Top photographers condemn digital age

On 3 Oct 2004 18:15:07 -0700, (Phil Glaser)
wrote:

Conventional black-and-white photography is the most different from digital
(in terms of ability to achieve high quality). It is the one most worth
preserving as a craft.

I have seen this statement made before, but I'm not sure I understand
why this should be so. This is one of the reasons I was so surprised
about Ilford's woes: if traditional black and white is stronger than
digital black and white, why aren't these materials still selling? Can
you elaborate?

--Phil

The thing is that people find working in the dark
uncomfortable. Also they believe the spinmeisters when they tell them
it's going to be easy for them to capture and print "photoz" on their
inkjet printer. As if an inkjet can render a decent black ! I have
some comparison prints I keep on the walls of my cubicle. A contact
print from a 5X7 negative (Tri-X), several RA-4 prints made from a
Fuji Frontier from my 6MP FinePix along with a coupld inkjet prints my
wife made. Inkjet prints look like water colors, the Frontier prints
aren't much better and of course the contact print is perfect.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

John wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:16:45 -0400, The Wogster
wrote:

So because prior methods have failed to last, then new ones will be
condemned to the same failure?

Yep. It's called "commerce". "New and improved" sells new
equipment. Old equipment and methods are replaced and rapidly become
extinct. All in the name of Big Bizness. In two years your 32 bit OS
will be extinct. Ready for that ?

To post a comment from another thread (Buy film, not
equipment -- is that considered crossposting?), which
is the same garbage Kodak has been practicing with some
of their films and _why_ they've eliminated outstanding
films like Pan-X.

The Wogster wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:
In article ,
Gregory Blank wrote:


Ok what do you need a darkroom for then?

In article ,
Helge Buddenborg wrote:


That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is
"GREAT".

What he misses (completely) is that digital imaging,
though an imaging medium, is not a *photographic* medium.
The physics simply don't support this.

And when people begin to see through the marketing hype
and in 20 years lose all those non-existent image files
on their hard drives they will realize film is the better
medium. There simply is no permanent archival storage
for digital and never will be, since as mere data
it's dependent on 100% on electronics rather than
concrete materials.

There is no permanent archival storage for data, yet.

Read my lips: it's electronic. It can _never_ be permanent. It's
ones and zeros, mere data, representational, not a real image,
1000% dependent on electronics and the storage mediums that can
actually read it, which changes constantly. Shall I go on?

However
photographs are not the only data that need this kind of storage, so
active work is being done in this area all the time.

Guess I need to go on: There's no such thing as a digital
"photograph." A photograph is a real, tangible image actually
created by the action of light on a light sensitized material.
It's chemical and permanent. Even if the emulsion degrades due
to exceptionally horrendous care and storage, the silver metal
compounds it's composed of lasts forever. Digital disappears the
moment your hard drive, CD-R, DVD, etc., fails. Not to mention
silicon doesn't record anything (it can't, the physics don't
allow it) and the regenerated voltage/image data stored on your
computer is, all together now -- mere data that represents an
image.

That's what the science says.

There are methods
that work, for example take a solid gold disc, now burn pits into it
with a laser beam, similar to a CD master. Since gold does not corrode,
or tarnish, the data would exist until the Sun goes into melt-down.

What is really needed, is a very long term storage, something on the
order of 500 years or so. This would be longer then most photographs
need to be retained,

This makes zero sense; reminds me of king dubya
talking about foreign policy...

and longer then film will last,

Ignorance abounds. Film (according to Dr. James Reilly of the
Image Permanence Institute) begs to differ. If properly stored,
his Storage Guide for Acetate Film states film can theoretically
be preserved for thousands of years. Regarding film on polyester
base (b&w sheet films like Tmax), these are stated matter of
factly to have an estimated life of 500 years even when stored
under normal "room" conditions. If the images on film or paper
are toned or otherwise protected from oxidation, the emulsions
should also last.

would need to last
under less then ideal conditions. The problem is that you would need to
wait 500 years to see if it lasts 500 years.

W

W/dubya? hmmm...must be related.

Manufacturers market digital as "photography" instead
of data imaging because that's the only way they can
sell it. Digital cameras aren't "cameras," they're
scanners. Consumers buy into it for the convenience, but
experienced photographers are better educated. As the
ISO has noted digital doesn't produce a photograph,
it produces representational image data. Film, OTOH,
is a permanent tangible image, not "data." And that's
why film will always be around.

Donald Qualls wrote:

Ken Nadvornick wrote:

It's only been - what? - 27 years (1977) since the twin Voyager
interplanetary probes were launched and the technology to read that golden
phonograph record is already extinct to all but a small group of
afficianados. (At least here on Earth.) I wonder... what will be the
situation in another 475 years?

Nice of them to include the replacement cartridge and needle, though. A
Radio Shack might be hard to come by...

But, just as an interested amateur, much less a professional scientist
or engineer, could easily create an optical system to view or project a
photograph even if the very idea of photography has been lost to time,

It's called a pinhole and has been a scientific phenomenon
known since about 300 BC when Aristotle first described it.
About 400 years ago some smart people added optical glass
(lenses) and before we knew Kodak did it in reverse and created
the slide projector. BTW, the "very idea of photography" is
just as basic a phenomenon of science as the pinhole. Digital,
OTOH, is a phenomenon of technology.


anyone capable of retrieving the Voyager disks and reading the symbolic
playing instructions would be capable of fabricating a stylus and
cartridge. The inclusion of those devices just makes it easier; they
need provide only amplification to listen to the audio portions of the
record. I could probably manage that myself, with my extremely limited
electronic knowledge; it should be trivial for anyone capable of
retrieving those disks from deep space (assuming they see, hear, and
think even a little like us). Viewing the images would require some
computer capability or a lot better knowledge of analog electronics than
I possess, but again shouldn't be a problem for those capable of finding
the disks.

The only way I see those disks as being information to retrieve is if
they're found by too mature a civilization -- if they've reached the
stage where "trailer trash" routinely lives and travels in space,

Now hold on there. I know people who live in trailers and
they're quite nice people

it's
very possible that the finder might be technologically (or genuinely)
illiterate and see the item as simply metal to be recycled as scrap, a
wall hanging, etc., without ever realizing it contained information --
or be ignorant enough of scientific constants to be unable to decode the
instructions for rotational speed etc. even if they understand the disks
contain information. Imagine a Dust Bowl era Okie confronted by a
message encoded in terms of the dimensions and tolerances of parts
inside the engine of his clunker Ford; he might well be able to repair
most common failures, but likely wouldn't know what a micrometer is for,
much less how to use one, and still less likely own one -- and even if
he does, his worn old engine might be far enough out of tolerance to
render the message indecipherable.

--
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.

Tom Phillips wrote:

Donald Qualls wrote:
But, just as an interested amateur, much less a professional scientist
or engineer, could easily create an optical system to view or project a
photograph even if the very idea of photography has been lost to time,

It's called a pinhole and has been a scientific phenomenon
known since about 300 BC when Aristotle first described it.
About 400 years ago some smart people added optical glass
(lenses) and before we knew Kodak did it in reverse and created
the slide projector. BTW, the "very idea of photography" is
just as basic a phenomenon of science as the pinhole. Digital,
OTOH, is a phenomenon of technology.

I'm being somewhat facetious of course, so before anyone
points it out yes I know slides were invented and projected
prior to Kodak carrousels :-)

John wrote in message . ..
The thing is that people find working in the dark
uncomfortable.

I believe there are a significant nubmer of people (including myself)
who make the digital/traditional decision based on their experience of
the process. I sit in front of a computer all day (and am paying the
price for it with my neck pain) and would therefore prefer to use the
darkroom. But for this discussion I want to leave aside those sorts of
questions about personal preference for the process. I'm interested in
the fundamental question of which technology produces better
photographs and why. Your answer to my question is a good start. But I
still need more information.

