| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. Of Film and Digital
Asked by Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) on 12/19/2004
|
The following was submitted to a Yahoo Group I belong to in response to a discussion about the death of film and the rise of digital photograpy. Would appreciate others feelings on this or am I alone?
In regards to the death of film photograpy a few things come to mind that perhaps many of you are not thinking about. I have also heard about what a pain it is to scan slides and negatives and how just shooting digital is the way to go. Being a "Semi-Olde-Farte" that is not too technically inept, I would like to through my 2 cents into the fray.
Personally I think it is a big mistake to totally rely on this "passing fad" called digital. Now that being said, let me explain my feelings about
this issue. Light does not become obsolete, the fact that you can hold a piece of film that was shot 100 years ago up to the light and view an image pretty much says it all. Digital technology in comparison to film photography is still in it's infancy and is undergoing constant change and improvement and becoming more complex. While the changes are truly fantastic, many things are being left behind in the dust with little thought. Take for instance the person that had a computer 30 years go, yeah there were computers back then, they were slow, and used things like 8 inch floppy disks that held a whopping 160k of data on them. Now imagine that person storing all his personal information on those disks to store away for eternity, to be summoned up at the push of a button whenever he wanted. Well here we are 30 years later, dang I can't get this 8 inch floppy to fit into my CD drive. oh crap! There are no more 8 inch floppy drives on the planet, think the Smithsonian will let me view my data? I know this sounds a bit far fetched but is it? When was the last time you even saw a computer with a 51/4 inch floppy in it? Amazing that 3 1/2 floppies are still here and for how long. CD and DVD will probably go the way of the 8 inch floppy
in a few years as well, not to mention the problems of CD rot, scratches and other data destroying perils.
What I am saying is that the piece of film that is 100 years old, I can still pass light through and extract my image, I can process it with the
latest great digital scanner that is 10x the resolution of the one I used 10 years ago and will cover a much larger density range. In 50 years my grandchildren can do the same thing with even better results of they are so inclined. If we shoot only digital we not only limit ourselves to the technology of today, but also the ability of viewing these images in future generations. Unless we take an active part in refreshing our image archives, by moving them to the latest media and format, gosh we all do that don't we, we risk the possibility of having no record of this era in the future. You can't hold a CD up to the light and see much, and in 20 years or so, most CDs will be relegated to that of "pretty shiny coaster on the coffee table" if any are still around.
One other thought comes to mind as to this evil trend of digital photography, and that is the disposability of images, which means that it
is far to easy to delete a digital image just because it doesn't suit us at the time. So much of recorded history will be deleted because of this. Just think, the picture of Monica hugging President Clinton would probably have been deleted, it was just a grab shot with no meaning at the time, but the film was archived and to the good or bad was revisited as a part of history. This is just one example, how many of you have purged a few images while shooting because you were low on memory space. That photo could have
been a something special not noticed at the time, but you will never know.
Let me state however; I am as guilty as the next guy. For commercial stuff I shoot mostly digital, but I do sneak the RZ on the camera stand at least once a shoot to get some of what I do on film. I still shoot a lot of black and white and for this I use my 35mm stuff and large format for when I am really inspired. Black and white film photography is almost recreational at this point and I find it very enjoyable. Hopefully Kodak will not discontinue any more film types in the future.
I now take a large part of my digital images and record them on "Film" so that in the future someone can hold them up to the light and see what there was to see way back when. I doubt they will be able to do that with their shiny coasters.
Enjoy, have a happy holiday season and shoot some film for your grandkids.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray Heath
(K=4559) - Comment Date 12/19/2004
|
good points Phil, many photographers are not considering these issues, digital is immmediacy, the long term is too much trouble
after all these considerations you have not even touched on quality, whether film is better than digital is a whole other debate, my concern is, regardless which is better, in quality terms, digital is creating a generation of photographers who accept poorer quality as the norm
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) - Comment Date 12/19/2004
|
Ray, you are right the instant nature of digital and relative low cost per image has yielded a generation, or will yield a generation that doesn't try to get it right, but will haphazardly click until they luck out.
Then again, in 20 or 30 years all of their images that were printed with inkjet will fade away and not be replaced because the CDs they are stored on will be rotted out or impossible to read so they will not have had an impact anyway.
Do I sound bitter? ;=] I am still going through my deep depression over the discontinuation of Techpan film.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Chris Hunter
(K=25634) - Comment Date 12/20/2004
|
Hello Phil, being a young man, who was first taught to use a computer at around age 11, it is funny how much I agree with you. I began using film early cameras more seriously around 2000, getting my first 35 mm SLR during visual communications courses. Being a graphic designer, immediate visual input to use was the biggest appeal for the digital point and shoot I bought. Then, purchasing a DSLR early this year seemed to make me realize how much i really enjoy photography - but then I recently come to a pretty horrible realization about the last year...aprox. 5000 shots saved, ??? how may actually taken...all digital. Not to mention the resolution issues of digital, the frailty of any digital storage system is fairly more pronounced than physical slides and transparencies stored in a safe location. But, the experience gained from shooting those 5000 frames is also invaluable, and my solution will be to continue shooting digital for metering and shooting hundreds of frames...but along w/ film...but most likely medium format or the Xpan if I'm lucky. Probably what a lot of people already do - it makes a lot of sense if you can afford to have the two systems.
As for the "CD's won't work in 20 years" theory, I think that is kind of a large leap. I have data that at one point only existed in 3.5" floppies, or 10 year old PCs that I no longer physically own...but some of the important data is currently on one of the hard drives I am using right now. Technology won't move so fast that those who are heavily immersed in it will not be able to upgrade and maintain their data from different evaluations in storage mediums. We won't all wake up one day and no longer have CD-ROM drives...it will be a extremely gradual transition most likely....only the most technologically inept would not be able to convert their data to a newer storage medium before another expires completely from use and sale. However, that does nothing to diminish the short comings of digital image making already stated.
Hope this input is useful or stimulating in some way,
Chris Hunter
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) - Comment Date 12/20/2004
|
Chris,
I agree with you on all that you stated. We all have to be vigilent in the storage and continued archiving of our digital images if the history we are recording is going to survive us.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 12/20/2004
|
Phill I agree with you 100%!
|
|
|
|
Rose Hooper
(K=899) - Comment Date 12/20/2004
|
Hi Phil,
I believe that storage technology is still in its infancy. The fact that flash memory and hard drives are still increasing in capacity at such an alarming rate is proof enough. Sometime in the next 10 years a storage medium that has 1000x the capacity and 1000x times the failure resiliency will emerge. At this point, the weakness in data longevity will become data management practices.
I thought I was immune from data loss of my photos, as I had a raid-1 volume set up, so I only periodically burned my photos to DVD. Guess what happened to me. Yep, you guessed it, I lost over a months worth of photos. Gone, never to be seen again. This is the digital equivalent of a chemical spill or fire.
However, unlike analog film, there are actually ways to protect your photos indefinitely in the digital realm. The first step is to keep two copies on two different mediums. A hard drive and a DVD is an acceptable setup. The second step is to keep a second copy in a different location that will not be affected by fire or flood. Burning a second DVD and keeping it at the office (or at home) or in a safety deposit box will work for this.
|
|
|
|
Nour El Refai
(K=12481) - Comment Date 12/20/2004
|
We are living in a changing world, this is a true situation we have to deal with, i am not saying that we must change, but atleast we have to think deeply in about that change
Although i am using digital, i'll never consider myself a pro unless i'll be good at film photography, many people agree with that.
|
|
|
|
Scott McFadden
(K=5663) - Comment Date 12/21/2004
|
Not all people whom shoot digital are stupid enough to just print these out in inkjets.
Getting chem process prints from a lab really helps ensure this stability.
Of course those who skimp and only print the strongest of photos will miss out.
Variety of format is whats needed to secure digital longevity of files.
Always keep several backups of diffrent types.
Yes I still shoot some film mostly b+w and slides as this gives me plenty of options.
|
|
|
|
Diabo
(K=2080) - Comment Date 12/21/2004
|
An advantage of digital storage is that it's easier to store multiple copies in different formats at different locations. Every copy of a copy (of a copy of a etc.) is exactly the same as the original, and you can use file hashing to verify.
A copy (of a copy of a copy...) of a print or negative is never exactly the same as the original.
Film, prints, it's all chemistry and therefore subject to degradation by oxygen and (uv)light. A 100-year old negative may still yield acceptable prints, but what about 500 years?
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Prints can improve upon aging.
http://www.usefilm.com/image/639864.html
|
|
|
|
Diabo
(K=2080) - Comment Date 12/21/2004
|
What happens if you pick the wrong type of film? http://www.uscoles.com/eastman.htm
|
|
|
|
Alastair Bell
(K=29571) - Comment Date 12/22/2004
|
Does it really matter what the medium used is? The essence of a good image is one that causes a reaction in the observer. Does it matter how the image was generated, whether by glass plate, celluloid film or digital electronics? Surely all this posturing about the method of storage detracts from the creation of the imge in the first place!
Photos really are about people and not technology.
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) - Comment Date 12/22/2004
|
Alastair, I think you are missing the original point of my posting. It really doesn't matter how an image is created. I shoot both digital and film as required. My point was that 2 very substantial disadvantages of digital are the archiving of digital images for future generations and the susceptibility of the digital image to destruction by something as simple as a scratch on a CD etc...and the ease of which a digital images is deleted without a second thought. Both of these factors leaving future generations the possibility on missing out on their legacy. The events that are taking place now will easily be forgotten unless photographers now take the action to archive their digital images and keep updating the archives as new formats and hardware becomes available.
Someone in another group put forth the analogy, it is 75 years from now, a kid is wondering through the remnants of what used to be a house, long since abandoned in early 2005. In exploring under the steps he finds 2 boxes, one filled with CDs and the other filled with film. The CDs are strange to him and obviously unusable, the film on the other hand he holds up to the light and sees images from the past. Even though the film is not in great condition, it is still viewable and not a total loss. CDs on the other hand well they have not made a CD player in 50 years, now people use the compact cube filled with hydrogen memory where the entire contents of the library of congress is held in a tiny sugar cube sized memory module.
Seems far fetched? No not really, try reading computer punch cards or paper tape today, not an easy thing to do. What about consumer Betamax tapes or original RCA video discs, almost impossible as machines have not been made for a long time and used ones are disappearing, think about 50 years from now.
That was my point, not that digital is any better or worse then film. You are right, it is the images that count and really only the images not how they are made, so we all have to be diligent in our preservation of such and keep those digital archives fresh for our chidren and childrens children, and hope they will do the same.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Anthony Gargani
(K=4527) - Comment Date 12/23/2004
|
Only time for a few quick comments...
re: stability of digital media
How many have already had old slides or prints scanned and converted to digital format?
How many have taken old super 8 movies and had them converted to video tape and then dvds?
How many now are converting vhs-vhsC-and 8mm video tapes to dvds?
and so on and so on...
Is it not reasonable to expect that at some time prior to the format becoming obsolete those that care enough and can afford it will have the transfer made one way or another.
I realize I am not addressing the issue of transfer quality. I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of preserving the 'memory' so to speak.
I've seen plenty of negatives and slides destroyed by poor storage (some of them my own families greatest 'heirlooms' and the only record of a large portion of my youth-dad was a dedicated slide film user). So an analog image is only as good as the method it is stored.
In the end what does it really matter? If every major art museum was destroyed by fire at midnight tonight what would happen? Yes we would lose something of value, a tragedy for sure, but mankind would survive it.
If my digital images are wiped out at midnight tonight, it would be a minor tradegy to my family and I, but...we would survive.
Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust...
"Saving up your money for a rainy day, giving all your clothes to charity. Last night the wife said oh-boy when your dead you don't take nothin' with you but your soul-THINK!" John Lennon
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 12/23/2004
|
I like both, but being an old timer in this changing world of photography... I still love film. But I am finding myself less and less interested in printing B&W. Still like KODACHROME 64
|
|
|
|
Alastair Bell
(K=29571) - Comment Date 12/24/2004
|
Hi Philip.. I hadn't missed the point at all but do find it somewhat irrelevant. I see the analogy and yes on the surface it makes sense however it is important to remember that anything digital can always be retrieved (for a cost) from any kind of media. A scratched CD can still return the majority of its data if given to a specialist data recovery expert. Any data of importance will almost certainly be backed up from whatever the current 'live' media is to the current 'backup' media. I sued to back data up from hard disk to floppies, then tape as tape was more common, then cd and now I back up to dvd. Obviously I don't have digital images dating back to floppies but you get the point.
Any kind of archiving media is only as good as the person doing the archiving. At least with digital you do get the option to retain more than one perfect clone of the original hence reducing the possibility of catastrophic loss. With film this is not possible (unless scanned first to make it digital!)
Alastair
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 12/24/2004
|
You've obviously never heard of internegative images, slide duplicates, etc.
The death of film is hailed by the digital addicts every year.
10 years ago they said film would be gone in 5 years, and they've been saying it ever since.
When APS was introduced that was announced to fully replace 35mm film in 5-10 years. Looking now we see APS all but gone and 35mm going strong.
The same was predicted of MF film when 35mm was introduced. MF is still alive and well, in fact it may well outlast 35mm...
There's still people using photographic plates, in fact there's probably more of them then there were at the time the death of that technology was announced with the introduction of celluloid based films 100 years or so ago.
In the 1950s it was predicted everyone would have an aircraft and fly to work, the car would disappear in 10 years or so...
In the 1970s or early '80s it was predicted the microwave oven would completely replace gas- and electric stoves and ovens before the year 2000...
As it is, digital is indeed just a fad.
Seeing the huge flood of camera models and storage systems on the market this is indeed a sure sign of a hype.
People are swarming to stores to buy each new generation of camera as soon as it hits shelves.
More than one member of this very site bought a Canon D30, then a D60, a 10d and a 300d, and now a 20d, each time dissing the older model immediately as no good for anything...
|
|
|
|
Pico diGoliardi
(K=540) - Comment Date 12/24/2004
|
There are archival ink-jet prints that outlast conventional color prints. Some will easily last 100 years. If this interests you, consider looking to the work by Henry Wilhelm.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 12/25/2004
|
they won't... There's some ink companies making claims but those have never been proven (it's just marketing talk, they know they won't be around to be sued for damages in 20 years...) and would require highly specific storage conditions and papers to achieve even if it might work.
|
|
|
|
Alastair Bell
(K=29571) - Comment Date 12/27/2004
|
Jeroen, I am fully aware of the ability to make copies of negatives and slides but each copy is not a clone but a degraded image. How on earth can you say that digital as a media is just a fad? Scanners and photoediting programs have been around for at least a decade (ok not as long as celluloid) but that is another form of digital imaging. All that digital cameras have done is take the digital image away from being a multi step process to being a single step process. This is a great time saver and cost saver for many amateurs and professionals alike. The press photographer could no longer compete without a digital camera to enable him to rapidly email his images to his editor. The renewal process you've mentioned is a result of a rapidly maturing technology, not a poor media. As the digital technology matures it improves more slowly and the 'need' to replace the equipment on a regular basis reduces. At the point we have arrived at so far that has not really happened. Film has had 100 years to mature whereas digital CCds have had only a couple of decades. With film the process of upgrading the media is a lot simpler than with digital - just change the film. With digital cameras the upgrade is purchase a new camera.
I myslef have used film cameras since 1976, including cameras by Minolta, Rollei, Pentax, Canon and Nikon. I currently have a Nikon F65 film camera which I use in conjunction with Fuji S5000 and Fuji S2 Pro digital cameras. I like the immediacy and flexibility of the digital cameras (I can select 'ISO' speeds on the fly with digital from one image to another) but feel film allows me to produce images with better resolution and colour depth. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what the media is if the result has the required effect.
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 12/28/2004
|
Actually, digital images will last approximately 10,000,000 years. You just have to be prepared to migrate them to a new storage medium every five years. It really isn't anything more complicated than a data management issue, but that really is the heart of the problem. A roll of film, printed into negatives and 4x6's will last for decades with no more complicated management system than a shoebox in a closet (with a bit of luck, and accepting colour fading issues). This is not the case with digital. The photos I took at Christmas 2003 will still be around 40 years from now. The ones my in-laws with their fancy shmancy (and now obsolete) digitals took probably do not exist today.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Alastair Bell
(K=29571) - Comment Date 12/28/2004
|
Hi Jon, I woyld have thought the digital images would have no lifetime as everytime they are copied they are copied afresh as a clone of the original? The data management issue isn't a big deal (well it isn't for me since I work in IT anyway) and is no different to the imge management of film. I have lost/misplaced/destroyed far more film than I have digital images (and my first digital image goes back around 9 years or so). I also don't think replacement of media every 5 years is necessary - 3.5" floppies were around over 15 years (although there were longevity issues with floppy data) and CDs have been around 20 years or so too (and CDs well stored are fairly robust)and are readable in all current DVD readers too. In my opinion the only time to replace the storage media is when it approaches the reliable data lifetime (information on this is available from most media manufacturers) or when the technology is updated and the old media is about to go obsolete. Furthermore, if as I do you keep al your images on the hard disk of your achine and regularly back it up then the data management issues are really not there as the technology automatically refrshes whrenever the PC is updates. And when it comes to locating a specific image or genre of image I am sure that someone with a well organised digital image library can find that image far faster than someone with a similarly well organised film archive! As I have always maintained though, it isn't the media that matters but the image produced, just as it matters not one iota whether a movie is produced on film, video tape or DVD... it is the enjoyment of the movie (or photo) that matters.
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 12/28/2004
|
Hi, Alastair -
It's always a data management issue. Most people DO NOT care for electronic image files in a way that will ensure longevity. I work in Archives. If I get a box of old pictures they are... old pictures. If a box of 5 1/4 inch floppies walks in the door they are... coasters. This is not usually a problem in the corporate environment where data is (ideally) subject to a cradle-to-grave management regimen. But for personal and family records, which provide life and colour to archival collections and which constitute the backbone of the holdings of community history institutions, this is not going to be the case.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Alastair Bell
(K=29571) - Comment Date 12/28/2004
|
Hi Jon,
It seems to me a rethink in Archivemanagement is required (outside the context of this thread). As ever more or life in our decade gets digitally created and stored an almost cavalier attitude to data such as the one described regarding 5 1/4 floppies is almost negligent. All of my fathers life history and family tree is now stored on his PC electronically, along with his digital images. He is a complete computer luddite beyond knowing how to generate his images and data and how to back them up. He is now 65+ so did not grow up in a computer environment and spent all his life as a marine engineer, so has no computer training at all. As I live 12000 miles away from him (I'm in the UK, he is in NZ) I have never given him instruction or tutoring in how to do things. He realised the importance of digital archive management himself. He surely cannot be unique? I could equally say that home archival of film is haphazard in most families, where pictures are taken, looked at, filed in the bottom of a wardrobe then finally binned when they move house (I know this from my own experience). I'm not saying film is any better or worse than digital nor that either media is not without its disadvantages or advantages. In both cases it is discipline that creates and maintains an archive irrespective of the underlying meadia or technologies. I am also only saying that digital is not a 'fad' as was claimed by the original poster. Nor is it without its advantages. The issues mentioned with digital are (in the main) valid but not insurmountable nor (in most cases) unique to digital as a media. A claim that digital is a 'fad' is very short sighted and almost akin to burying one's head in the sand because they don't like what they see. Digital is here, will be unlikely to disappear, so we may as well get used to it and instead of moaning about the problems be creative enough to work through them for the good of all photographers (even those who would rather deny it's existence ;-) ).
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) - Comment Date 12/28/2004
|
/snip
"A claim that digital is a 'fad' is very short sighted and almost akin to burying one's head in the sand because they don't like what they see. Digital is here, will be unlikely to disappear, so we may as well get used to it and instead of moaning about the problems be creative enough to work through them for the good of all photographers (even those who would rather deny it's existence ;-) )"
/snip
Alastair,
That comment of being a "Fad" and "Evil Digital" was meant as a joke, not to be taken seriously. I hope you and others had realized that. But it did get a lot of people thinking.
The whole purpose of my posting was not that digital or film is any better or worse, but that be it digital or film, we had all better think about the future and do some serious archiving.
With film there isn't much that can be done by the normal person, other then keeping it in a nice acid free cool dry environment. With digital it requires the active participation of the owner. Digital archives must be refreshed before they become obsolete or degraded, there is no such thing as partly usable, either it works or it doesn't without going through great expense and effort in data retrieval.
That was really my main point, (other then the disposability of digital images), and many people do not back things up properly. I work with inexperienced computer users on a daily basis that will probably never back anything up. Unfortunately, this is the norm for the general public. I am sure those same people have their old film in a shoebox under the stairs as well, not that great either, but in 20 years chances are unless there is a flood, fire or some other major disaster, those images in the shoebox will still be usable, maybe not perfect, but usable, not so with the crashed hard drive, or cd / floppy that can no longer be read either because it is bad or there is nothing around to read it on.
My posting was to get people to think about long term, not just the instant here and now. What a shame it would be not to be able to share the now with our future generations.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Gordon Harris
(K=274) - Comment Date 12/29/2004
|
Alastair has highlighted an issue which concerns me when I wear my other hat. "IT Consultant".
The problem is that the users of digital equipment do not have the upbringing and understanding necessary to create archives of digital material in the same way as our ancestors looked after their records of events. And isn't that what photographers have always had in mind: - Record Keeping. ..... for historical purposes; for their family, business, community and the public at large. The problem with digital photography is the same as the problem faced by say.. academics who do research. Much of what they do is on a personal computer and only the finished article may leave the confines of their office and become "real" in a library or some alternative store. Some of their "knowledge" never gets captured. Only their data and calculations if accepted for publication, and when they stop their research, they often discard all their material.. There will be no hand-written notes to be found in 100 years time.
Photographers have always contributed to social record-keeping and as you have already discussed, accept the need to save their images. Additionally, they usually have some form of index of what they have in store. In business today, many documents are discarded and replaced by scans, but who knows what is stored and where. Original documents - as you know - are destroyed.
The big question is. Where will records of what has been captured digitally and stored, exist? Will public libraries start to build indexes based on data submitted by photographers?
This was just a quick observation. I look forward to hearing your opinions.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 12/30/2004
|
I am sticking to FILM. I have negatives over 70yrs old that make great enlargments.
|
|
|
|
Alastair Bell
(K=29571) - Comment Date 12/30/2004
|
You do that Chuck. I'll use both according to need and circumstance. Like I said, it doesn't really matter what you use, just what the result is. And of course, that you archive it properly.
Have fun...
|
|
|
|
Gordon Harris
(K=274) - Comment Date 12/30/2004
|
Hi Chuck
I have been close to going back to film. I imagine that you have a very well managed index of what your negatives hold. What are you plans for them in the future? Those which display events long forgotten, people and places that no longer exist, will have great value in the future. My local University has a Centre of History of Film and has photographs and objects which can be used to rebuild events and timelines. They also have a Centre for Business History which will eventually rely upon photo archives of industrial events and the people who were part of that.
Happy New Year
Gordon
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 12/30/2004
|
As I believe in film, but for now use best of both worlds and save those negs..and slides
|
|
|
|
Pico diGoliardi
(K=540) - Comment Date 12/31/2004
|
Years ago one of my brothers would raid my darkroom trash and take things like half-fixed, unwashed prints, strips, test prints, ripped up archival prints, even negatives - and then paste his favorites into a scrapbook collage. Of course the images changed over the years as the prints silvered, bleached, faded and yellowed. It was a beautiful mess.
How do they say "paste this!" in digital?
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
(K=22223) - Comment Date 12/31/2004
|
I have lost more film originals (negatives and slides) through all kinds of things than I have lost digital images.
A top stock photo agency has lost some of my originals and damaged many others. Many of my negatives were lost or damaged in processing, by professional labs. Some negatives are completely gone by borroing them to friends who wanted to make prints. Most of the negatives that show me as a child are serverely damaged by just storing them in the envelopes they are supposed to be in. They are exactly 30 years old. They also show some signigicant color and contrast loss.
The only loss/damage I had with digital files were when I accidently deleted them without having a backup. Norton unerase helped me recover all except for 2.
The analogy with computers from 30 years ago is unfair. 30 years ago photo chemicals were a well developed technology. Computers were something totally new at that time and nobody used it for storing photos.
Today computers are a mass consumer product. I still keep data from my very first computer days by just copying them to my latest equipment. We all know that CD and DVD will not last very long, but that doesn't keep me from copying the data to a newer, better storage media in the future. 10 years ago it was impossible to store the amout of data digital camera produce. Today we have portable Ipods that can store our entire family photo album.
With digital I can make identical copies of my originals so it is much much safer and longer lasting. I do backups of all my photos on DVD. In 2-3 years I will copy them to a newer, better media. And if you think film is the better, longer lasting way to store photos. No problem, just send them to a service to make slides/negatives from those files.
And to be honest, I actually don't care at all what happens with my photos in 100 years from now when I'm dead. I don't think my photos are so special.
|
|
|
|
Alastair Bell
(K=29571) - Comment Date 12/31/2004
|
Pico, Try Ctrl-V ..... ;-)
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
(K=22223) - Comment Date 1/1/2005
|
One other thing. 80 years ago there were very few photographers and cameras around so each photograph was and still is a unique historical document. Today, billions of people have all kinds of cameras and 10-thousand of photos are taken every second. I think we all agree that most of those photos taken every day can be considered data rubbish that don't mean a loss of a historical document. Photo journalists, photo agencies and professionals who do produce historical documents every day are a completely different thing. They are digital for some time now and they make sure their photos will last at least 100 years. They take achiving seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
