The Digital Elephant

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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?

"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.

In article ,
says...
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.



One of the issues often overlooked is finding digital material later.
With physical objects such as prints or film, one can always look at it
to see what one has.
A drawer full of CDROMS, or whatever is the media of choice,
is not very revealing. Current systems for cataloging images are quite
primitive. 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. This is especially
useless if the image can't be described by a noun.
So "Empire State Building" works fairly well, but "awe at man's
construction achievements" probably won't. What about all the digitally
created files named DSC000101002?


Libraries and others are seriously concerned with these issues and have
been discussing it for at least twenty years. The issue is not
restricted to images, what happens to all the stories, diaries, email,
blogs distributed on the web? We have the letters of Thomas Jefferson,
but what will have from the creators of today?
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: