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
  #111  
Old June 12th 04, 06:33 PM
MikeWhy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

"Mark Weaver" wrote in message
...

"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.


I'm yanking your chain, Mark. And stop guessing on these things. You can't
possibly know that my old machine will boot up just fine, and I have real
suspicions the floppy drive won't be worth a tinker even if it did. It sat
unused for quite some time even before the machine was retired. In that
time, the front slot was more or less just a cold air inlet for the cooling
fan. I vacuumed the beard of dust off the front from time to time, but that
didn't do much for the insides. If I were a gambling man, I would bet on
difficulties reading even good disks.

JPG is an open standard. I could write a reader just as well and easily as
you can, but I don't expect I'll need to. JPGs will become obsolete only
when something better comes along. It's a bright future indeed if JPG won't
be adequate for storing tomorrow's images. Until that happens, reader
programs will be a dime a dozen, just as they are now. The real problems
will be the proprietary formats. Many of my archived images are PSD and CRW.
If Photoshop's activation for CS is any indication of the future, I expect
the PSDs will be the problem. Wouldn't it be tragic if the images survived,
but the software required to read it can't be installed from their media?
But the images themselves are likely to fare pretty well. Many sit on the
rack on my desk, subject to atmospheric and UV rot. Some are stored in inert
sleeves in more or less airtight, light proof boxes, the same technology
used for similarly sensitive dyes in film. And speaking of which, color negs
and slides won't survive the 80+ years that was bandied about. My old B&W
negs are largely still good, and even the twenty+ year old Kodachromes are
largely OK. C41 and E6 films in archival sleeves and boxes have various
problems after only ten and twenty years. The biggest surprise was that some
of the best preserved images are prints in my Mom's photo albums. Some of my
very first B&W RC prints are in there, and show almost no sign of aging
after more than 25 years. This is without special attention to archival
washing and treatments; I didn't give a hoot on those even if I did know
about it then. Some color prints show noticeable fade, but even that is
quite minor compared to stuff hanging on my walls. You probably won't be
surprised to hear that the B&W prints on display show no signs of age.

I think you're all guessing wrong. The only color images to survive in 100
years will be digital. B&W film and prints will survive just fine without
help.


  #112  
Old June 12th 04, 06:33 PM
Mark Weaver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


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

The people I know--friends and
family--who take digital pictures all know how to copy them to a CDR

disc
to
share a copy (ditto emailing). They were computer users before they
became digital camera users.


That's great. I have "computer" friends who of course do the same thing.
From dealing with the general public, as far as their their computer
skills, many have a -hard- time just doing e-mail attachments, I'd guess
50% or more don't even know how to do that. Most have no reason to learn
how to burn copies of the images as they don't think there is any reason
to. Most "general public" computer users don't even understand what a
directory is. All they know is I click here and this happens.


These are not "computer friends" they are friends and relatives none of whom
use computers for a living (which is to say, most have a computer to use at
work, but none are computer professionals). People have long known how to
copy files to floppy disks, and CDs are now not much more complicated than
that given built-in CD writing features. Or maybe you just hang out in the
shallower end of the gene pool


Why? Most get put on a closet shelf and are forgot about. At least it will
be OK unless someone actively destroys them. This arguement is silly, if
someone is going to throw out negatives they would keep your precious
"archival" CD's in a safe place?


Why? Because there is only set of negatives, but there can be arbitrarily
many copies of digital images, and the wrong family member may end up with
the shoebox. Or the boxes of negatives may sit on the shelf, unprinted and
unenjoyed, long past the point where anybody has much of any idea who the
people in the pictures were, when they were taken, and what they were doing.

Even if they end up in "some cousins
basement" they are still there for furture generations to find.


See above. What digital imagery will change is that the photos will be more
likely to be looked at, enjoyed, and therefore kept alive rather than be
boxed up and left on a shelf for 50 years. When my kids leave home, they'll
be able to take with them a full set of the family photos (and videos).
They'll be able to show them to *their* kids whenever they like--and they
won't be old, yellowed, and faded. And if the grandkids see the pictures,
they'll also hear the stories.

This is in contrast to the photos from my childhood of which there is still
only one copy in boxes at my folks' house -- they won't be mine until both
my parents are gone (hopefully not for another 20 or 25 years). That's
unless my brother or sister end up with them. My 94-year-old grandfather
still has all his photos...including the photos of my mother's
childhood--most of which I've never seen. Maybe my mom will get them (or
some of them) in a few years or maybe my aunt will, but I won't have a copy
for a long time probably (and may never see all of them) and, by the time I
do, quite likely most of the stories that go with them may be gone for good.

The great thing about digital images is that they are so much more usable,
copyable, and shareable. Family photos will be much more valuable if they
are passed down through viewings rather than only in a box on the shelf.

Mark


  #113  
Old June 12th 04, 09:00 PM
Mark Weaver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"MikeWhy" wrote in message news:j7Hyc.4316

I'm yanking your chain, Mark. And stop guessing on these things. You can't
possibly know that my old machine will boot up just fine, and I have real
suspicions the floppy drive won't be worth a tinker even if it did. It sat
unused for quite some time even before the machine was retired. In that
time, the front slot was more or less just a cold air inlet for the

cooling
fan. I vacuumed the beard of dust off the front from time to time, but

that
didn't do much for the insides. If I were a gambling man, I would bet on
difficulties reading even good disks.


Could be, but I've booted machines that have sat unused for that long in
rather dubious conditions (coincidentally, just last week as a matter of
fact--I needed a 'test mule' machine and hauled an old Pentium-133 circa
1994 out of the attic. Booted up fine but I'd forgotten it had last been
loaded with the x86 version of Solaris and I didn't want to have to
reinstall the OS. So it went back to the attic).

JPG is an open standard. I could write a reader just as well and easily as
you can, but I don't expect I'll need to. JPGs will become obsolete only
when something better comes along. It's a bright future indeed if JPG

won't
be adequate for storing tomorrow's images. Until that happens, reader
programs will be a dime a dozen, just as they are now.


Even after that -- reader programs for JPG will still be a dime a dozen.
Less than that, in fact -- they'll be free for the downloading as they are
now.

The real problems
will be the proprietary formats. Many of my archived images are PSD and

CRW.
If Photoshop's activation for CS is any indication of the future, I expect
the PSDs will be the problem.


Higher likelihood of problems, but still not very high, I think -- already
3rd party programs like Irfanview and BreezeBrowser support Photoshop PSDs
and CRW files respectively.


I think you're all guessing wrong. The only color images to survive in 100
years will be digital. B&W film and prints will survive just fine without
help.


I don't think I've guessed wrong about that--I agree. I've certainly I've
seen deterioration in color negatives less than 20 years old that I've been
trying to get scanned. Deterioration is not yet bad enough that they
couldn't be brought back after scanning, but the colors were starting to go.
And the problem is that hardly anybody who wasn't printing in their own
darkroom has shot any black and white for 30+ years or so.

Mark


  #114  
Old June 12th 04, 10:58 PM
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

In article et,
Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Philip Homburg posted:
It will be interesting to see what the industry will come up with.

When 89% of digital shooters don't ever make prints, what is the
industry's motivation to come up with anything at all? People comment
about taking thousands of photos in a year because they don't have the
costs associated with film, but if they don't even print those photos out,
then I wonder whether that is time well-spent?


People do print, just not very much. Is passing a laptop around really
convenient? Is a picture just something for a PC screen, or do people
continue to put pictures in wallets, on desk, etc.?

But the need for backups is broader. At some point, people will realize that
most of their writings are in the form of e-mails, text messages, etc.
And they may want to keep them for a longer period than just the lifetime of
their current computer.



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
  #115  
Old June 12th 04, 11:26 PM
Mark Weaver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
In article et,
Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Philip Homburg posted:
It will be interesting to see what the industry will come up with.

When 89% of digital shooters don't ever make prints, what is the
industry's motivation to come up with anything at all? People comment
about taking thousands of photos in a year because they don't have the
costs associated with film, but if they don't even print those photos

out,
then I wonder whether that is time well-spent?


People do print, just not very much.


It's a strange idea that a picture that is not printed is one that is not
enjoyed. For me, it is generally the reverse. Most of my photos that *are*
printed are in envelopes in file boxes--like most people, we got *woefully*
behind on putting prints into albums. But our digital images are organized
and can be enjoyed in a moment's notice. Gradually I'm getting the back
'catalog' scanned and cleaned up and now those have been 'unlocked' from the
closet (amazing how much better a lot of pictures look on a 20" monitor than
a 4x6 print).

Is passing a laptop around really
convenient?


Why would it be less convenient than passing around a photo album? The
pictures are easier to see on the laptop, and the 'pages' turn themselves
with the right arrow button.

Mark


  #116  
Old June 12th 04, 11:34 PM
Vladamir30
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Stacey said:

Not in the least. You're the one trying to claim the people in the 20's

were
fools who thought they needed to be using LF cameras! :-)


O.K., I'll try to say this again in a manner such that you can comprehend
it. My assertion is that film of that era was perfectly fine for contact
printing. I know that because I've seen literally hundreds of contact prints
from that period. I didn't say that people in the '20s were fools who
thought they needed to be using LF cameras. People who used large format
cameras were people who needed larger prints and of a better quality than
could be obtained from roll film enlargements of the same size. In other
words, back then people used large format cameras for exactly the same
reason people use them today. But that hardly means the film was a grainy
mess back then any more than it means film of today is a grainy mess.

They have shots taken by local pro's with the different cameras they

have
for sale. I live in Atlanta GA and this is a shop that caters to working
pro's trying to sell this stuff to working pro's.
Why wouldn't that show what they can do? You think someone is making -much-
better images with these cameras and they are hiding them?


Well it wouldn't necessarily show "what they can do" because we don't know
if the photographer's objective was to make the best possible print do we?
And even if that was his or her objective, we don't know whether they did
the things necessary to achieve that result do we? For example, were they
using tripods for all of these photographs? Were they using the best
possible lenses? What speed was being used 100, 400, 800, 1600? Were they
shooting RAW or jpeg? If jpeg, at what quality setting? What printers, inks,
and papers were used to make the print? How much time did they spend making
the print? Did they use unsharp masking and if so, how? Are they or the lab
excellent printers (or even competent printers)? Because know nothing about
those kinds of things and many others like them anyone looking at the prints
hanging on the wall of the local store has no idea whether these prints
represent the best possible images that could be made from the equipment
used or not.
..
What I do know is that if these prints are approximately 8x10 inches in size
and if in fact they don't look at least as good as an excellent print of the
same size from a 35mm negative then yes, "someone is making much better
images." In fact not just "someone" but many many people, I know, I've seen
them made by others and, more to the point, I've made them myself. OTOH,
you've told us that you don't use a 35mm camera and you don't use a digital
camera so you have no personal experience at all, and very very limited
second hand experience, on which to base these pronouncements you make about
digital photography do you?

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

Stacey said:

LOL so you're trying to claim film hasn't advanced from the film used

in
the
1920's?


Of course I haven't said any such thing. I've said that roll film from
that period of time was fine for contact printing. Certainly it wasn't

as
good as modern films in terms of speed, grain, or ability to make big
enlargements.
However, it wasn't a "grainy mess" either.


Sure it is when you enlarge it and compare it to modern films or contact
prints made from larger format films in it's day. That's why "serious
photographers" used LF cameras back then -if possible-. Today if you're
looking at say 8X10 prints, it's hard to see much difference between 120
film and an 8X10 negative. The difference is there but it's not obvious
like it was back then.



They have plenty on display at the local camera shops, I'm not

impressed.

The local camera shops? You mean these claims of yours about digital
photography are based on what you've seen on the wall of the local

camera
stores? Good grief.


They have shots taken by local pro's with the different cameras they have
for sale. I live in Atlanta GA and this is a shop that caters to working
pro's trying to sell this stuff to working pro's.

Why wouldn't that show what they can do? You think someone is

making -much-
better images with these cameras and they are hiding them? I'd think they
would want to display the best these were capable of or do you know some
magical tricks that make them outperform what these pro's can produce?

They
also have shots from these same people using 35mm and medium format and

the
differences are easy to see between them. I just don't care for the look

of
the digital images I've seen. Why should I buy one in hopes that maybe I
can force it do something different from what I've seen? A couple of
friends have DSLR's and the results they've gotten are worse than the ones
on display at the store..



Did it ever
occur to you that this just might be too tiny and too limited a universe
on which to base the kind of sweeping pronouncements you make about the
quality of digital photography, particularly as it compares to 35mm?


Not in the least. You're the one trying to claim the people in the 20's

were
fools who thought they needed to be using LF cameras! :-)
--

Stacey



  #117  
Old June 13th 04, 02:43 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


Lots of people _did_ get multiple prints made of family photos to send
around to family and friends of key events, from new babies to graduation
etc.

One thing often done at family funerals is to review family photo albums,
which is good as I'd never identify all the kids in some of the photos
I've inherited otherwise ;-) This is also a chance to get missing photos
copied and exchanged too...

And we have in the past videotaped family members and while reviewing
their family photo albums, with closeups of the photos being discussed.
Not as great a backup as individual prints, but in some ways better due to
the narratives and stories. Of course, now we have to dupe the magnetic
tape every five or ten years, lest it randomize on us over time ;-(

the interest in geneology is intense in the USA, due to our scattered
origins and geographic dispersals. We just archived all the immigrant
records of Ellis Island, as one example. So I doubt that we have a lot of
families which try to save space or weight by trashing individual photos
or family albums. If these photos are lost, it is because of a disaster
like our current severe flooding - and you see people far more upset
about the loss of their family photos than any of their other possessions.

This is why I am sad that digital's archival claims are NOT likely to be
enjoyed by the masses using digital photography - most of whom, per
commercial survey by Fuji-UK, do NOT have ANY backups of their hard drive
photos. This majority of digicam users are at great risk of losing their
digital photos to the next hard drive zapping virus that comes along, yes?

By contrast, photos stored at the back of a drawer in an (inert) paper
envelope are actually in near ideal photo storage conditions (temp, no UV
light, humidity..). This is why so many of us have photos from past
generations. But with nearly 9 out of 10 digicam users NEVER making any
prints, again per PMAI industry survey stats of a large base of digicam
users, there isn't any print to fall back on if the hard drive is zapped.

Add in the problems with fungi attacking CD/DVD plastics, and the
instability and non-archival problems reported with dye-based recordable
CD/DVD media, and the inability of software to recover some kinds of
encoded or compressed files with even a few bit errors. This is a lot less
promising situation IMHO than the photos in the drawer scenario. I wish it
were otherwise. But I am also one who has to recopy files and retain
magnetic as well as optical copies of materials that I really want to
access in future years. Yes, those of us with the know-how may make the
efforts needed to keep our digital and video images accessible in future
years. But how many of those nearly 2/3rds of all digicam users with NO
backups are doing so (hint: none? ;-). Again, doesn't look promising to
me!

Finally, many digital users delete a substantial number of their images to
save space and time. It may be that these are precisely the images which
can be of interest to future users. I have cited the Time cover of Clinton
and Monica which existed because it was on film; the competitors from
Newsweek etc. shooting digital also got the same shot, but deleted it as
uninteresting stuff. Some coral reef ecologists solicited our old photos
of some popular Mexican diving sites to study and document the collapse of
various fish populations and the reef communities by pollution and
overfishing and too many diving tourists. These photos only survived
because they were on film; I'm sure most would have been deleted if on
digital. Yet they may end up being the most important photos I've taken in
terms of impact on future generations by helping save those reefs ;-)

my $.02

bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #118  
Old June 13th 04, 03:07 AM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Mark Weaver" wrote in message
...

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
In article et,
Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Philip Homburg posted:
It will be interesting to see what the industry will come up with.

When 89% of digital shooters don't ever make prints, what is the
industry's motivation to come up with anything at all? People comment
about taking thousands of photos in a year because they don't have the
costs associated with film, but if they don't even print those photos

out,
then I wonder whether that is time well-spent?


People do print, just not very much.


It's a strange idea that a picture that is not printed is one that is not
enjoyed. For me, it is generally the reverse. Most of my photos that

*are*
printed are in envelopes in file boxes--like most people, we got

*woefully*
behind on putting prints into albums. But our digital images are

organized
and can be enjoyed in a moment's notice. Gradually I'm getting the back
'catalog' scanned and cleaned up and now those have been 'unlocked' from

the
closet (amazing how much better a lot of pictures look on a 20" monitor

than
a 4x6 print).

Is passing a laptop around really
convenient?


Why would it be less convenient than passing around a photo album? The
pictures are easier to see on the laptop, and the 'pages' turn themselves
with the right arrow button.

Mark


And my son's new laptop weighs less than a photo album........Also, you can
use it in the dark, without having to turn on the lights.....


  #119  
Old June 13th 04, 04:21 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


ROFL! Thanks, I needed this chuckle, quoting a most obscure advantage of
digital over film ;-) :

And my son's new laptop weighs less than a photo album........Also, you
can use it in the dark, without having to turn on the lights.....
endquote:

So the big disadvantage of photo albums is they weigh more than laptops
and can't be used in the dark? ;-) ;-) ;-)

How about the disadvantage that your son's laptop gets stolen at school
with all his unbacked up (63% of users) photos on it, never to be seen
again? Or he downloads a nasty virus which scrambles his image files,
which again aren't backed up? How does that match up against glowing in
the dark? ;-)

Or speaking from considerable laptop experience, what happens when the
batteries give out? ;-) ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #120  
Old June 13th 04, 06:20 AM
MikeWhy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
Of course, now we have to dupe the magnetic
tape every five or ten years, lest it randomize on us over time ;-(


Have you considered Super 8mm? Maybe you can find a service to do the
"reverse" dupe for you.

 




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 08:50 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.