A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

below $1000 film vs digital



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old June 10th 04, 02:47 AM
Mark Weaver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Mark Weaver wrote:


"Stacey" wrote in message
...

And I'm not so sure jpegs will still be a software standard in 20 years


Whether or not the current JPG format is still *the* standard in 20

years,
it will still be readable/displayable/printable. Why? Because doing so
is not complicated,


This just a guess on your part that it won't be complicated to do so. Time
will tell if it's a reality.


No, it's not a guess--I'm a software developer. I know what the JPG format
consists of and what the algorithm is like to decode it. Bits are bits,
pixels are pixels.


Irrelevant -- nobody's proposing you back up your photos by taking a
current hard disk, unplugging it, and storing it in the closet for 20
years.


Many people are storing their images on a HD, they don't know any better

and
you never answered the below question...


Storing on your hard disk in addition to backup is fine -- you just migrate
as you go. If MS changes the file system for 'longhorn', who cares? It
didn't matter when files moved from FAT to NTFS either.


How long will the curent CD filesystem be used?



What does *used* mean? How long will it be the standard for new CDs being
written? Don't know and don't care. How long will the ISO 9660 standard
file system be readable? That's the interesting question and, given the
vast millions of ISO 9660 disks out there, the answer is...indefinitely. As
long as there are devices that can physically handle the media there *will*
be software that can read it.

Mark


  #92  
Old June 10th 04, 03:06 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


Three major problems with all this. First, the vast majority of digicam
users, almost 2 out of 3, don't have ANY BACKUPS - not on diskette, not
prints, nothing - per a FUJI UK survey. PMAI stats show 89% of digicam
owners NEVER make prints, even at mini-mall kiosks. So there are no
backups to use or read for the vast majority of consumers using digital
cameras. Sooner or later, they are just going to get slammed ;-(

Second, you need software plus hardware plus user manuals etc. to access
old data. Even NASA couldn't recover all of its pre-Apollo data tapes,
knowing the format, and having the hardware, and spending millions of
dollars to try and do it. Want to try and read some of my 8" CPM diskettes
on XP? ;-) Even my 100 mb zip disks are obsolete and unsupported, and we
haven't even finished installing the zip drives we bought on our campus
computers. Blockbuster is getting out of VHS, with VHS player sales
tanking 50% in the last year. Think folks are going to pay $25 per hour to
put their VHS taped programs onto DVD?

Third problem is that those archival claims for digital media have huge
"IF" clauses. If you don't maintain them precisely, use the right recorder
and even speed of writing, then you can't expect them to be archival. And
I have seen a lot of archival claims reduced to only a few years when it
turns out the media is not as archival as thought (including printing
inks..). And I'm not even talking about the fungi which eat CDROM and DVD
plastics, right? ;-)

My point is that there are huge and continuing costs associated with
digital photography which requires continual copying and conversions over
time. The same people who decry the obvious archival nature of film left
unattended in envelopes in drawers seem to believe that as digital camera
users, these same consumers will be able to maintain the efforts needed to
keep their photos archival in the future. As the PMAI and Fuji-UK stats
show, that isn't likely to happen.

The US govt could save billions with digital rather than film images, but
the standard remains COM - microfilm - for archical storage.

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #93  
Old June 10th 04, 04:36 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Mark Weaver wrote:


How long will the curent CD filesystem be used?



What does *used* mean? How long will it be the standard for new CDs being
written? Don't know and don't care. How long will the ISO 9660 standard
file system be readable? That's the interesting question and, given the
vast millions of ISO 9660 disks out there, the answer is...indefinitely.


Again just your -guess-. There are millions of floppy disks out there and
the drives are being fazed out as we speak. I'll be shocked in 10 years if
you will be able to read them at all on machines sold then. Proclaiming
"indefinately" is a bold statement, but from this I assume you shoot
digitally and have to believe this! :-)

--

Stacey
  #94  
Old June 10th 04, 04:45 AM
MikeWhy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

"Mark Weaver" wrote in message
...
How long will the curent CD filesystem be used?



What does *used* mean? How long will it be the standard for new CDs being
written? Don't know and don't care. How long will the ISO 9660 standard
file system be readable? That's the interesting question and, given the
vast millions of ISO 9660 disks out there, the answer is...indefinitely.

As
long as there are devices that can physically handle the media there

*will*
be software that can read it.


Say! Speaking of which, can somebody help me copy my wedding pictures from
5-1/4" floppy? The disks are probably still good; they were stored in their
sleeves in a closed container. Much to my chagrine, the only machine I have
with a 5-1/4" floppy drive hasn't been booted in five years. I think I used
Cheetah -- an old DOS-based backup program -- to stream them onto the
floppies.

Thanks.
Mike.

  #95  
Old June 10th 04, 04:47 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Vladamir30 wrote:

At the time they were right. Have you ever printed any med format

negatives
from back then? I have and they aren't that great, nothing like medformat
film today. The film technology wasn't good enough for medformat at that
time and it needed the film area of 4X5 or 8X10 (it was best contact
printed) to not be massively grainy and to have any sharpness in 8X10 or
larger prints.

"Back then" was 1888 and no, I haven't printed any negatives from that
period, most negatives from that period have long since been lost or
destroyed,


I've printed plenty of 8X10'from the 1910-1920's and they are all perfectly
fine for what they are. Old grainy film.


but I've seen plenty of prints made from smaller format
negatives from that time forward and the prints are excellent even by
today's standards.


???? Those old films were a slow grainy mess. It's why they shot large
format more, even the press people used 4X5's as the roll film wouldn't cut
it even for printing in a newspaper.

Since contact printing was the norm for many
photographers well into the 1950s the film didn't have to be as good as
today's to produce excellent results. The equipment and the photographers
using it were, nevertheless, disparaged by "serious photograhers" in much
the same way you disparage digital today.


Contact printing and enlarging small negative to the size of the then
popular with "serious photographers" 8X10 isn't even the same sport.


Digital is at that same place. It's gaining ground but even the -best-
digital normal people can afford isn't equal to medformat or even 35mm
IMHO.


Well of course "digital" encompasses a pretty broad range of equipment
even
for "normal people." However, for several years it has certainly been
possible to make a print in the 8x10 to 10x13 range from digital cameras
that cost about $700 and up that were better than a same size print from a
35mm negative.


Who's talking about 35mm? Not me...


I don't know about medium format, you may be right there.


Exactly but this is what you were slamming me with "I
find it amusing that Stacey is so enamored of roll film and her medium
format camera." when it's because I know it blows away any digital camera
made at this time. Maybe you find 8X10's from your digicam look OK to you?
I don't like 8X10's from 35mm so I know they wouldn't do anything for me.

--

Stacey
  #96  
Old June 10th 04, 12:11 PM
Mark Weaver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Mark Weaver wrote:


How long will the curent CD filesystem be used?


What does *used* mean? How long will it be the standard for new CDs

being
written? Don't know and don't care. How long will the ISO 9660

standard
file system be readable? That's the interesting question and, given the
vast millions of ISO 9660 disks out there, the answer is...indefinitely.


Again just your -guess-. There are millions of floppy disks out there and
the drives are being fazed out as we speak. I'll be shocked in 10 years if
you will be able to read them at all on machines sold then. Proclaiming
"indefinately" is a bold statement, but from this I assume you shoot
digitally and have to believe this! :-)


Not, again not just my guess -- at least not an uneducated guess. I've also
worked on CD mastering software and have written a virtual CD device driver
(e.g. mount a CD image stored on a hard disk as if it were a CD in a drive).
The ISO 9660 standard format is exactly that -- a international standard
with a published spec. As long as there are devices to read the discs,
there will be software to handle the file format and to display any JPG
files on it.

Floppy disks are not a great analogy. For one thing, floppies have only
been used for data, not music and video. For another, floppies are not and
never were archival--the magnetic signal deteriorates. Unfortunately, the
old floppies people have packed away will tend to become unreadable long
before anyone has a hard finding a floppy drive to buy.

I'll be shocked in 10 years if
you will be able to read them at all on machines sold then.


So you're predicting that the blue-laser DVD drive format, which hasn't even
come to market yet, will go through it's entire product cycle -- come to
market, grow in popularity, become ubiquitious, and then wither and die so
quickly that--within the space of 10 years--it will have become so
completely outmoded that people will no longer even have devices around to
read them?

Absurd -- and completely at odds with the history of LP records, cassette
tapes, VHS video tapes, floppies, and CDs. Each of these formats is at
least two decades old and yet there is no trouble buying a new machine to
read any of them.



  #97  
Old June 10th 04, 12:18 PM
Mark Weaver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"MikeWhy" wrote in message newsPQxc.5308

Say! Speaking of which, can somebody help me copy my wedding pictures from
5-1/4" floppy? The disks are probably still good; they were stored in

their
sleeves in a closed container. Much to my chagrine, the only machine I

have
with a 5-1/4" floppy drive hasn't been booted in five years. I think I

used
Cheetah -- an old DOS-based backup program -- to stream them onto the
floppies.


Well, I expect the old machine will boot up just fine. If it doesn't, you
could take the 5 1/4 drive out of it and temporarily install it in your new
machine. Your bigger concerns will be 1) that the disks have gone bad (I
don't think the sleeves and container make any difference there), and/or 2)
finding something that can read a cheetah-format backup.

Mark


  #98  
Old June 11th 04, 02:18 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Mark Weaver wrote:


Absurd -- and completely at odds with the history of LP records, cassette
tapes, VHS video tapes, floppies, and CDs. Each of these formats is at
least two decades old and yet there is no trouble buying a new machine to
read any of them.


I've been printing some negatives my parents took in the 1920's. You really
think any digital media will hold up even colse to that? Of course you do
and are sold on the archiveability of digital media. I'm not.

--

Stacey
  #99  
Old June 11th 04, 04:15 AM
Mark Weaver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Mark Weaver wrote:


Absurd -- and completely at odds with the history of LP records,

cassette
tapes, VHS video tapes, floppies, and CDs. Each of these formats is at
least two decades old and yet there is no trouble buying a new machine

to
read any of them.


I've been printing some negatives my parents took in the 1920's. You

really
think any digital media will hold up even colse to that? Of course you do
and are sold on the archiveability of digital media. I'm not.


Yes, and I've been trying to scan color prints and negatives taken much,
much more recently than that and already they're showing signs of age and
need a fair amount of twiddling to bring colors back. Yes, B&W is better,
of course, but people stopped shooting much black and white quite a long
time ago--very few of my family's photos are B&W.

And you're kind of mixing up issues. I'm not at all worried that the
'secrets' for reading JPG files or ISO 9660 file systems will somehow be
lost -- that's not going to happen. The jury, of course, is still out on
the longevity of optical media (even archival rated stuff) -- nobody really
knows for sure. But I don't think being able to view my photos 50 years
from now when I'm as old as my grandfather is going to depend on that--by
then they'll be on different media or all online. And my kids and grandkids
will all have complete copies on their shelves somewhere so there will be
safety in redundancy that you never get with film.

Mark


  #100  
Old June 11th 04, 06:25 AM
Vladamir30
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Stacey said:
Who's talking about 35mm? Not me...


But in her June 8 message, Stacey said:
"but even the best digital normal people can afford isn't equal to medformat
or even 35mm"

Go figure.

I've printed plenty of 8X10'from the 1910-1920's and they are all

perfectly
fine for what they are. Old grainy film.


I have many family photographs from that era that are as sharp and as
detailed as any from modern films. .

???? Those old films were a slow grainy mess. It's why they shot large
format more, even the press people used 4X5's as the roll film wouldn't

cut
it even for printing in a newspaper.


I don't know exactly what period of time you're talking about when you refer
to "old films." Photo journalists were using 4x5 cameras into the 1950s, by
which time films were certainly not a "slow grainy mess." Ansel Adams
seemed to do o.k. with his 35mm Zeiss Contax camera in the 1930s. Take a
look at his photograph of Georgia O'Keefe and Orville Cox made with that
camera in 1937. Do you think the negative from which that print was made was
likely to have been a "slow grainy mess?" Virtually all of Imogen
Cunningham's photographs from the 1930s on were made with a roll film
camera. Or going back even further, she was using a "small Kodak camera" in
1909. So old roll film was a "slow grainy mess?" Hardly.

Maybe you find 8X10's from your digicam look OK to you?
I don't like 8X10's from 35mm so I know they wouldn't do anything for me.


You know they wouldn't do anything for you without ever having seen them?
Granted that 35mm prints do nothing for you but I've told you my digital
prints are better than the 35mm prints. So how can you know in advance in
advance that you wouldn't like them?

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Vladamir30 wrote:

At the time they were right. Have you ever printed any med format

negatives
from back then? I have and they aren't that great, nothing like

medformat
film today. The film technology wasn't good enough for medformat at

that
time and it needed the film area of 4X5 or 8X10 (it was best contact
printed) to not be massively grainy and to have any sharpness in 8X10

or
larger prints.

"Back then" was 1888 and no, I haven't printed any negatives from that
period, most negatives from that period have long since been lost or
destroyed,


I've printed plenty of 8X10'from the 1910-1920's and they are all

perfectly
fine for what they are. Old grainy film.


but I've seen plenty of prints made from smaller format
negatives from that time forward and the prints are excellent even by
today's standards.


???? Those old films were a slow grainy mess. It's why they shot large
format more, even the press people used 4X5's as the roll film wouldn't

cut
it even for printing in a newspaper.

Since contact printing was the norm for many
photographers well into the 1950s the film didn't have to be as good as
today's to produce excellent results. The equipment and the

photographers
using it were, nevertheless, disparaged by "serious photograhers" in

much
the same way you disparage digital today.


Contact printing and enlarging small negative to the size of the then
popular with "serious photographers" 8X10 isn't even the same sport.


Digital is at that same place. It's gaining ground but even the -best-
digital normal people can afford isn't equal to medformat or even 35mm
IMHO.


Well of course "digital" encompasses a pretty broad range of equipment
even
for "normal people." However, for several years it has certainly been
possible to make a print in the 8x10 to 10x13 range from digital

cameras
that cost about $700 and up that were better than a same size print from

a
35mm negative.


Who's talking about 35mm? Not me...


I don't know about medium format, you may be right there.


Exactly but this is what you were slamming me with "I
find it amusing that Stacey is so enamored of roll film and her medium
format camera." when it's because I know it blows away any digital camera
made at this time. Maybe you find 8X10's from your digicam look OK to you?
I don't like 8X10's from 35mm so I know they wouldn't do anything for me.

--

Stacey



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Leica digital back info.... Barney 35mm Photo Equipment 19 June 30th 04 12:45 AM
below $1000 film vs digital Sabineellen 35mm Photo Equipment 8 June 15th 04 07:13 AM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 09:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.