Sad news for film-based photography

Recently, Scott Elliot posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
link.net...
Recently, jjs posted:

You don't even have to go that far to outlast current digital media.

Archiving of any physical object is a challenge, as entropy is a
constant. But, beyond the physical degradation that will affect
digital media as well as film, you have many other factors.
Obsolescence of the media, obsolescence of the media's format (8"
floppies are less than 30 years old), and obsolescence of the data
format also work against reliable archiving with digital media.

Neil

We are also assuming that the facilities to print film will not become
obsolete with time. It is quite possible that 100 years from now
film will no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get
prints made from slides or negatives. "What are those little
flammable pieces of celluloid and what good are those grainy shadows
on them?"

Quality issues aside, you'll still be able to discern the *content*, which
is the important part of the message. With MF film, you won't even need a
magnifying glass to "get the picture". Conversely, the content in digital
media is completely lost once any of the above factors sets in.

Digital or film, 100 year from now who is going to care one way or
another about most of the images that any of us are producing today?
Any that are good enough to be important will be reproduced so often
that they will always be in the current format, regardless of what it
is.

I don't agree with this. The importance of images can't always be
determined at the time of their taking.

Neil

Recently, Chris Brown posted:

In article .net,
Neil Gould wrote:

Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for
35 mm format digital,

...only they're not, unless there's a new one I haven't heard about.
Canon have leapfrogged them again.

I couldn't find any reference to a 14 MP camera on Canon's website. Is
this a real product that I can go out and purchase today?

Neil

You need to get out more and go to a museum or two.


In article oBs4d.129581$XP3.108204@edtnps84,
"Scott Elliot" wrote:

We are also assuming that the facilities to print film will not become
obsolete with time. It is quite possible that 100 years from now film will
no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get prints made from
slides or negatives. "What are those little flammable pieces of celluloid
and what good are those grainy shadows on them?"

Digital or film, 100 year from now who is going to care one way or another
about most of the images that any of us are producing today? Any that are
good enough to be important will be reproduced so often that they will
always be in the current format, regardless of what it is.

Scott

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
news
Recently, Chris Brown posted:

In article .net,
Neil Gould wrote:

Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for
35 mm format digital,

...only they're not, unless there's a new one I haven't heard about.
Canon have leapfrogged them again.

I couldn't find any reference to a 14 MP camera on Canon's website. Is
this a real product that I can go out and purchase today?

Late November. 1Ds mark II, 16.7MP. Besides, the Kodak cameras are such dogs
it not clear that one should count them as actually existing...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
news
Recently, Chris Brown posted:

In article .net,
Neil Gould wrote:

Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for
35 mm format digital,

...only they're not, unless there's a new one I haven't heard about.
Canon have leapfrogged them again.

I couldn't find any reference to a 14 MP camera on Canon's website. Is
this a real product that I can go out and purchase today?

Late November. 1Ds mark II, 16.7MP. Besides, the Kodak cameras are such dogs
it not clear that one should count them as actually existing...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Roger Whitehead" wrote in message
How does anyone know? Was Leonardo da Vinci secretly copying his work on
to
microfilm strips, perhaps?


Several independent sources have corroborated this claim. Also, several US
Government agencies require that important documents be stored on microfilm
to ensure long-term accessibility.

To the extent that we can know, we do know that microfilm offers the
least-risky way to store information at today's state of the art.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message news:0Ym4d.11118

Now, *there's* a clever plan! Increase the percentage of digital product
sales by selling off those film products that make up the majority of
their current sales. So, their overall sales volume will be *lower*, and
they'll be selling more of the marginally profitable products. And, this
makes investors happy? Go figure.


I think that Kodak has reached the conclusion that, for the consumer market
in the industrialized world, digital will overtake film just as ballpoint
pens overtook fountain pens, a couple of generations ago.

Kodak made its reputation and name recognition on its consumer end, not its
professional side. For them the question was how to remain relevant in a
digital world. I suspect that they were not happy with the change in the
wind, but that they had to do something to ensure their survival.

They played up on their traditional strength: that of making the complex
part of photography easy to the consumer. Their long-standing slogan of
"You push the button, we do the rest," was applied to digital imaging.
Kodak offers a simple system of cameras, printer docks, EasyShare software
and online printing services--all of which serve to take a lot of the
complexity out of the digital imaging process for consumers that have little
or no interest in the technical end, but who just want to create
well-exposed photos.

My point is that the market would have dictated the outcome, not Kodak.
Kodak merely tried to find a way to cope with those forces.

Scott Elliot wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
link.net...

Recently, jjs posted:

You don't even have to go that far to outlast current digital media.

Archiving of any physical object is a challenge, as entropy is a constant.
But, beyond the physical degradation that will affect digital media as
well as film, you have many other factors. Obsolescence of the media,
obsolescence of the media's format (8" floppies are less than 30 years
old), and obsolescence of the data format also work against reliable
archiving with digital media.

Neil


We are also assuming that the facilities to print film will not become
obsolete with time. It is quite possible that 100 years from now film will
no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get prints made from
slides or negatives. "What are those little flammable pieces of celluloid
and what good are those grainy shadows on them?"

I would suspect that in 100 years from now, even people who are very unfamillar
with film will be able to extract the maximum available content from film with
equipment designed for other purposes.

Celluloid has not been used as film base in many decades.



Digital or film, 100 year from now who is going to care one way or another
about most of the images that any of us are producing today? Any that are
good enough to be important will be reproduced so often that they will
always be in the current format, regardless of what it is.

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

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Scott Elliot wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
link.net...

Recently, jjs posted:

You don't even have to go that far to outlast current digital media.

Archiving of any physical object is a challenge, as entropy is a constant.
But, beyond the physical degradation that will affect digital media as
well as film, you have many other factors. Obsolescence of the media,
obsolescence of the media's format (8" floppies are less than 30 years
old), and obsolescence of the data format also work against reliable
archiving with digital media.

Neil


We are also assuming that the facilities to print film will not become
obsolete with time. It is quite possible that 100 years from now film will
no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get prints made from
slides or negatives. "What are those little flammable pieces of celluloid
and what good are those grainy shadows on them?"

I would suspect that in 100 years from now, even people who are very unfamillar
with film will be able to extract the maximum available content from film with
equipment designed for other purposes.

Celluloid has not been used as film base in many decades.



Digital or film, 100 year from now who is going to care one way or another
about most of the images that any of us are producing today? Any that are
good enough to be important will be reproduced so often that they will
always be in the current format, regardless of what it is.

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

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Neil Gould wrote:
I couldn't find any reference to a 14 MP camera on Canon's website. Is
this a real product that I can go out and purchase today?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp

it was just announced, so unlikely to be on the shelves yet, but surely in the
coming weeks you can place orders. 16.7 MP full frame.

for images taken by same... definitely encroaching on MF.
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--