

data.
But some small part of a really big number is still a lot.

Pure fantasy.

I should mention the image agencies such as Corbis which amass

images
(film and digital) and go to great lengths to preserve those images.

No reason to mention such organizations. They are representative of
the extraordinary efforts I referred to, and even their survival is
not likely to be for 500 years.

--
best,

Neil



---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HELP PLEASE - APS REWIND BACK TO ZERO WITH NEW FILM Fred McKenzie APS Photographic Equipment 3 September 4th 04 09:56 PM
6X8 ROLL FILM BACK FOR 4X5 Massimiliano Spoto Fine Art, Framing and Display 0 May 20th 04 05:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.