Also they believe the spinmeisters when they tell them
it's going to be easy for them to capture and print "photoz" on their
inkjet printer. As if an inkjet can render a decent black ! I have
some comparison prints I keep on the walls of my cubicle. A contact
print from a 5X7 negative (Tri-X), several RA-4 prints made from a
Fuji Frontier from my 6MP FinePix along with a coupld inkjet prints my
wife made. Inkjet prints look like water colors, the Frontier prints
aren't much better and of course the contact print is perfect.

Ok, now suppose you can afford to have your digital images printed by
one of those proceses that exposes digital images on traditional paper
using lasers. I'm told the quality of such prints is phenomenal (and
the price astronomical). Assuming that the quality of such a print
equals or surpasses that of what you could produce in your darkroom
(assume hypothetically if you disagree with the assertion), is film
capture of a black and white image better than digital? If so, why?
Does film have a better dynamic range? Is it easier to manipulate the
contrast? Etc., etc., etc.?

Again, please restrict the universe of discourse to black and white. I
don't care about color.

Thanks.

--Phil

John wrote in message . ..
The thing is that people find working in the dark
uncomfortable.

I believe there are a significant nubmer of people (including myself)
who make the digital/traditional decision based on their experience of
the process. I sit in front of a computer all day (and am paying the
price for it with my neck pain) and would therefore prefer to use the
darkroom. But for this discussion I want to leave aside those sorts of
questions about personal preference for the process. I'm interested in
the fundamental question of which technology produces better
photographs and why. Your answer to my question is a good start. But I
still need more information.

Also they believe the spinmeisters when they tell them
it's going to be easy for them to capture and print "photoz" on their
inkjet printer. As if an inkjet can render a decent black ! I have
some comparison prints I keep on the walls of my cubicle. A contact
print from a 5X7 negative (Tri-X), several RA-4 prints made from a
Fuji Frontier from my 6MP FinePix along with a coupld inkjet prints my
wife made. Inkjet prints look like water colors, the Frontier prints
aren't much better and of course the contact print is perfect.

Ok, now suppose you can afford to have your digital images printed by
one of those proceses that exposes digital images on traditional paper
using lasers. I'm told the quality of such prints is phenomenal (and
the price astronomical). Assuming that the quality of such a print
equals or surpasses that of what you could produce in your darkroom
(assume hypothetically if you disagree with the assertion), is film
capture of a black and white image better than digital? If so, why?
Does film have a better dynamic range? Is it easier to manipulate the
contrast? Etc., etc., etc.?

Again, please restrict the universe of discourse to black and white. I
don't care about color.

Thanks.

--Phil

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:46:06 -0400, The Wogster
wrote:

....
For me, I don't care, it's easier to download a photo, then to soup
films, and it's easier to balance it, and post process in PhotoShop, and
print on inkjet, then it is to spend the day in the fume room, making
test prints. One issue, if you know the fume room, it's easier to learn
about digital. Same process, different methodology.
....

oct604 from Lloyd Erlick,

If it's 'the fume room', there is something wrong.

A regular old darkroom need not smell, let alone have
'fumes'. Probably people who use digital printers
operate them correctly. That type of image making
should be compared to a correctly operated darkroom, if
comparisons are to be made.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

The Wogster wrote:


Fact is, nobody knows how long it takes nature to break down the
molecules in polyester or acetate. It may be 100 years it may be
100,000,000 the key is that it does start to break down at some point,
and that point is so far an unknown. They thought plastic buttons from
the 1900's would last forever too, until museums had to replace them
because the buttons were deteriorating, and affecting the garments they
were attached to.

If the buttons were "plastic" from the 1900s, they're celluloid, the
same unstable stuff that ate so many of the early Hollywood films as it
decomposed in storage. Completely different from acetate and polyester.

Yes, I agree, no one is certain of the breakdown time of polyester and
acetate film bases (other than that polyester is likely longer); these
materials are both so durable that other than a few bad batches and in
cases of long-term solar UV exposure, they haven't broken down
significantly in the 30-40 years they've been available. However, based
on the earliest examples known, they look to be competitive with paper
for longevity (and likely better in some environments, since they aren't
food for bacteria or fungi as cellulose is). We have many-many examples
of paper up to 5000 years old.


Suppose they invented a new memory next week, that allowed you to store
500 exabytes (87 262 827 images from a Canon digital rebel in Raw
format) would last as long as the planet does, and never become
corrupted, even when at ground zero under a Hydrogen bomb. You probably
still not be satisfied.

I doubt anyone could prove the ground zero claim or the longevity (they
said something similar about CDs when they came out, remember? "Won't
skip like a record, and will last centuries!" and then they found out
the aluminum coating oxidizes between the plastic layers and the things
can become unreadable in a matter of 10-20 years in normal storage; I
heard one skipping on radio within a few months of the stations starting
to play them). The capacity would be wonderful, but it's still not
human readable.

And all the rest of your arguments apply equally to digital media as to
negatives -- sure, people may toss them rather than spend the effort to
decode them. But a medium that stores an eyeball-visible picture, IMO,
has a better chance of catching someone's attention long enough to be
preserved than yet another box of those stupid old CD-R disks that have
all deteriorated in the 50 years since they quit making them.

And though no one might have a darkroom or "conventional" photographic
materials in 100 years or 300 years, they'll still have some means of
imaging the negatives and converting the image to a positive (that's an
extremely simple computer operation); a silver gelatin negative can even
be directly viewed as a positive, after a fashion, by putting it against
an absorptive black background and viewing the scatter from the silver
-- a trick that gets rediscovered, by accident, pretty frequently.

No, of course not every preserved negative will be saved when it's found
in the attic -- but neither will digital media. People pitch stuff when
they buy or sell a house, move apartments, or just cleaning up; many of
them, using the "one year rule", would simply erase all of history if
they ran things, because they haven't used it in a year so it must be
junk. My point is, an analog image will still be eyeball visible long
after digital media are irretrievable, unless digital progress stops
cold tomorrow (or next week, at the latest) -- which isn't going to
happen. And an eyeball visible image is more likely to be preserved
when found than a bunch of disks or memory cards that don't fit any
hardware you have on hand or have ever seen.

Would you bother to try to read an 8" floppy if you found a box of them
in the attic? Even if they were labeled something like "CPM-86 Version
1.0"? Even if you knew that was the system that Gates and Allen bought
up and relabeled to create PC-DOS 1.0 when IBM wanted an operating
system and Digital Research couldn't or wouldn't commit to deliver on
time? OTOH, would you stop to look at an old B&W print of a couple of
geeky looking young adults with an old computer case (complete with
front panel switches and status lights, like in a Star Trek rerun), long
enough to turn it over and read "Bill Gates, Paul Allen, 1976" on the back?

IMO, and we might just have to agree to disagree, the box of old
pictures is much better off, in the hands of someone cleaning the attic,
than the box of old computer media. And if the pictures are B&W on
silver gelatin, either prints or negatives, they're likely to still be
in reasonably good shape even 200 or 300 years down the line (at least
as long as they weren't on celluloid base).

--
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.

John wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:16:45 -0400, The Wogster
wrote:


So because prior methods have failed to last, then new ones will be
condemned to the same failure?


Yep. It's called "commerce". "New and improved" sells new
equipment. Old equipment and methods are replaced and rapidly become
extinct. All in the name of Big Bizness. In two years your 32 bit OS
will be extinct. Ready for that ?

Careful there, John -- I'm still running Windows 98 (SE, having finally
updated from original 98 to run a game last winter); even XP Home
Edition is three years old now...

--
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.