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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument
Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument,
there's one glaring error in it. He asserts that because digital formats change (which is true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. Now, if one is discussing images made on physical media (film), there *is* the distinct possibility that the image will be rendered unusable through time because of physical degradation of the image. (Witness movies on nitrate stock and color negatives or slides with unstable dyes.) And in the case of digital media, there is always the possibility that the image will become unreadable because of *physical* degradation of the media (tape, magnetic disc, optical disc, etc.) However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. I do know something about this, having worked for a computer media conversion and duplication company for 13 years. In that one small company alone, there exists the ability to read many obsolete digital formats (meaning both the equuipment and the software to decipher the data and deliver it in a usable form): specifically, 9-track tape (remember the old movies with the computers with the spinning tape drives?) and floppy disks, including the old 8" monsters. I'm confident that even data on paper tape could be read; someone, somewhere, has a paper-tape reader connected to his S-100 system (running CP/M), or some other moldy oldie. And if not, a reader could pretty easily be cobbled together. The point is that humanity doesn't collectively forget its own obsolete recording formats, just because something new comes along. Sure, the old formats fall into disuse and become difficult to use, but not impossible. The knowledge of how to read and decipher all these old devices and formats still exists, somewhere. Why, in this very house, I can right now play 78 rpm records if I like, or 45s even. I can also read all of my old 5-1/4" floppies on my computer. I'd like someone to try to name a data storage format (either physical medium or data format) that they think cannot be read today. -- Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
... Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument, there's one glaring error in it. He asserts that because digital formats change (which is true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. Now, if one is discussing images made on physical media (film), there *is* the distinct possibility that the image will be rendered unusable through time because of physical degradation of the image. (Witness movies on nitrate stock and color negatives or slides with unstable dyes.) And in the case of digital media, there is always the possibility that the image will become unreadable because of *physical* degradation of the media (tape, magnetic disc, optical disc, etc.) However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. I do know something about this, having worked for a computer media conversion and duplication company for 13 years. In that one small company alone, there exists the ability to read many obsolete digital formats (meaning both the equuipment and the software to decipher the data and deliver it in a usable form): specifically, 9-track tape (remember the old movies with the computers with the spinning tape drives?) and floppy disks, including the old 8" monsters. I'm confident that even data on paper tape could be read; someone, somewhere, has a paper-tape reader connected to his S-100 system (running CP/M), or some other moldy oldie. And if not, a reader could pretty easily be cobbled together. The point is that humanity doesn't collectively forget its own obsolete recording formats, just because something new comes along. Sure, the old formats fall into disuse and become difficult to use, but not impossible. The knowledge of how to read and decipher all these old devices and formats still exists, somewhere. Why, in this very house, I can right now play 78 rpm records if I like, or 45s even. I can also read all of my old 5-1/4" floppies on my computer. I'd like someone to try to name a data storage format (either physical medium or data format) that they think cannot be read today. -- Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky The problem is not will we be able to read a digital format but will we be interested enough to spend so much energy in trying to read such an obsolete thing ? When you find a computer in trash, do you take it to discover all these marvelous pictures it certainly contains ? I don't think so, you just consider it as rubbish. When you encounter the equivalent in film, you easily can ccheck if it's rubbish or not just using a pretty funny interface called "eyes". Digital is a theorically perfect storage media provided you never forget where your pictures are and you convert them at every major storage technology change. Practically, digital will cause a loss of an amount of images we may have kept if they were stored on film or paper. Regards, -- Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
... Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument, there's one glaring error in it. He asserts that because digital formats change (which is true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. Now, if one is discussing images made on physical media (film), there *is* the distinct possibility that the image will be rendered unusable through time because of physical degradation of the image. (Witness movies on nitrate stock and color negatives or slides with unstable dyes.) And in the case of digital media, there is always the possibility that the image will become unreadable because of *physical* degradation of the media (tape, magnetic disc, optical disc, etc.) However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. I do know something about this, having worked for a computer media conversion and duplication company for 13 years. In that one small company alone, there exists the ability to read many obsolete digital formats (meaning both the equuipment and the software to decipher the data and deliver it in a usable form): specifically, 9-track tape (remember the old movies with the computers with the spinning tape drives?) and floppy disks, including the old 8" monsters. I'm confident that even data on paper tape could be read; someone, somewhere, has a paper-tape reader connected to his S-100 system (running CP/M), or some other moldy oldie. And if not, a reader could pretty easily be cobbled together. The point is that humanity doesn't collectively forget its own obsolete recording formats, just because something new comes along. Sure, the old formats fall into disuse and become difficult to use, but not impossible. The knowledge of how to read and decipher all these old devices and formats still exists, somewhere. Why, in this very house, I can right now play 78 rpm records if I like, or 45s even. I can also read all of my old 5-1/4" floppies on my computer. I'd like someone to try to name a data storage format (either physical medium or data format) that they think cannot be read today. -- Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky The problem is not will we be able to read a digital format but will we be interested enough to spend so much energy in trying to read such an obsolete thing ? When you find a computer in trash, do you take it to discover all these marvelous pictures it certainly contains ? I don't think so, you just consider it as rubbish. When you encounter the equivalent in film, you easily can ccheck if it's rubbish or not just using a pretty funny interface called "eyes". Digital is a theorically perfect storage media provided you never forget where your pictures are and you convert them at every major storage technology change. Practically, digital will cause a loss of an amount of images we may have kept if they were stored on film or paper. Regards, -- Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/16/2004 1:40 PM Claudio Bonavolta spake thus:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message ... [my own comments snipped, since the respondent's newsreader made a terrible hash out of them and I'm not about to take the time to reformat them] The problem is not will we be able to read a digital format but will we be interested enough to spend so much energy in trying to read such an obsolete thing ? When you find a computer in trash, do you take it to discover all these marvelous pictures it certainly contains ? I don't, but in the (near) future, people called "archaeologists" and "anthropologists" will do just that, to see how folks lived long ago. I don't think so, you just consider it as rubbish. When you encounter the equivalent in film, you easily can ccheck if it's rubbish or not just using a pretty funny interface called "eyes". Digital is a theorically perfect storage media provided you never forget where your pictures are and you convert them at every major storage technology change. I would say that digital is "perfect" in one aspect: the ability to make identical copies from an original or master, with absolutely no generational loss, something not possible with optical media.[1] As to other aspects of reproduction (like fidelity, tonality, etc.), I remain agnostic on the subject (in other words, I don't know enough about it to really have an informed opinion one way or the other). Practically, digital will cause a loss of an amount of images we may have kept if they were stored on film or paper. Well, no, it won't: that's what I'm saying. Digital images may become difficult to retrieve as time goes on and formats change, but not impossible. By the way, please don't mistake any of this as an argument on my part in favor of digital image-making. However, whether I'm fur or agin' it is extremely irrelevant, as are most of our opinions on the matter. Like it or not, digital is here to stay. Get used to it. [1] Although if one considers making a number of prints from a negative, each print can be identical with only the minimal loss due to printing, so generational loss would be negligible in this case. -- Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/16/2004 1:40 PM Claudio Bonavolta spake thus:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message ... [my own comments snipped, since the respondent's newsreader made a terrible hash out of them and I'm not about to take the time to reformat them] The problem is not will we be able to read a digital format but will we be interested enough to spend so much energy in trying to read such an obsolete thing ? When you find a computer in trash, do you take it to discover all these marvelous pictures it certainly contains ? I don't, but in the (near) future, people called "archaeologists" and "anthropologists" will do just that, to see how folks lived long ago. I don't think so, you just consider it as rubbish. When you encounter the equivalent in film, you easily can ccheck if it's rubbish or not just using a pretty funny interface called "eyes". Digital is a theorically perfect storage media provided you never forget where your pictures are and you convert them at every major storage technology change. I would say that digital is "perfect" in one aspect: the ability to make identical copies from an original or master, with absolutely no generational loss, something not possible with optical media.[1] As to other aspects of reproduction (like fidelity, tonality, etc.), I remain agnostic on the subject (in other words, I don't know enough about it to really have an informed opinion one way or the other). Practically, digital will cause a loss of an amount of images we may have kept if they were stored on film or paper. Well, no, it won't: that's what I'm saying. Digital images may become difficult to retrieve as time goes on and formats change, but not impossible. By the way, please don't mistake any of this as an argument on my part in favor of digital image-making. However, whether I'm fur or agin' it is extremely irrelevant, as are most of our opinions on the matter. Like it or not, digital is here to stay. Get used to it. [1] Although if one considers making a number of prints from a negative, each print can be identical with only the minimal loss due to printing, so generational loss would be negligible in this case. -- Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
David Nebenzahl wrote:
I'd like someone to try to name a data storage format (either physical medium or data format) that they think cannot be read today. The point of digital media data loss isn't that the format can or can't be read -- it's whether anyone, finding (for the sake of argument) undeteriorated media that doesn't fit their current equipment will both to spend the time, effort, and money to try to read it to see what's on it. Sure, in a business setting, a spool of paper tape labeled "Foundation charter" is something that's a likely candidate to be read, transcribed onto modern media, and preserved. Grandma's attic, on the other hand, isn't someplace you'd necessarily expect to find computer data you'd pay (a lot) to have converted -- especially since most people who don't work with computers and data storage probably aren't even aware that conversion services exist. If you find prints and negatives, you can see with your eyes what images are stored. If you find a bunch of unlabeled CDs fifty years from now (and you're 32 years old, and born the same year the last CD-R media were made), are you likely to be curious enough about them to spend significant money to find out what's on them? It's hard to imagine a similar situation -- if I found letters in my Grandmother's estate written in Sanskrit, I'd be able to at least recognize them as letters, if not the language (I'm not certain I'd recognize written Sanskrit, at least). It's more like finding a bunch of blank paper in envelopes -- would I take the time and trouble to figure out which of half a dozen different invisible ink systems might have been used to write letters on that paper, or just figure it was unused stationery that had never been thrown away? And even if the latter, the medium isn't so completely obsolete that I wouldn't be able to develop the ink myself if I had some reason to suspect invisible writing; it doesn't depend on a technology that hasn't been manufactured or supported in decades. None of which has anything to do with Tom's arguments about digital not being photography; he's saying that because there's a silicon sensor and digital encoding involved instead of a medium that we view directly with the image on it, it's something other than photography (I think -- I haven't really found the argument completely coherent). I disagree, but the issues of "digital is or isn't photography", "digital media can or cannot be archival and remain readable over periods longer than a single lifetime" and "photography is or is not art" don't seem even very closely related, certainly not enough to cross over from one to the other. I do agree with him in believing that digital media, even those that aren't degraded, will become unreadable due to changes in technology over time spans much shorter than a human lifetime. Let's try this one: can your former employers, specializing in data format conversion, read a Coleco Adam data tape? Hint: if you find one, it'll look exactly like an obsolete audio cassette -- because it is. But if you play it in an audio player, you'll get only a very loud, very raucous blaring noise; most computer users today wouldn't even recognize it as a data encoding signal (it doesn't sound at all like modem or fax tones). Or how about the same storage media written by a Commodore Pet? Both were fairly popular hobbyist computers in their day (around 25+ years ago), and both had at least a small business presence. If you want a *really* obscure one, how about a Tandy Pocket Computer data tape? I actually owned one of those, with the cassette interface; it was already obsolete when I had it, in 1982... -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/16/2004 4:46 PM Donald Qualls spake thus:
Let's try this one: can your former employers, specializing in data format conversion, read a Coleco Adam data tape? Hint: if you find one, it'll look exactly like an obsolete audio cassette -- because it is. But if you play it in an audio player, you'll get only a very loud, very raucous blaring noise; most computer users today wouldn't even recognize it as a data encoding signal (it doesn't sound at all like modem or fax tones). Or how about the same storage media written by a Commodore Pet? Both were fairly popular hobbyist computers in their day (around 25+ years ago), and both had at least a small business presence. Well, for that matter, how about the original cassette BASIC storage system for the first IBM PC? (I remember using those on school.) But anyhow, the answer is "yes": someone could be found out there who has the hardware & software to read these. -- Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Donald Qualls wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote: I'd like someone to try to name a data storage format (either physical medium or data format) that they think cannot be read today. The point of digital media data loss isn't that the format can or can't be read -- it's whether anyone, finding (for the sake of argument) undeteriorated media that doesn't fit their current equipment will both to spend the time, effort, and money to try to read it to see what's on it. Sure, in a business setting, a spool of paper tape labeled "Foundation charter" is something that's a likely candidate to be read, transcribed onto modern media, and preserved. Grandma's attic, on the other hand, isn't someplace you'd necessarily expect to find computer data you'd pay (a lot) to have converted -- especially since most people who don't work with computers and data storage probably aren't even aware that conversion services exist. If you find prints and negatives, you can see with your eyes what images are stored. If you find a bunch of unlabeled CDs fifty years from now (and you're 32 years old, and born the same year the last CD-R media were made), are you likely to be curious enough about them to spend significant money to find out what's on them? It's hard to imagine a similar situation -- if I found letters in my Grandmother's estate written in Sanskrit, I'd be able to at least recognize them as letters, if not the language (I'm not certain I'd recognize written Sanskrit, at least). It's more like finding a bunch of blank paper in envelopes -- would I take the time and trouble to figure out which of half a dozen different invisible ink systems might have been used to write letters on that paper, or just figure it was unused stationery that had never been thrown away? And even if the latter, the medium isn't so completely obsolete that I wouldn't be able to develop the ink myself if I had some reason to suspect invisible writing; it doesn't depend on a technology that hasn't been manufactured or supported in decades. Now, honestly how many people keep around unlabeled CD-Rs? I don't I want to know what is on a CD, so I will write on it, what is on it, like "Photo Collection 2004 disc 1" Hey I put on an index file as well, in text format, because in 10 years time, I might forget what's on it. Some future relative, might keep those CD's alive by duplicating them onto new media...... BTW a CD-R that is stored in a cool, dry, dark