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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Vladamir30 wrote:
I've printed plenty of 8X10'from the 1910-1920's and they are all perfectly fine for what they are. Old grainy film. I have many family photographs from that era that are as sharp and as detailed as any from modern films. . LOL so you're trying to claim film hasn't advanced from the film used in the 1920's? Maybe you find 8X10's from your digicam look OK to you? I don't like 8X10's from 35mm so I know they wouldn't do anything for me. You know they wouldn't do anything for you without ever having seen them? They have plenty on display at the local camera shops, I'm not impressed. -- Stacey |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Mark Weaver wrote:
But I don't think being able to view my photos 50 years from now when I'm as old as my grandfather is going to depend on that--by then they'll be on different media or all online. There's the difference. You plan on actively participating in the archival of your images. 99% of the population isn't and all their images will be lost. 2 generations from now, people will have images taken 4-5 generations ago but will skip the present ones I'm afraid. The only people that will care are people looking for images of family. I'm glad I have pictures of my great grand parents and have to assume people in the furture would too. -- Stacey |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
"Stacey" wrote in message ... Mark Weaver wrote: But I don't think being able to view my photos 50 years from now when I'm as old as my grandfather is going to depend on that--by then they'll be on different media or all online. There's the difference. You plan on actively participating in the archival of your images. 99% of the population isn't and all their images will be lost. But most of the population does a lousy job with 'archiving' their photos now. First of all, most of them are not-very-good-in-the-first-place color prints developed at Walmart and stuck in 'magnetic' albums that don't age well. And most people do a poor job of storing and keeping track of negatives. 2 generations from now, people will have images taken 4-5 generations ago but will skip the present ones I'm afraid. I'm not sure who ended up with my paternal grandparents' photos. My aunt has most of them, I believe, but some have gone to my uncle and my parents, I think. I don't have them anyway. In general, as the generations pass, the chances of the one copy of an ancestor's photo album ending up on *your* shelf get pretty small. Likely some second cousin twice removed who you never see will have them in a box somewhere and will have forgotten they're there. The thing about digitial images is that they're completely copyable and sharable at almost no cost. The only people that will care are people looking for images of family. I'm glad I have pictures of my great grand parents and have to assume people in the furture would too. -- I don't think so. Already some fraction of the population is willing to go to significant trouble and expense to have old photos scanned, restored, and copied so they can be enjoyed and so that there's not just one old, decaying copy. Digital images, on the other hand, will be much easier to 'recover'. Worst case, you might have to send old media in to a company that copies to new media--that's nowhere near the hassle involved in scanning years of negative (as I know from personal experience). But in the end, only time will tell. Mark |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
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. Within its limits it was capable of producing excellent results, as witnessed by the fact that plenty of outstanding photographers of that general period used it. In my previous message I mentioned just a couple that happened to come to mind. 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. I assumed you at least had owned or rented a good digital camera, had spent time working with it as well as with 35mm so that your opinions about their relative merits had some basis in personal knowledge and experience. Now you tell us that your opinions are based on some stuff someone has on display at the local camera 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? Stacey" wrote in message ... Vladamir30 wrote: I've printed plenty of 8X10'from the 1910-1920's and they are all perfectly fine for what they are. Old grainy film. I have many family photographs from that era that are as sharp and as detailed as any from modern films. . LOL so you're trying to claim film hasn't advanced from the film used in the 1920's? Maybe you find 8X10's from your digicam look OK to you? I don't like 8X10's from 35mm so I know they wouldn't do anything for me. You know they wouldn't do anything for you without ever having seen them? They have plenty on display at the local camera shops, I'm not impressed. -- Stacey |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
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 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Mark Weaver wrote:
Digital images, on the other hand, will be much easier to 'recover'. Tell that to my neighbor. He came over asking me to look at his mom's computer tonight, 3 years of digital images stored on the HD and the HD has crapped out. I think she is pretty typical of most home computer users and has no concept of "backup" nor does she even know how to do it. All this seems simple to you and me but most computer users have no idea how to even burn a data CD or even how to save the images onto another partition of a drive other than the default location set by the camera software. "Power users" aren't going to have problems, the general public will. SUre they didn't store the negatives with the pictures etc but most people will throw them in a drawer somewhere and they can be reprinted later. That's what I found, a shoebox full of negatives and no prints. But in the end, only time will tell. It's already happening. I wonder how many years of photographs have already been lost like hers have? -- Stacey |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
In article , Stacey wrote:
Mark Weaver wrote: That's what I found, a shoebox full of negatives and no prints. I guess that you either have to keep all your digital files on a harddisk and make regular backups (and keep old sets of backups in case you accidentially delete something) or you you have to use an archive medium that can be left alone for at least 30 years. Most people don't care about the pictures they took 5 or 10 years ago, so it is very unlikely that they will spend any time to copy them to fresh media. It will be interesting to see what the industry will come up with. -- 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 |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Recently, Philip Homburg posted:
In article , Stacey wrote: Mark Weaver wrote: That's what I found, a shoebox full of negatives and no prints. I guess that you either have to keep all your digital files on a harddisk and make regular backups (and keep old sets of backups in case you accidentially delete something) or you you have to use an archive medium that can be left alone for at least 30 years. I fully agree. The problem is that I know of no archival digital media that can be left alone for at least 30 years. Most people don't care about the pictures they took 5 or 10 years ago, so it is very unlikely that they will spend any time to copy them to fresh media. 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? Neil |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
"Stacey" wrote in message ... Mark Weaver wrote: Digital images, on the other hand, will be much easier to 'recover'. Tell that to my neighbor. He came over asking me to look at his mom's computer tonight, 3 years of digital images stored on the HD and the HD has crapped out. I think she is pretty typical of most home computer users and has no concept of "backup" nor does she even know how to do it. All this seems simple to you and me but most computer users have no idea how to even burn a data CD If that is true, then you have to wonder what are all those CDR/DVDR drives and 100 disc spindles being used for? 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 said, your neighbor's pictures probably *are* recoverable if he's willing to spend the money to send the disk into a recovery service. That's what I found, a shoebox full of negatives and no prints. But the chances of not finding that shoebox -- of it being ruined, thrown out, or ending up in some cousin's basement instead of yours is pretty high (if not in your particular case, then in general). It's already happening. I wonder how many years of photographs have already been lost like hers have? I'd guess nowhere near as many as have been when the 'shoebox of negatives' was lost, ruined, misplaced, thrown out, or just left in the box in the basement since reprinting was too much trouble. Mark |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Mark Weaver wrote:
"Stacey" wrote in message ... Mark Weaver wrote: Digital images, on the other hand, will be much easier to 'recover'. Tell that to my neighbor. He came over asking me to look at his mom's computer tonight, 3 years of digital images stored on the HD and the HD has crapped out. I think she is pretty typical of most home computer users and has no concept of "backup" nor does she even know how to do it. All this seems simple to you and me but most computer users have no idea how to even burn a data CD If that is true, then you have to wonder what are all those CDR/DVDR drives and 100 disc spindles being used for? Music CD's. The fact they include a cd burner with most new machines doesn't mean people know how to use them. 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. That said, your neighbor's pictures probably *are* recoverable if he's willing to spend the money to send the disk into a recovery service. Of course she doesn't want to spend the hundreds it would cost to do this. It sounds like the heads are crashing into each other, some really nasty noises comming out of it. They'd probably have to put the disk into another drive and even then might not get everything. That's what I found, a shoebox full of negatives and no prints. But the chances of not finding that shoebox -- of it being ruined, thrown out, or ending up in some cousin's basement instead of yours is pretty high (if not in your particular case, then in general). 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? Even if they end up in "some cousins basement" they are still there for furture generations to find. The CD's would just be unreadable by the time someone discovers them. It's already happening. I wonder how many years of photographs have already been lost like hers have? I'd guess nowhere near as many as have been when the 'shoebox of negatives' was lost, ruined, misplaced, thrown out, or just left in the box in the basement since reprinting was too much trouble. Yep and they are going to save these "archival" CD's in a safe place yet throw away negatives! Like you said time will tell and thousands if not millions of images have already been lost due to HD failures with more to come as time rolls on. -- Stacey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |