Sad news for film-based photography

"Alan Browne" wrote ...........
while not every image you've taken has value, familly-tree
historians love any old photo

Vis:

http://www.moderna.org/lookatme/pages/index/01-30.html

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message
nk.net...

http://www.moderna.org/lookatme/pages/index/01-30.html

Great stuff.

I'll bet every one of those prints is Scarpetti Correct, too.

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:7KF5d.337422$Oi.308122@fed1read04...

"Nils Rostedt" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote ...........

Please google away as this debate has raged here before. In summary,
while not
every image you've taken has value, familly-tree historians love any
old
photo
with people in it, esp. if there is some accompanying narrative;
anthropologists
also glean great information from photographs... etc.

Cheers,
Alan

Excellent point to bring up, and I'm surprised that the digital photo
industry has so far mistreated this aspect so fully. What if there was a
globally standardized way to embed narrative (text and or sound)
information
into picture files, and a corresponding capability in all image browsing
programs to display/replay this information?

A huge step forward in terms of archivability and future usability of
old
images, that would be. And before you say IPTC (which is an existing
standard for pros to embed picture metadata in image files) I can say
based
on personal experience that IPTC is not mature enough to be easily used
by
the average photo hobbyist. Not only is my camera's user manual and
software
totally unaware of IPTC, different IPTC-aware software all have their
own
specific nonstandard data annotation fields.

The sad situation today seems to be that each digital camera vendor have
their own photo-album software with nonstandardized annotation features,
and
third party archival programs like ACDSee or FotoStation are no better,
with
proprietary annotation database formats.

Actually that's not true of ACDSee.
It creates a separate wave file with the same name as the image
file...which
is not proprietary at all. This is a standard audio format, which can be

played on any computer.
As long as you copy the .wav file with the images, they can always be
played.

OK, thanks for the info. But it's still a separate file which although in a
standard audio format, is linked to the image only by filename (and maybe
ACDSee's database?) .
The point is, how ensure that after 50 years you can still link these files
together and make use of the sound file? Will there be a version of ACDSee
around then that works on the computers in use then? I'm pretty sure that
..jpg files will still be readable, but in order to help future viewers we
need an annotation standard *now* that is capable of embedding narrative
and/or sound data in the image file itself.

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:7KF5d.337422$Oi.308122@fed1read04...

"Nils Rostedt" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote ...........

Please google away as this debate has raged here before. In summary,
while not
every image you've taken has value, familly-tree historians love any
old
photo
with people in it, esp. if there is some accompanying narrative;
anthropologists
also glean great information from photographs... etc.

Cheers,
Alan

Excellent point to bring up, and I'm surprised that the digital photo
industry has so far mistreated this aspect so fully. What if there was a
globally standardized way to embed narrative (text and or sound)
information
into picture files, and a corresponding capability in all image browsing
programs to display/replay this information?

A huge step forward in terms of archivability and future usability of
old
images, that would be. And before you say IPTC (which is an existing
standard for pros to embed picture metadata in image files) I can say
based
on personal experience that IPTC is not mature enough to be easily used
by
the average photo hobbyist. Not only is my camera's user manual and
software
totally unaware of IPTC, different IPTC-aware software all have their
own
specific nonstandard data annotation fields.

The sad situation today seems to be that each digital camera vendor have
their own photo-album software with nonstandardized annotation features,
and
third party archival programs like ACDSee or FotoStation are no better,
with
proprietary annotation database formats.

Actually that's not true of ACDSee.
It creates a separate wave file with the same name as the image
file...which
is not proprietary at all. This is a standard audio format, which can be

played on any computer.
As long as you copy the .wav file with the images, they can always be
played.

OK, thanks for the info. But it's still a separate file which although in a
standard audio format, is linked to the image only by filename (and maybe
ACDSee's database?) .
The point is, how ensure that after 50 years you can still link these files
together and make use of the sound file? Will there be a version of ACDSee
around then that works on the computers in use then? I'm pretty sure that
..jpg files will still be readable, but in order to help future viewers we
need an annotation standard *now* that is capable of embedding narrative
and/or sound data in the image file itself.

"Nils Rostedt" wrote in message
...

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:7KF5d.337422$Oi.308122@fed1read04...

"Nils Rostedt" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote ...........

Please google away as this debate has raged here before. In
summary,
while not
every image you've taken has value, familly-tree historians love any
old
photo
with people in it, esp. if there is some accompanying narrative;
anthropologists
also glean great information from photographs... etc.

Cheers,
Alan

Excellent point to bring up, and I'm surprised that the digital photo
industry has so far mistreated this aspect so fully. What if there was
a
globally standardized way to embed narrative (text and or sound)
information
into picture files, and a corresponding capability in all image
browsing
programs to display/replay this information?

A huge step forward in terms of archivability and future usability of
old
images, that would be. And before you say IPTC (which is an existing
standard for pros to embed picture metadata in image files) I can say
based
on personal experience that IPTC is not mature enough to be easily
used
by
the average photo hobbyist. Not only is my camera's user manual and
software
totally unaware of IPTC, different IPTC-aware software all have their
own
specific nonstandard data annotation fields.

The sad situation today seems to be that each digital camera vendor
have
their own photo-album software with nonstandardized annotation
features,
and
third party archival programs like ACDSee or FotoStation are no
better,
with
proprietary annotation database formats.

Actually that's not true of ACDSee.
It creates a separate wave file with the same name as the image
file...which
is not proprietary at all. This is a standard audio format, which can
be

played on any computer.
As long as you copy the .wav file with the images, they can always be
played.

OK, thanks for the info. But it's still a separate file which although in
a
standard audio format, is linked to the image only by filename (and maybe
ACDSee's database?) .
The point is, how ensure that after 50 years you can still link these
files
together and make use of the sound file? Will there be a version of ACDSee
around then that works on the computers in use then? I'm pretty sure that
.jpg files will still be readable, but in order to help future viewers we
need an annotation standard *now* that is capable of embedding narrative
and/or sound data in the image file itself.

I think this may not be common because the presence of imbedded info might
confuse a lot of programs as they try to decode a jpeg. I don't know, but I
can see how that could pose a problem for standard viewers if there's all
this extra data that it doesn't know what to do with.

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:WXn6d.64$Hz.10@fed1read04...

"Nils Rostedt" wrote in message
...

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:7KF5d.337422$Oi.308122@fed1read04...

"Nils Rostedt" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote ...........

Please google away as this debate has raged here before. In
summary,
while not
every image you've taken has value, familly-tree historians love
any
old
photo
with people in it, esp. if there is some accompanying narrative;
anthropologists
also glean great information from photographs... etc.

Cheers,
Alan

Excellent point to bring up, and I'm surprised that the digital
photo
industry has so far mistreated this aspect so fully. What if there
was
a
globally standardized way to embed narrative (text and or sound)
information
into picture files, and a corresponding capability in all image
browsing
programs to display/replay this information?

A huge step forward in terms of archivability and future usability
of
old
images, that would be. And before you say IPTC (which is an existing
standard for pros to embed picture metadata in image files) I can
say
based
on personal experience that IPTC is not mature enough to be easily
used
by
the average photo hobbyist. Not only is my camera's user manual and
software
totally unaware of IPTC, different IPTC-aware software all have
their
own
specific nonstandard data annotation fields.

The sad situation today seems to be that each digital camera vendor
have
their own photo-album software with nonstandardized annotation
features,
and
third party archival programs like ACDSee or FotoStation are no
better,
with
proprietary annotation database formats.

Actually that's not true of ACDSee.
It creates a separate wave file with the same name as the image
file...which
is not proprietary at all. This is a standard audio format, which can
be

played on any computer.
As long as you copy the .wav file with the images, they can always be
played.

OK, thanks for the info. But it's still a separate file which although
in
a
standard audio format, is linked to the image only by filename (and
maybe
ACDSee's database?) .
The point is, how ensure that after 50 years you can still link these
files
together and make use of the sound file? Will there be a version of
ACDSee
around then that works on the computers in use then? I'm pretty sure
that
.jpg files will still be readable, but in order to help future viewers
we
need an annotation standard *now* that is capable of embedding narrative
and/or sound data in the image file itself.

I think this may not be common because the presence of imbedded info might
confuse a lot of programs as they try to decode a jpeg. I don't know, but
I
can see how that could pose a problem for standard viewers if there's all
this extra data that it doesn't know what to do with.

The other advantage of the two-file systedm is that it will most likely
always be possible to imbed wav files into whatever future options there may
be.
This is a pretty safe bet in an uncertain climate (absent a real standard).

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:dJo6d.86$Hz.75@fed1read04...

The other advantage of the two-file systedm is that it will most likely
always be possible to imbed wav files into whatever future options there
may
be.
This is a pretty safe bet in an uncertain climate (absent a real
standard).

Indeed. In fact a format with embedded sound won't be a JPEG file. It will
be something else again. That's what standards are all about.

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:dJo6d.86$Hz.75@fed1read04...

The other advantage of the two-file systedm is that it will most likely
always be possible to imbed wav files into whatever future options there
may
be.
This is a pretty safe bet in an uncertain climate (absent a real
standard).

Indeed. In fact a format with embedded sound won't be a JPEG file. It will
be something else again. That's what standards are all about.

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Mark M" wrote in message
news:dJo6d.86$Hz.75@fed1read04...

The other advantage of the two-file systedm is that it will most likely
always be possible to imbed wav files into whatever future options there
may
be.
This is a pretty safe bet in an uncertain climate (absent a real
standard).

Indeed. In fact a format with embedded sound won't be a JPEG file. It will
be something else again. That's what standards are all about.

In the mean-time, I think your safest, most sure bet is the two-file model.
This will always be usable.
Others will not be so.
You use whatever you find workable and safe from what is currently
available.
I think you're in for a LONG wait for a jpeg replacement that specifically
incluedes audio annotation. There just isn't a huge enough demand for this
at this time.

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:0ws6d.791$Hz.778@fed1read04...

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Mark M" wrote in message
news:dJo6d.86$Hz.75@fed1read04...

The other advantage of the two-file systedm is that it will most
likely
always be possible to imbed wav files into whatever future options
there
may
be.
This is a pretty safe bet in an uncertain climate (absent a real
standard).

Indeed. In fact a format with embedded sound won't be a JPEG file. It
will
be something else again. That's what standards are all about.

In the mean-time, I think your safest, most sure bet is the two-file
model.
This will always be usable.
Others will not be so.
You use whatever you find workable and safe from what is currently
available.
I think you're in for a LONG wait for a jpeg replacement that specifically
incluedes audio annotation. There just isn't a huge enough demand for
this
at this time.


Well, my original point was more generally about future-proofing digital
archival, where embedding annotation information in the image files is one
important part. Audio was just a part of it - which I have personally never
felt the need for, but I understand many people like it.

Anyway I got a big positive surprise today when I learned about the PASS
initiative which sets out to accomplish almost exactly what I called for.
"Konica Minolta Photo Imaging Inc. Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., and Eastman
Kodak Company, today announced an agreement to jointly develop a set of open
storage standards for the consumer imaging and electronics industries, aimed
at the preservation of digital photos and motion images on CDs, DVDs or
other media. As information storage technologies advance, the Picture
Archiving and Sharing Standard (PASS) group's intention is to enable digital
file compatibility with future playback devices, preserving the satisfying
'photo experience' that consumers have enjoyed for decades.
The group intends that the new standard will:
- Define the requirements of digital media authoring/archival, playback, and
print enablement for a new generation of products and services;
- Provide interoperability for pictures, motion images, audio and related
content among such future systems;
- And utilize and unify multiple existing standards, to better meet the
consumers desire to easily store, organize, print and share for generations
to come."

I'm happy to see that industry is awake and look forward to see the results.
//Nils

Link: http://konicaminolta.com/releases/2004/0927_01_01.html