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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument
Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument,
there's one glaring error in it. He asserts that because digital formats change (which is true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. Now, if one is discussing images made on physical media (film), there *is* the distinct possibility that the image will be rendered unusable through time because of physical degradation of the image. (Witness movies on nitrate stock and color negatives or slides with unstable dyes.) And in the case of digital media, there is always the possibility that the image will become unreadable because of *physical* degradation of the media (tape, magnetic disc, optical disc, etc.) However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. I do know something about this, having worked for a computer media conversion and duplication company for 13 years. In that one small company alone, there exists the ability to read many obsolete digital formats (meaning both the equuipment and the software to decipher the data and deliver it in a usable form): specifically, 9-track tape (remember the old movies with the computers with the spinning tape drives?) and floppy disks, including the old 8" monsters. I'm confident that even data on paper tape could be read; someone, somewhere, has a paper-tape reader connected to his S-100 system (running CP/M), or some other moldy oldie. And if not, a reader could pretty easily be cobbled together. The point is that humanity doesn't collectively forget its own obsolete recording formats, just because something new comes along. Sure, the old formats fall into disuse and become difficult to use, but not impossible. The knowledge of how to read and decipher all these old devices and formats still exists, somewhere. Why, in this very house, I can right now play 78 rpm records if I like, or 45s even. I can also read all of my old 5-1/4" floppies on my computer. I'd like someone to try to name a data storage format (either physical medium or data format) that they think cannot be read today. -- Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RANT- Reality Check-"The Early Days of Digital Photography" | Drifter | Digital Photography | 40 | October 9th 04 12:02 AM |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr) | Thad | Digital Photography | 466 | September 8th 04 07:33 PM |
2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr) | Thad | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 3rd 04 04:03 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |