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. 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. 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, and longer then film will 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





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.