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

Going back to film...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 12th 10, 04:56 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Neil Gould[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Going back to film...

wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote:\

One problem with this line of reasoning is that you are

describing two
pools of photo takers.


Yes to the "two pools" notion, and the "conservators" being a much
smaller group. (I don't see that as a "problem" however).


Of course you don't, it's your position and you have repeatedly

shown
you have no intent on ever bending your position no matter how much
evidence is thrown at you. I highly doubt the "conservators" are

much
more than .1% of camera users, if even that. And of those an even
smaller % will be successful at even 100 year archival status of

digital
data.

My point was that even the conservators are unlikely to survive the
number of generations being tossed about in this thread. I don't know
of much of today's imaging media _can_ survive for that long even with
extraordinary effort, but digital media are the most vulnerable of the
lot.

This is not likely to be the same group that will generate the
large number of images you are basing your "1 in 1,000,000

surviving
images" upon. Considering the archival replication processes

necessary

Really to illustrate the vast number of photos taken that drive a
likelihood of a portion surviving.


Not a reasonable way to calculate this.

Agreed, but it's a no-brainer that this is a grossly optimistic
notion.

It's just big, big, big numbers and the survival of some of the

data.
But some small part of a really big number is still a lot.


You totally ignore that this data is MUCH more fragile than prints

or
film is. You have to physically destroy them for them to 100% fail.
Given lots of the "billions of images taken" never are even saved to

a
hard drive (most are garbage and just are deleted)the chances of a
"deluge of images" being around even 10 years from now is being

naive..
In fact MOST people predict the exact opposite, this era will be a
vacuum of images.

I fully agree with your perspective. For relatively short time
periods, such as 10-20 years, the images posted to the web are more
likely to survive than those privately held, largely because of the
extraordinary effort involved in maintaining that data. But the
economics work against long-term archiving of typical images in this
manner.

Stephanie, I think notions of archiving digital information boils down
to "some people get it, and most don't", with my clients of longer
than 10 years falling in the latter category.

--
best,

Neil



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #22  
Old March 12th 10, 09:04 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Going back to film...

On 10-03-11 23:33 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote:\

One problem with this line of reasoning is that you are describing two
pools of photo takers.


Yes to the "two pools" notion, and the "conservators" being a much
smaller group. (I don't see that as a "problem" however).


Of course you don't, it's your position and you have repeatedly shown
you have no intent on ever bending your position no matter how much
evidence is thrown at you. I highly doubt the "conservators" are much
more than .1% of camera users, if even that. And of those an even
smaller % will be successful at even 100 year archival status of digital
data.


It's like you don't read.

What part of 1 in 1,000,000 is so hard for you to get? And even if the
number is 1 in 10,000,000 there will still be an immense number of
photos that go 500 years.

By your own statement, the digital images that
survive will be managed by those that take extraordinary care of their
data.


I'd characterize it more as "best reasonable effort." Which is orders
of magnitude better than ordinary neglect. And then an even smaller
group making extraordinary efforts.


The problem with digital "best reasonable effort" = failure. With film
that wasn't the case. So with digital ONLY the "extraordinary efforts"


What do you mean by that? Did all film and print images survive? Of
course not. Faded by direct light, attacked by fungus, burned in fires,
diluted by 3rd and more copy generations - only a fraction of film and
print images have survived. Digital images get the same notional
chance, no matter how small that chance is. And that smaller chance is
offset by sheer volume of images produced.

will = success. I recently found some B&W negatives of my parents as
children, they are at least 80 years old and the only effort taken was
they were put in an envelope and put in a drawer, forgotten.


Forgotten in the dark, probably reasonable humidity and heat. At that
they've probably faded more than you think even if they are quite good
looking today.

But that doesn't mean ALL film from ALL time has survived. Digital
images get the same chance. Some will survive much longer, esp. if
prepared to do so. And again, even of those that are prepared, a
fraction will squeak through.

This is not likely to be the same group that will generate the
large number of images you are basing your "1 in 1,000,000 surviving
images" upon. Considering the archival replication processes necessary


Really to illustrate the vast number of photos taken that drive a
likelihood of a portion surviving.


Not a reasonable way to calculate this.


One can't make a certain calculation only a reasonable guesstimate - and
that's all I proposed.



in order to keep a digital image for 500 years, I'd say that your
notion is grossly overestimated, if for no other reason than the cost
of the effort to preserve them.


To be clear: I'm really addressing "survivors" on a statistical basis.
And of course survival favours the prepared.


But you just pulled the statistics out of thin air. You have absolutely
nothing to base your assumptions on.


I never claimed they were anything other than numbers out of thin air.

It was illustrative of the notion that there is an awful lot of photos
being taken today (a billion per day? Somewhere around there, I'd guess).

Let's take 1 billion photos per day as a guessing point.

1 year = 365 billion images.

10 years = 3.65 trillion images.

If out of those 10 years, 1 in 1,000,000 survive, that makes well over
three million images that survive 500 years.

I could be off by 100 times. That still makes over 30,000 images.

All I'm saying is that there will likely be digital images from today
that survive. And of course those that are prepared to do so, are most
likely to do so, even if the chance is quite small.

As to film it requires no less or more chance to survive. Fading is not
the sole criteria.

As to film v. digital, well the photos that are being taken (digital in
the large) have a much larger chance of surviving than those that are
not (film has fallen a lot).

There are many people born in the last 10 - 20 years who have only ever
taken digital images and will never take a film image.

The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use archival
CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly. There is a very high
probability that a small number of the disks will be well kept. Out of
those, a fraction will retain their data in whole or in part.


You ignore that these disks almost never keep data "In part", they
usually fail 100% or work 100%.


Not so. What fails is the ability of the OS to read them in its
conventional manner. Using data recovery tools, a lot, some or a little
of the data can be salvaged.

It's just big, big, big numbers and the survival of some of the data.
But some small part of a really big number is still a lot.


You totally ignore that this data is MUCH more fragile than prints or
film is. You have to physically destroy them for them to 100% fail.
Given lots of the "billions of images taken" never are even saved to a
hard drive (most are garbage and just are deleted)the chances of a
"deluge of images" being around even 10 years from now is being naive..
In fact MOST people predict the exact opposite, this era will be a
vacuum of images.


No, for several reasons beyond technical.

I mentioned Corbis, and there are other agencies that will be preserving
images for a long time as it is in their commercial interest to do so
and as the cost of storage continues its plunge. So copying data
forward (as we are prone to do every time we buy a new computer) tends
to conserve data and images we don't even look at. That can survive
generations as it is less and less of an effort to do so.

I wouldn't doubt that trusts emerge to preserve images and data for the
long term financed by a conservative trust arrangement.

What happens to the thousands of images on Google over time? Does
Google last 100 years. 200. 300? Who knows. But as the data that
they propagate over media, continuously, inexorably and ever cheaper
forward, they (and others) may play an important role in this. If they
fail would some entity consider the "Google Volume" worth preservation?
Possibly so esp. as "cloud computing" continues to gain traction.

As always, I'm not thinking in terms of "all the images", but those that
are destined by preparation and fate to survive. Some surely will.

I neglected to mention copies. Where there can only be one original of
a film image, there is no limit to the number of original digital
images. Whether I copy a file into 1000 copies from the first one; or
copy 1 to the next 1000 times they will all be identical to the original
down to the bit.

(Caveat, in the later case one should use error verification as random
errors are more likely to occur over successive copies)

One cannot do that with film. Even a contact copy is sligtly less than
the original. Serial copying compounds that.

Multiple copies of digital originals stored at different locations
increase the likelihood of survival.


I should mention the image agencies such as Corbis which amass images
(film and digital) and go to great lengths to preserve those images.
Most of the images they own are very ordinary and some are important.
All are cataloged and preserved. Given the value of image businesses,
these images are destined to survive for a very long time even as the
business changes hands and purpose, technology changes and so on.


Sure and these "professional images" aren't what most people consider
important to save. They want to see pictures of their childhood or their
grandmother as a child etc. Those will mostly disappear in a short
period of time.


True enough, although many of the images in Corbis et al are not
professional, not even commercial. Many are historical in nature and
such will continue to accrete and gain in importance. The question here
is whether Corbis (and others) survive; if they die as a business does
someone else take over the images?

Further, what is trivial today may become important in the future. I
recall one archeologist talking about some ancient finds at an Egyptian
site.

Decoded it was shopping lists, inventories, accounts and plain old gossip.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #23  
Old March 12th 10, 09:17 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Lawrence Akutagawa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default Going back to film...


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-03-11 23:33 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote:\

One problem with this line of reasoning is that you are describing two
pools of photo takers.

Yes to the "two pools" notion, and the "conservators" being a much
smaller group. (I don't see that as a "problem" however).


Of course you don't, it's your position and you have repeatedly shown
you have no intent on ever bending your position no matter how much
evidence is thrown at you. I highly doubt the "conservators" are much
more than .1% of camera users, if even that. And of those an even
smaller % will be successful at even 100 year archival status of digital
data.


It's like you don't read.

What part of 1 in 1,000,000 is so hard for you to get? And even if the
number is 1 in 10,000,000 there will still be an immense number of photos
that go 500 years.

/snip - follow the thread/
.

egads...questions, questions, followed by more questions from one Alan
Browne. Hey Alan - I have two questions for you that you didn't answer in
another thread but instead faded away -

You said as per my cited references in that thread, and I quote:

"I did say "show me an authoritative source that says the opposite of
digital is analog, that film is an analog."

"So far a lot of comparisons or references to hobby sites."

Question 1:
In exactly what hobby do you place
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin.
All rights reserved.
http://foldoc.org/computing+dictionary ?

Question 2:
Why do you see that American Heritage Science Dictionary not to be
authoritative?

ummm...and if you will, please answer the same two questions relative to
each and every one of my other cited references. I'm just curious as to how
your world looks at these as being hobby sites and not authoritative.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
http://www.synonym.com/antonym/
http://dictionary.reference.com/
which in addtion to the The American Heritage Science Dictionary
references
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2007
http://www.wordwebonline.com/
http://words.bighugelabs.com/
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/
which references
Wordnet Dictionary
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/
and
http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin
which also references
Wordnet Dictionary
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/



  #24  
Old March 12th 10, 09:28 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Going back to film...

On 10-03-12 10:38 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 10-03-10 16:31 , wrote:
If anything, MOST of the digital images shot today will
disappear in 10
years or less. I highly doubt very many people do any sort of
archival

That's why I said 1 in 1,000,000 surviving images. Considering
the
number of photos shot today, it will still be a deluge of

images.


One problem with this line of reasoning is that you are describing

two
pools of photo takers.


Yes to the "two pools" notion, and the "conservators" being a much
smaller group. (I don't see that as a "problem" however).

One might see it as a problem, if the fact that "conservators" will
not be in the larger pool of folks making digital images. My WAG is
that there are closer to a billion shots *a day* being taken, and due


You guess (1 B) is about the same as mine (prev. post to stephe)

to the many factors that lead to the loss of digital data, it is a
reasonable guess that less than 1% of those will survive for 10 years.
That's a pretty drastic difference from your notion, and from a
cultural perspective, it can be considered a problem.


I see it very differently. First of all, 200 years ago we had so little
in terms of images of people of that time, that our notions of their
lives are based on writing, sketches, painting, sculptures and so on.
The lack of photographic information on these people has not prevented a
rich interpretation of their lives.

Now we have a deluge of images.

1% per 10 yr. survival. Reasonable. But that's of people who don't
care for their images.

In that 1% is an even smaller number who take very good care of their
image data and a portion of those who ask themselves, "how do I make
these REALLY last a long time."

And out of that last bunch is the statistical likelihood of some images
surviving.

That's all. No guarantee at all that a _specific_ image will survive.

But the probability can always be improved.

See my last post to stephe regarding other things that will promote the
survival of some (even many) images over the long term.

By your own statement, the digital images that
survive will be managed by those that take extraordinary care of

their
data.


I'd characterize it more as "best reasonable effort." Which is

orders
of magnitude better than ordinary neglect. And then an even smaller
group making extraordinary efforts.

I don't know what you mean by "best reasonable effort", but what I'm
referring to is that for digital data to survive longer than one
generation, the interest in preserving the data has to be continued
across generations. If one considers the preservation of collections
of any type to be a guide, it is easy to see that less than
extraordinary efforts in maintaining digital data will be inadequate.


I think we're at odds over the following:

You (and perhaps stephe) are looking at it from the POV of given,
specific images surviving for a long time.

I'm looking at it from the POV that some images, though I can't say
which, will survive by chance.

However, in either case, images that are prepared to survive are
statistically more likely to than those that aren't.

in order to keep a digital image for 500 years, I'd say that your
notion is grossly overestimated, if for no other reason than the

cost
of the effort to preserve them.


To be clear: I'm really addressing "survivors" on a statistical

basis.
And of course survival favours the prepared.

For that many generations, the statistics favor retentions closer to
zero.

The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use

archival
CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly.

I suggest you do some research on "archival" digital storage media.
The writable materials will not survive for even a small fraction of
500 years.


Not so. The archival CD/DVD media (usually gold based) have 100 year to
200 year lives when stored in benign conditions. This is predicted
based on accelerated life cycle tests of such media v. the common
CD/DVD's which use silver or aluminum and which suffer oxidization over
the long term - even in well sealed media.

While some of that media will fail before those dates, most should make
it to those dates, and a fraction will survive 2 to 3 times longer, esp.
if kept cool, dark and dry.

It's just big, big, big numbers and the survival of some of the

data.
But some small part of a really big number is still a lot.

Pure fantasy.


?


I should mention the image agencies such as Corbis which amass

images
(film and digital) and go to great lengths to preserve those images.

No reason to mention such organizations. They are representative of
the extraordinary efforts I referred to, and even their survival is
not likely to be for 500 years.


I address this in my reply to Stephe. In effect where the organization
might fail as a commercial entity, someone (organization) could acquire
the data of the failed entity.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #25  
Old March 12th 10, 11:48 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Going back to film...

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-11 23:33 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote:\

One problem with this line of reasoning is that you are describing two
pools of photo takers.

Yes to the "two pools" notion, and the "conservators" being a much
smaller group. (I don't see that as a "problem" however).


Of course you don't, it's your position and you have repeatedly shown
you have no intent on ever bending your position no matter how much
evidence is thrown at you. I highly doubt the "conservators" are much
more than .1% of camera users, if even that. And of those an even
smaller % will be successful at even 100 year archival status of digital
data.


It's like you don't read.

What part of 1 in 1,000,000 is so hard for you to get? And even if the
number is 1 in 10,000,000 there will still be an immense number of
photos that go 500 years.


Where are you pulling these numbers from? I could just as easily say 1
in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 might survive. You have
absolutely nothing to base this on.



By your own statement, the digital images that
survive will be managed by those that take extraordinary care of their
data.

I'd characterize it more as "best reasonable effort." Which is orders
of magnitude better than ordinary neglect. And then an even smaller
group making extraordinary efforts.


The problem with digital "best reasonable effort" = failure. With film
that wasn't the case. So with digital ONLY the "extraordinary efforts"


What do you mean by that? Did all film and print images survive? Of
course not. Faded by direct light, attacked by fungus, burned in fires,
diluted by 3rd and more copy generations - only a fraction of film and
print images have survived. Digital images get the same notional
chance, no matter how small that chance is.


It's not even CLOSE to the same chance. Digital images are MUCH more
fragile.


And that smaller chance is
offset by sheer volume of images produced.


Based on what statistics?

will = success. I recently found some B&W negatives of my parents as
children, they are at least 80 years old and the only effort taken was
they were put in an envelope and put in a drawer, forgotten.


Forgotten in the dark, probably reasonable humidity and heat. At that
they've probably faded more than you think even if they are quite good
looking today.


But if a CD was this "faded" you'd get NOTHING off it. These still print
fine. I have some prints that were made on early color that all faded to
red but you can still see what they are. A digital file this "corrupted"
would be gibberish.


But that doesn't mean ALL film from ALL time has survived. Digital
images get the same chance. Some will survive much longer, esp. if
prepared to do so. And again, even of those that are prepared, a
fraction will squeak through.


But film "reasonably kept" i.e. put in a drawer in a house that didn't
catch on fire would survive with no action needed. THAT has been proven.
These accelerated tests can't take into account everything that happens
over time.


This is not likely to be the same group that will generate the
large number of images you are basing your "1 in 1,000,000 surviving
images" upon. Considering the archival replication processes necessary

Really to illustrate the vast number of photos taken that drive a
likelihood of a portion surviving.


Not a reasonable way to calculate this.


One can't make a certain calculation only a reasonable guesstimate - and
that's all I proposed.


Again your number are based on what?



Let's take 1 billion photos per day as a guessing point.


Guessed by who? You trying to make a point?


1 year = 365 billion images.

10 years = 3.65 trillion images.

If out of those 10 years, 1 in 1,000,000 survive, that makes well over
three million images that survive 500 years.

I could be off by 100 times. That still makes over 30,000 images.


And you think less than 30,000 film images survived the same time span?
That isn't a "deluge"...



All I'm saying is that there will likely be digital images from today
that survive. And of course those that are prepared to do so, are most
likely to do so, even if the chance is quite small.

As to film it requires no less or more chance to survive. Fading is not
the sole criteria.

As to film v. digital, well the photos that are being taken (digital in
the large) have a much larger chance of surviving than those that are
not (film has fallen a lot).

There are many people born in the last 10 - 20 years who have only ever
taken digital images and will never take a film image.



Just because of this, doesn't make film less archival, just means people
are naive if they think these digital ones will be around very long.



True enough, although many of the images in Corbis et al are not
professional, not even commercial. Many are historical in nature and
such will continue to accrete and gain in importance. The question here
is whether Corbis (and others) survive; if they die as a business does
someone else take over the images?


Then again maybe they don't..


Further, what is trivial today may become important in the future. I
recall one archeologist talking about some ancient finds at an Egyptian
site.

Decoded it was shopping lists, inventories, accounts and plain old gossip.


And this would be seen as "trivial" by the shooter and deleted to make
more room on the card before they ever got home. You quote a billion
images a day taken, I wonder how many of those ever make it off the
memory card.. I'd be shocked at 50%..

Stephanie
  #26  
Old March 12th 10, 11:57 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Neil Gould[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Going back to film...

"Alan Browne" wrote:
On 10-03-12 10:38 , Neil Gould wrote:

much snipped: follow the thread
One might see it as a problem, if the fact that "conservators"

will
not be in the larger pool of folks making digital images. My WAG

is
that there are closer to a billion shots *a day* being taken, and

due
to the many factors that lead to the loss of digital data, it is a
reasonable guess that less than 1% of those will survive for 10

years.
That's a pretty drastic difference from your notion, and from a
cultural perspective, it can be considered a problem.


I see it very differently. First of all, 200 years ago we had so

little
in terms of images of people of that time, that our notions of their
lives are based on writing, sketches, painting, sculptures and so

on.
The lack of photographic information on these people has not

prevented a
rich interpretation of their lives.

A lot has happened in the last 200 years, much of it important to
document in as many ways as possible. Those in photography often
understand the old saying about the worth of a picture in terms of
words, and so it goes.

Now we have a deluge of images.

1% per 10 yr. survival. Reasonable. But that's of people who don't
care for their images.

No, IMO that's overall, and non-linear, since that figure includes
media that won't make it 20 years, and so on.

In that 1% is an even smaller number who take very good care of

their
image data and a portion of those who ask themselves, "how do I make
these REALLY last a long time."

And out of that last bunch is the statistical likelihood of some

images
surviving.

That's all. No guarantee at all that a _specific_ image will

survive.

But the probability can always be improved.

Not without extraordinary effort.

I think we're at odds over the following:

You (and perhaps stephe) are looking at it from the POV of given,
specific images surviving for a long time.

I'm looking at it from the POV that some images, though I can't say
which, will survive by chance.

Yes, we are at odds over the idea that any digital images will survive
*by chance* for that length of time. I've seen nor experienced
anythiing that supports the idea that this will be the case. If you
have some information to the contrary, perhaps you should present it
at this point.

The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use

archival
CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly.

I suggest you do some research on "archival" digital storage

media.
The writable materials will not survive for even a small fraction

of
500 years.


Not so. The archival CD/DVD media (usually gold based) have 100

year to
200 year lives when stored in benign conditions. This is predicted
based on accelerated life cycle tests of such media v. the common
CD/DVD's which use silver or aluminum and which suffer oxidization

over
the long term - even in well sealed media.

Without going into the failures of such tests to predict longevity of
materials (I heard many claims since purchasing my first CD recorder
before 1990, and have experienced many failurs of "archival" media
since that time), it appears that your above commentary is conflating
replicated media with writable media. Replication and the preservation
of replicated materials would be included in my idea of "extraordinary
effort", and would not include any of the typical every-day images nor
most of the professionally taken still images.

--
best,

Neil



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #27  
Old March 13th 10, 03:16 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Going back to film...

On 10-03-12 17:48 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-11 23:33 ,
wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote:\

One problem with this line of reasoning is that you are describing two
pools of photo takers.

Yes to the "two pools" notion, and the "conservators" being a much
smaller group. (I don't see that as a "problem" however).

Of course you don't, it's your position and you have repeatedly shown
you have no intent on ever bending your position no matter how much
evidence is thrown at you. I highly doubt the "conservators" are much
more than .1% of camera users, if even that. And of those an even
smaller % will be successful at even 100 year archival status of digital
data.


It's like you don't read.

What part of 1 in 1,000,000 is so hard for you to get? And even if the
number is 1 in 10,000,000 there will still be an immense number of
photos that go 500 years.


Where are you pulling these numbers from? I could just as easily say 1
in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 might survive. You have
absolutely nothing to base this on.


It's to illustrate a long shot. A guesstimate. A reasonable means to
illustrating a point.



By your own statement, the digital images that
survive will be managed by those that take extraordinary care of their
data.

I'd characterize it more as "best reasonable effort." Which is orders
of magnitude better than ordinary neglect. And then an even smaller
group making extraordinary efforts.


The problem with digital "best reasonable effort" = failure. With film
that wasn't the case. So with digital ONLY the "extraordinary efforts"


What do you mean by that? Did all film and print images survive? Of
course not. Faded by direct light, attacked by fungus, burned in
fires, diluted by 3rd and more copy generations - only a fraction of
film and print images have survived. Digital images get the same
notional chance, no matter how small that chance is.


It's not even CLOSE to the same chance. Digital images are MUCH more
fragile.


In what sense? Does a digital original have a better chance of survival
in a fire?

Yes, if it has been copied to another location.



And that smaller chance is offset by sheer volume of images produced.


Based on what statistics?


Who needs statistics for that. Do you think more than 1 M photos were
taken today? More? Less?



will = success. I recently found some B&W negatives of my parents as
children, they are at least 80 years old and the only effort taken was
they were put in an envelope and put in a drawer, forgotten.


Forgotten in the dark, probably reasonable humidity and heat. At that
they've probably faded more than you think even if they are quite good
looking today.


But if a CD was this "faded" you'd get NOTHING off it. These still print


Not true. All the laser needs is enough contrast before the bits stop
shifting.

fine. I have some prints that were made on early color that all faded to
red but you can still see what they are. A digital file this "corrupted"
would be gibberish.


Not true. As long as there is discernible information, it can be read.

What is true is that a piece of film taken today will out last an
ordinary CD or DVD. But put that data on an archival CD/DVD and it will
give the film a run for its money in the same storage conditions:

Dry. Cool. Dark.


But that doesn't mean ALL film from ALL time has survived. Digital
images get the same chance. Some will survive much longer, esp. if
prepared to do so. And again, even of those that are prepared, a
fraction will squeak through.


But film "reasonably kept" i.e. put in a drawer in a house that didn't
catch on fire would survive with no action needed. THAT has been proven.
These accelerated tests can't take into account everything that happens
over time.


What's good for the goose ...

This is not likely to be the same group that will generate the
large number of images you are basing your "1 in 1,000,000 surviving
images" upon. Considering the archival replication processes necessary

Really to illustrate the vast number of photos taken that drive a
likelihood of a portion surviving.

Not a reasonable way to calculate this.


One can't make a certain calculation only a reasonable guesstimate -
and that's all I proposed.


Again your number are based on what?


A reasonable guess. There are nearly 7B people on the planet, I'd guess
on average 1 B photos per day (as did Neil Gould in his post today, he
calls it a WAG.


Let's take 1 billion photos per day as a guessing point.


Guessed by who? You trying to make a point?


1 year = 365 billion images.

10 years = 3.65 trillion images.

If out of those 10 years, 1 in 1,000,000 survive, that makes well over
three million images that survive 500 years.

I could be off by 100 times. That still makes over 30,000 images.


And you think less than 30,000 film images survived the same time span?
That isn't a "deluge"...


That was my pessimistic number. It's a lot of data for a 10 year period
going forward 500 yrs.

I don't know how many film images of _today_ will make it for 500 years.

But it is a certainty that with fewer people shooting film (for a
variety of reasons) the amount of film from _today_ that survives will
be far less than the amount of film from 2000.


All I'm saying is that there will likely be digital images from today
that survive. And of course those that are prepared to do so, are most
likely to do so, even if the chance is quite small.

As to film it requires no less or more chance to survive. Fading is
not the sole criteria.

As to film v. digital, well the photos that are being taken (digital
in the large) have a much larger chance of surviving than those that
are not (film has fallen a lot).

There are many people born in the last 10 - 20 years who have only
ever taken digital images and will never take a film image.



Just because of this, doesn't make film less archival, just means people
are naive if they think these digital ones will be around very long.


You're speaking about this on an individual persons basis - for that
you're right.

I'm talking about the probability of a number of unspecified images
surviving.




True enough, although many of the images in Corbis et al are not
professional, not even commercial. Many are historical in nature and
such will continue to accrete and gain in importance. The question
here is whether Corbis (and others) survive; if they die as a business
does someone else take over the images?


Then again maybe they don't..


Further, what is trivial today may become important in the future. I
recall one archeologist talking about some ancient finds at an
Egyptian site.

Decoded it was shopping lists, inventories, accounts and plain old
gossip.


And this would be seen as "trivial" by the shooter and deleted to make
more room on the card before they ever got home. You quote a billion
images a day taken, I wonder how many of those ever make it off the
memory card.. I'd be shocked at 50%..


No idea. I met a woman in San Andres in Jan. A asked if I could copy a
few of her snapshots (of my SO). While copying those to my netbook I
noticed the camera had shots from London, Paris, Rome, etc. All her
holiday travel over 2 years...

But again, I'm putting the probabilities on those who do manage their
data and who do prepare it for the long term.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #28  
Old March 13th 10, 03:37 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Going back to film...

On 10-03-12 17:57 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 10-03-12 10:38 , Neil Gould wrote:

much snipped: follow the thread
One might see it as a problem, if the fact that "conservators"

will
not be in the larger pool of folks making digital images. My WAG

is
that there are closer to a billion shots *a day* being taken, and

due
to the many factors that lead to the loss of digital data, it is a
reasonable guess that less than 1% of those will survive for 10

years.
That's a pretty drastic difference from your notion, and from a
cultural perspective, it can be considered a problem.


I see it very differently. First of all, 200 years ago we had so

little
in terms of images of people of that time, that our notions of their
lives are based on writing, sketches, painting, sculptures and so

on.
The lack of photographic information on these people has not

prevented a
rich interpretation of their lives.

A lot has happened in the last 200 years, much of it important to
document in as many ways as possible. Those in photography often
understand the old saying about the worth of a picture in terms of
words, and so it goes.

Now we have a deluge of images.

1% per 10 yr. survival. Reasonable. But that's of people who don't
care for their images.

No, IMO that's overall, and non-linear, since that figure includes
media that won't make it 20 years, and so on.


I'd bet that a lot of images are going to be copied forward (hard disk
to hard disk) even if they are ignored, they will survive. Further,
many copies will branch into parallel paths.

It's getting more and more popular - as well as cheap - to keep data on
hard disks and just keep moving it forward as larger disks come out at
ever decreasing prices.

I'll hold my number.


In that 1% is an even smaller number who take very good care of

their
image data and a portion of those who ask themselves, "how do I make
these REALLY last a long time."

And out of that last bunch is the statistical likelihood of some

images
surviving.

That's all. No guarantee at all that a _specific_ image will

survive.

But the probability can always be improved.

Not without extraordinary effort.

I think we're at odds over the following:

You (and perhaps stephe) are looking at it from the POV of given,
specific images surviving for a long time.

I'm looking at it from the POV that some images, though I can't say
which, will survive by chance.

Yes, we are at odds over the idea that any digital images will survive
*by chance* for that length of time. I've seen nor experienced
anythiing that supports the idea that this will be the case. If you
have some information to the contrary, perhaps you should present it
at this point.


I've stated it several times and repeated below.


The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use
archival
CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly.

I suggest you do some research on "archival" digital storage

media.
The writable materials will not survive for even a small fraction

of
500 years.


Not so. The archival CD/DVD media (usually gold based) have 100

year to
200 year lives when stored in benign conditions. This is predicted
based on accelerated life cycle tests of such media v. the common
CD/DVD's which use silver or aluminum and which suffer oxidization

over
the long term - even in well sealed media.

Without going into the failures of such tests to predict longevity of
materials (I heard many claims since purchasing my first CD recorder


Quote source.

before 1990, and have experienced many failurs of "archival" media


What was the archival media?

since that time), it appears that your above commentary is conflating
replicated media with writable media. Replication and the preservation
of replicated materials would be included in my idea of "extraordinary
effort", and would not include any of the typical every-day images nor
most of the professionally taken still images.


I'm solely speaking of the use of archival (gold based) CD/DVD's from
reputable disk makers. You have to do your homework to make sure even
those are the best ones (sealing of the disk is very important). Only
buy disks made in Japan and Taiwan. They quote lives of 100, 200 and
300 years (the more conservative, Verbatim and Memorex quote 100+).

Disks from India should be avoided whether ordinary or archival - they
are not sealed properly.

And then such disks being kept in cool, dark, dry places. (Which
happens to be the right way to preserve film - and the colder the better).


--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #29  
Old March 13th 10, 05:01 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Neil Gould[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Going back to film...

"Alan Browne" wrote:
On 10-03-12 17:57 , Neil Gould wrote:

(snip)
No, IMO that's overall, and non-linear, since that figure includes
media that won't make it 20 years, and so on.


I'd bet that a lot of images are going to be copied forward (hard

disk
to hard disk) even if they are ignored, they will survive. Further,
many copies will branch into parallel paths.

It's getting more and more popular - as well as cheap - to keep data

on
hard disks and just keep moving it forward as larger disks come out

at
ever decreasing prices.

I'll hold my number.

To retain your own images for the remainder your lifetime, this
practice is reasonable, but not infallible. To maintain those images
across two generations? Three? Is the light coming on yet, Alan?



In that 1% is an even smaller number who take very good care of

their
image data and a portion of those who ask themselves, "how do I

make
these REALLY last a long time."

And out of that last bunch is the statistical likelihood of some

images
surviving.

That's all. No guarantee at all that a _specific_ image will

survive.

But the probability can always be improved.

Not without extraordinary effort.

I think we're at odds over the following:

You (and perhaps stephe) are looking at it from the POV of given,
specific images surviving for a long time.

I'm looking at it from the POV that some images, though I can't

say
which, will survive by chance.

Yes, we are at odds over the idea that any digital images will

survive
*by chance* for that length of time. I've seen nor experienced
anythiing that supports the idea that this will be the case. If

you
have some information to the contrary, perhaps you should present

it
at this point.


I've stated it several times and repeated below.


The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use
archival
CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly.

I suggest you do some research on "archival" digital storage

media.
The writable materials will not survive for even a small

fraction
of
500 years.

Not so. The archival CD/DVD media (usually gold based) have 100

year to
200 year lives when stored in benign conditions. This is

predicted
based on accelerated life cycle tests of such media v. the common
CD/DVD's which use silver or aluminum and which suffer

oxidization
over
the long term - even in well sealed media.

Without going into the failures of such tests to predict longevity

of
materials (I heard many claims since purchasing my first CD

recorder

Quote source.

The source for what I heard? Me.

before 1990, and have experienced many failurs of "archival" media


What was the archival media?

Various removable writable media, including "Gold" CDs, etc. Since my
business is affected by the cost of maintaining client data, I always
use the best available media.

since that time), it appears that your above commentary is

conflating
replicated media with writable media. Replication and the

preservation
of replicated materials would be included in my idea of

"extraordinary
effort", and would not include any of the typical every-day images

nor
most of the professionally taken still images.


I'm solely speaking of the use of archival (gold based) CD/DVD's

from
reputable disk makers. You have to do your homework to make sure

even
those are the best ones (sealing of the disk is very important).

Only
buy disks made in Japan and Taiwan. They quote lives of 100, 200

and
300 years (the more conservative, Verbatim and Memorex quote 100+).

This is pure nonsense, and only confirms that you are a victim of the
marketing drivel that drives such notions. First of all, there are not
many primary manufacturers of writable media. Secondly, you can't
determine quality by region, except coincidentally. Thirdly, Verbatim
and Memorex are not primary manufacturers of discs, their products are
sourced from low cost suppliers, as a result are inconsistent and in
my experience are typically unreliable for even a couple of years.

Now that the basis for your opinion is established by comments that
reflect a lack of experience and technical knowledge of the issues
that affect the longevity of writable materials, I will bow out of
this discussion.

--
Neil



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #30  
Old March 13th 10, 07:16 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Going back to film...

On 10-03-13 11:01 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 10-03-12 17:57 , Neil Gould wrote:

(snip)
No, IMO that's overall, and non-linear, since that figure includes
media that won't make it 20 years, and so on.


I'd bet that a lot of images are going to be copied forward (hard

disk
to hard disk) even if they are ignored, they will survive. Further,
many copies will branch into parallel paths.

It's getting more and more popular - as well as cheap - to keep data

on
hard disks and just keep moving it forward as larger disks come out

at
ever decreasing prices.

I'll hold my number.

To retain your own images for the remainder your lifetime, this
practice is reasonable, but not infallible. To maintain those images
across two generations? Three? Is the light coming on yet, Alan?


Light was never off from the beginning of this issue, I've never stated
it in terms of a specific image or collection surviving, but that given
the huge number of photos taken (what did you WAG?) that there will be
long term survivors.

Further of course, those that are dead in 10 years are dead. Those that
are prepared to go 100 years are more likely to go 500 than those that
aren't prepared at all.

In other parts of this discussion I've raised social reasons that will
result in surviving images as well as commercial entities like Corbis
and Google playing a role in long term preservation as they move their
own data set forward in time (Picasa, Panoramio). While they may not
survive as entities, the data likely will under some other organization
or trust. Even the Mormons might take on a lot of it as part of their
genealogy database.

I seem to have to repeat this time and again: the probability of a given
image surviving is pretty low; the probability of various images
surviving is a certainty.

And so it is for film images, however with a low volume of film
shooting, today, film images from _today_ are becoming lower probability
survivors.



In that 1% is an even smaller number who take very good care of
their
image data and a portion of those who ask themselves, "how do I

make
these REALLY last a long time."

And out of that last bunch is the statistical likelihood of some
images
surviving.

That's all. No guarantee at all that a _specific_ image will
survive.

But the probability can always be improved.

Not without extraordinary effort.

I think we're at odds over the following:

You (and perhaps stephe) are looking at it from the POV of given,
specific images surviving for a long time.

I'm looking at it from the POV that some images, though I can't

say
which, will survive by chance.

Yes, we are at odds over the idea that any digital images will

survive
*by chance* for that length of time. I've seen nor experienced
anythiing that supports the idea that this will be the case. If

you
have some information to the contrary, perhaps you should present

it
at this point.


I've stated it several times and repeated below.


The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use
archival
CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly.

I suggest you do some research on "archival" digital storage
media.
The writable materials will not survive for even a small

fraction
of
500 years.

Not so. The archival CD/DVD media (usually gold based) have 100
year to
200 year lives when stored in benign conditions. This is

predicted
based on accelerated life cycle tests of such media v. the common
CD/DVD's which use silver or aluminum and which suffer

oxidization
over
the long term - even in well sealed media.

Without going into the failures of such tests to predict longevity

of
materials (I heard many claims since purchasing my first CD

recorder

Quote source.

The source for what I heard? Me.

before 1990, and have experienced many failurs of "archival" media


What was the archival media?

Various removable writable media, including "Gold" CDs, etc. Since my
business is affected by the cost of maintaining client data, I always
use the best available media.

since that time), it appears that your above commentary is

conflating
replicated media with writable media. Replication and the

preservation
of replicated materials would be included in my idea of

"extraordinary
effort", and would not include any of the typical every-day images

nor
most of the professionally taken still images.


I'm solely speaking of the use of archival (gold based) CD/DVD's

from
reputable disk makers. You have to do your homework to make sure

even
those are the best ones (sealing of the disk is very important).

Only
buy disks made in Japan and Taiwan. They quote lives of 100, 200

and
300 years (the more conservative, Verbatim and Memorex quote 100+).

This is pure nonsense, and only confirms that you are a victim of the
marketing drivel that drives such notions. First of all, there are not
many primary manufacturers of writable media. Secondly, you can't
determine quality by region, except coincidentally. Thirdly, Verbatim
and Memorex are not primary manufacturers of discs, their products are
sourced from low cost suppliers, as a result are inconsistent and in
my experience are typically unreliable for even a couple of years.


There is at least one site that talks about sources of the discs as
being important. It is certainly not "nonsense".

When you talk about sourced manufacturing I agree.

But I'm not talking about pricing the lowest cost CD/DVD's at Wal*Mart
either. The reputable gold archive disks (made in Japan or Taiwan) need
to be ordered online. At least here.


Now that the basis for your opinion is established by comments that
reflect a lack of experience and technical knowledge of the issues
that affect the longevity of writable materials, I will bow out of
this discussion.


My technical knowledge is better than most. I have experience with
accelerated life cycle testing (for other purposes). The key points for
image preservation on CD/DVD (and BluRay at some point) remain
non-oxidization, sealing and benign storage. These are the things that
the archive disk manufacturers address.

I've never come close to claiming that all images can be conserved with
certainty, only that a number will certainly survive.


--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
 




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
HELP PLEASE - APS REWIND BACK TO ZERO WITH NEW FILM Fred McKenzie APS Photographic Equipment 3 September 4th 04 09:56 PM
6X8 ROLL FILM BACK FOR 4X5 Massimiliano Spoto Fine Art, Framing and Display 0 May 20th 04 05:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:03 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.