place, could last, and retain readability for quite a while. Funny thing is, the best storage conditions for film, are also good for CD media..... W |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Donald Qualls wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote: I'd like someone to try to name a data storage format (either physical medium or data format) that they think cannot be read today. The point of digital media data loss isn't that the format can or can't be read -- it's whether anyone, finding (for the sake of argument) undeteriorated media that doesn't fit their current equipment will both to spend the time, effort, and money to try to read it to see what's on it. Sure, in a business setting, a spool of paper tape labeled "Foundation charter" is something that's a likely candidate to be read, transcribed onto modern media, and preserved. Grandma's attic, on the other hand, isn't someplace you'd necessarily expect to find computer data you'd pay (a lot) to have converted -- especially since most people who don't work with computers and data storage probably aren't even aware that conversion services exist. If you find prints and negatives, you can see with your eyes what images are stored. If you find a bunch of unlabeled CDs fifty years from now (and you're 32 years old, and born the same year the last CD-R media were made), are you likely to be curious enough about them to spend significant money to find out what's on them? It's hard to imagine a similar situation -- if I found letters in my Grandmother's estate written in Sanskrit, I'd be able to at least recognize them as letters, if not the language (I'm not certain I'd recognize written Sanskrit, at least). It's more like finding a bunch of blank paper in envelopes -- would I take the time and trouble to figure out which of half a dozen different invisible ink systems might have been used to write letters on that paper, or just figure it was unused stationery that had never been thrown away? And even if the latter, the medium isn't so completely obsolete that I wouldn't be able to develop the ink myself if I had some reason to suspect invisible writing; it doesn't depend on a technology that hasn't been manufactured or supported in decades. Now, honestly how many people keep around unlabeled CD-Rs? I don't I want to know what is on a CD, so I will write on it, what is on it, like "Photo Collection 2004 disc 1" Hey I put on an index file as well, in text format, because in 10 years time, I might forget what's on it. Some future relative, might keep those CD's alive by duplicating them onto new media...... BTW a CD-R that is stored in a cool, dry, dark place, could last, and retain readability for quite a while. Funny thing is, the best storage conditions for film, are also good for CD media..... W |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/16/2004 4:46 PM Donald Qualls spake thus: Let's try this one: can your former employers, specializing in data format conversion, read a Coleco Adam data tape? Hint: if you find one, it'll look exactly like an obsolete audio cassette -- because it is. But if you play it in an audio player, you'll get only a very loud, very raucous blaring noise; most computer users today wouldn't even recognize it as a data encoding signal (it doesn't sound at all like modem or fax tones). Or how about the same storage media written by a Commodore Pet? Both were fairly popular hobbyist computers in their day (around 25+ years ago), and both had at least a small business presence. Well, for that matter, how about the original cassette BASIC storage system for the first IBM PC? (I remember using those on school.) But anyhow, the answer is "yes": someone could be found out there who has the hardware & software to read these. "Out there" -- as in where "the truth" is?? Yes, there probably is someone, somewhere, with a working Adam, or Pet, or original 64k PC, or even Tandy Pocket Computer. OTOH, my experience was that those tapes didn't always read back even ten minutes after they were written -- yep, I know, that's media deterioration, not format obsolescence. I didn't, however, ask about "someone" "out there" -- I asked about a specific format conversion service. Or do you think, when someone's grandkids find a CD-R in the attic, they'll be able to find "someone" "out there" who still has an antique system with drivers and compatible hardware to read media that hasn't been made in 30 years? Hell, I remember handling 8" floppies and seeing the drives for them on sale (as salvage, but still working) after I owned my first DOS machine, but I'd have to place an ad to find a place that can read one now. And I might not find one close enough to drive to, now that I'm in small-town North Carolina instead of Tech City, aka Seattle. If I have that much trouble with a medium that's less than 20 years obsolete, what'll it be like when those disks are 50 or 100 years old? Even if the magnetic domains in the coating haven't randomized -- analog video recordings from 50 years ago are still playable, if you can find a machine that can play them, so I suppose it's possible -- will anyone, anywhere, have a working 8" drive, with the hardware interface and software drivers to read it? And will that drive handle the dozen or so incompatible formats that were in use as of 1982 or so? Heck, how did your data conversion service handle 8" disks? Hard sector or soft, how many sectors, single or double side, single or double density -- unlike the later, smaller disk standards, there was never one drive that could read all of them. Did they somehow keep at least one drive working for each of those formats? And a computer that could talk to all those drives? Even if they did, how many years can that continue? Electronics eventually fail -- they have to, it's a quantum effect of current flow in semiconductors -- and when they do, where will you find replacements for the chips? And still, even if it's technically feasible to read those formats, who'll really bother? -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RANT- Reality Check-"The Early Days of Digital Photography" | Drifter | Digital Photography | 40 | October 9th 04 12:02 AM |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr) | Thad | Digital Photography | 466 | September 8th 04 07:33 PM |
2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr) | Thad | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 3rd 04 04:03 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |