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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"timeOday" wrote in message ... IMHO jpeg (not jpeg 2000) is perfectly safe in that regard. WHY would you recommend a lossy format as an archival storage format? Writable CDs have already been the norm for about 7 years, and all new drives are backwards compatible with them, and will be for the forseeable future. Not according to the Luminous Landscape article on "Digital's Dirty Little Secret." The writer cites examples of formats that were once in common use that are now unavailable. Responding to the rest of your post, as well, I just don't think it's important to worry about hundreds of years. You are stating an unqualified opinion, as though it were factual. The fact is that countless archivists and digital libraries are struggling with this problem, and there is no solution on the horizon. I quoted exper articles in my previous posts, and you have just dismissed them with a wave of the hand, and have suggested that there is no problem with archival storage with today's media and file formats. Tell that to the Library of Congress and they'll laugh at you. It is irresponsible to suggest to an inquirer that he should, essentially, "just burn it onto CD." I disagree with the fears of a "digital dark age." If digital information is more easily destroyed, it is also replicated and distributed. Many images will not survive, but billions upon billions will. Given that, it's vanity to imagine that anybody will mourn the loss of your (or my) photographs. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike F" wrote in message news:xpCyd.245319$V41.53355@attbi_s52... In general, I agree with what you are saying, but would add a comment here -- when doing the "double copies" thing, use different brands of media for the copies. For, over in the alt.video.dvdr group there have been comments recently of the Ritek G04 and G05 media (which people have been very happy with in the past) "forgetting" what was written within a fairly short period of time ( 6 months ). Use two different manufacturers (not just different brand names which may actually be the same) to do the backups. If one develops read problems, refresh from the other one. Two copies in different locations is great if you have a fire or something, but if they both begin to forget at the same time, you lose. I know -- no simple answer. As to whether or not anyone cares about your pix 50 years from now, I know I have really enjoyed being able to find old B/W pix from when my dad was a kid (but then I am into genealogy stuff too). See the picture at http://home.comcast.net/~mike.fields/genealog.htm for a cute picture of my 87 year old father when he was a little boy on the farm. Glad I found that one. Will my kids care in 50 years I hope so. Will anyone else care? In reality probably not. I would suspect that jpg will be around for quite a while, if not as a primary storage, then at least with converters for whatever is current in the future. The trick is to at least make the attempt to make sure the media is there if anyone wants to look. It is easy to make a copy onto the "new standard" - it is much harder to recover from old corrupted media. mikey "Jeremy" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... First concern is the availability of current file and data format. So what would you guys say is the best file type, media format and media type to use if I want them to be easily accessible for decades? Welcome to the world of digital image preservation! Sorry that you were hit so hard by your experience with your "ancient" 8-year-old image files. Actually, you received a valuable lesson from the School of Hard Knocks, for which you should be grateful. You learned while you were still able to correct the problem. Others will not be so lucky. The short answer to your question is to store files in UNCOMPRESSED TIF. It is the format of choice for virtually all libraries. Do not compress the TIF files, because the various compression schemes might become unreadable by editing programs in the future. Already there are reports of old compressed TIF files not being able to be opened by modern editing software. Forget compression on your archived image files. Use the "Master and Derivative" model for your storage media: in other words, make TWO "Master Disks." Store one off-site (bank safe deposit box, relative or friend's home, etc.) Store it in a jewel box, keep it in a dark place and don't touch it. Store a duplicate "Master Disk" at home, under the same dark/temperature/humidity optimum conditions. These "Master Disks" are used only to make derivative copies. If you work on your images, always work off the expendable Derivative Copy. If the Derivative ever goes bad, use your on-site Master Disk to make a new Derivative Copy, and then return the Master Disk back to hibernation. Never use the Master Disk for any other purpose. If your on-site Master Disk goes bad, or if it is lost in a fire, flood or theft, then make a NEW on-site Master Disk from the one you stored off-site, in the Safe Deposit Box. You might consider including an Index Print along with your Master and Derivative Disks, just so you (or your descendants) can see what is contained on them. This is a far cry from storing negatives in archival plastic pages, and storing prints in albums (or in shoeboxes). Even after taking all these precautions, you will have to provide for migrating the data to the latest file format and media type as time goes on. Plan on doing this every 7-10 years. This is the Achilles Heel of digital preservation: you cannot be assured that this migration effort will continue after your demise. Just think about the proverbial shoebox full of photos found in Grandma's attic: for one thing, people tend to move more often and there is less chance that our historical images will be left undisturbed for generations. And (more importantly) the photos Grandma stored were visible without any special equipment or software. What if those Mac images that you had were just a few years older? You might not have had the means to decode them, and you would have probably discarded them, rather than pay to have them converted onto a current medium. Kodak, on their website, even recommends that you consider long-term storage of your important images by making PRINTS of them, and storing them in archival albums, in appropriate temperature/humidity/darkness conditions. The fact is that, for the typical consumer, the lowly PRINT stands the greatest chance of long-term survival, because it requires little long-term maintenance. If you are starting to have reservations about digital file longevity, you are not alone. I recommend that you have a look at this article, that discusses the issue better than I can. "Digital's Dirty Little Secret" http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm Even large digital libraries are affected by the need to periodically renew their digital assets onto newer file formats and storage media. What makes them different from us consumers is that they have planned for, and budgeted for, this continual file maintenance and renewal. We ordinary folks must rely upon our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren to care for our image files. There is no assurance that they will have any interest in doing so. More likely, the piles of disks will gather dust until somebody decides to throw them out, since they can't read them. At least prints have a chance of surviving, because their historical value is apparent at first glance. Not so with those CDs or DVDs. More photos are being taken than ever before, and I believe that a large number of them will survive. But the question of whether YOUR particular photos will survive in digital format is uncertain. My own solution is to do my important stuff on film. I use digital for short-time-horizons of under 5 years. And on important digital images, I do have OFOTO make prints on silver halide paper, and I keep them in archival albums. I have tons of CDs, with digital images on them, and I have no reason to think that they will survive long-term. It is a pity that this problem has not been solved yet. Eastman Kodak has a professional division that specializes in imaging solutions for banks. Banks are required to maintain copies of certain types of documents for years. Take cancelled checks. Must be kept for 7 years, last time I looked at the regulations. But banks do not simply scan them and store the images on magnetic or optical media. They microfilm them. Kodak has come up with a hybrid solution: the checks are scanned, and their images can be stored electronically. That means that checks can be sorted by account number, date, check number, etc. In addition, the scanned images are also printed to microfilm and held in long-term storage. If a copy is required at some point in the future, (even after the electronic image format is no longer supported) it can be printed from the microfilm and can even be digitized into whatever format is then in use. U.S. Department of Defense requires important manuals, plans, schematics etc. to be stored on MICROFILM, in addition to any current electronic image standard. Despite its shortcomings (for example, microfilm loses 10% of its image information each time it is copied and reproduced onto new microfilm) it is the only sure-fire method to ensure readability into the long term. The National Archives has been experimenting with CDs that have a glass coating--in an effort to come up with an archival-use CD. Digital imaging makes for easy accessibility, for sure, but it does not have archival qualities. The proverbial shoebox filled with photographs stands a greater chance of long-term survival than does a shoebox filled with CDs. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:27:33 GMT, "Jeremy" wrote:
"timeOday" wrote in message ... IMHO jpeg (not jpeg 2000) is perfectly safe in that regard. WHY would you recommend a lossy format as an archival storage format? Writable CDs have already been the norm for about 7 years, and all new drives are backwards compatible with them, and will be for the forseeable future. Not according to the Luminous Landscape article on "Digital's Dirty Little Secret." The writer cites examples of formats that were once in common use that are now unavailable. If that's Jim McGee's article as he http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm I think he's working under some false impressions. One of the worst is where he talks about the development time and money needed to continue to put CD reading capability into future DVD drives. That's just wrong; the R&D's already been done. It's just a matter of bringing *already present* technology into the new DVD drives. This is being done now, and costs are still going down for the new drives; obviously, including the ability to read CDs isn't the financial burden he makes it out to be. It's easy to predict failure, but will the failure he predicts actually come about? I doubt it, at least not as he predicts. Yes, there are formats that aren't being used anymore; however, there are *years* of overlap, giving pleanty of time to do the transfer. And he violates his own prediction, by advising the use of hard drives as archival storage, after pointing out that he has his own hard drives that are old technology that can't be read anymore. In sum, he's doing nothing that others haven't done: predicting that new technologies will come along. Well, Duh! That's called progress! It's up to the owner of data to transfer that data to current technology; saying that it must be done is a reason to somehow devalue current technology (in this case, digital photography) is downright stupid! Responding to the rest of your post, as well, I just don't think it's important to worry about hundreds of years. You are stating an unqualified opinion, as though it were factual. The fact is that countless archivists and digital libraries are struggling with this problem, and there is no solution on the horizon. I quoted exper articles in my previous posts, and you have just dismissed them with a wave of the hand, and have suggested that there is no problem with archival storage with today's media and file formats. Tell that to the Library of Congress and they'll laugh at you. It is irresponsible to suggest to an inquirer that he should, essentially, "just burn it onto CD." I disagree with the fears of a "digital dark age." If digital information is more easily destroyed, it is also replicated and distributed. Many images will not survive, but billions upon billions will. Given that, it's vanity to imagine that anybody will mourn the loss of your (or my) photographs. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:27:33 GMT, "Jeremy" wrote:
"timeOday" wrote in message ... IMHO jpeg (not jpeg 2000) is perfectly safe in that regard. WHY would you recommend a lossy format as an archival storage format? Writable CDs have already been the norm for about 7 years, and all new drives are backwards compatible with them, and will be for the forseeable future. Not according to the Luminous Landscape article on "Digital's Dirty Little Secret." The writer cites examples of formats that were once in common use that are now unavailable. If that's Jim McGee's article as he http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm I think he's working under some false impressions. One of the worst is where he talks about the development time and money needed to continue to put CD reading capability into future DVD drives. That's just wrong; the R&D's already been done. It's just a matter of bringing *already present* technology into the new DVD drives. This is being done now, and costs are still going down for the new drives; obviously, including the ability to read CDs isn't the financial burden he makes it out to be. It's easy to predict failure, but will the failure he predicts actually come about? I doubt it, at least not as he predicts. Yes, there are formats that aren't being used anymore; however, there are *years* of overlap, giving pleanty of time to do the transfer. And he violates his own prediction, by advising the use of hard drives as archival storage, after pointing out that he has his own hard drives that are old technology that can't be read anymore. In sum, he's doing nothing that others haven't done: predicting that new technologies will come along. Well, Duh! That's called progress! It's up to the owner of data to transfer that data to current technology; saying that it must be done is a reason to somehow devalue current technology (in this case, digital photography) is downright stupid! Responding to the rest of your post, as well, I just don't think it's important to worry about hundreds of years. You are stating an unqualified opinion, as though it were factual. The fact is that countless archivists and digital libraries are struggling with this problem, and there is no solution on the horizon. I quoted exper articles in my previous posts, and you have just dismissed them with a wave of the hand, and have suggested that there is no problem with archival storage with today's media and file formats. Tell that to the Library of Congress and they'll laugh at you. It is irresponsible to suggest to an inquirer that he should, essentially, "just burn it onto CD." I disagree with the fears of a "digital dark age." If digital information is more easily destroyed, it is also replicated and distributed. Many images will not survive, but billions upon billions will. Given that, it's vanity to imagine that anybody will mourn the loss of your (or my) photographs. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy wrote:
"timeOday" wrote in message ... IMHO jpeg (not jpeg 2000) is perfectly safe in that regard. WHY would you recommend a lossy format as an archival storage format? I'm saying, if you want to save some space, don't worry about jpeg going away, because it won't. Writable CDs have already been the norm for about 7 years, and all new drives are backwards compatible with them, and will be for the forseeable future. Not according to the Luminous Landscape article on "Digital's Dirty Little Secret." The writer cites examples of formats that were once in common use that are now unavailable. 5.25" disks were never in widespread usage compared to CDs today. Computers themselves weren't in widespread usage them compared to now. Besides, things change. 20 years ago home computers couldn't even display photorealistic images (Amiga HAM mode notwithstanding), and there were a huge number of different manufacturers of incompatible computers and media. The technology has matured a lot. In the late 60s you could look back at the previous 30 years in aerospace and honestly say that *everything* had changed. That's how long it took to go essentially from biplanes to landing on the moon. Now, a little over 30 years later, we're still using airplanes very similar to the late 60s. I cannot say for sure that's hapenning to computers, but I think it is. After reading the "Dirty little secret" article, I realize the author and I are looking at the same information and coming to different conclusions. I don't dismiss the author's opinions, I'm just stating some reasons why I think he may be mistaken on some things. On other things, I think he's right on, for instance I would *not* have confidence in being able to read a Microsoft Word or PowerPoint document 50 years from now. On the other hand I would be very surprised if this usenet exchange we're having doesn't outlast both of us. Responding to the rest of your post, as well, I just don't think it's important to worry about hundreds of years. You are stating an unqualified opinion, as though it were factual. The fact is that countless archivists and digital libraries are struggling with this problem, and there is no solution on the horizon. Well, let me qualify my opinion then (yes, it is certainly a personal opinion). I was talking about personal photos. If I were trying to preserve the US Constitution or the Leaning tower of Pisa or gigabytes of data from the Mars rovers, I agree that is a whole different ballgame. Those artifacts are worth millions of dollars. I quoted exper articles in my previous posts, and you have just dismissed them with a wave of the hand, and have suggested that there is no problem with archival storage with today's media and file formats. Tell that to the Library of Congress and they'll laugh at you. It is irresponsible to suggest to an inquirer that he should, essentially, "just burn it onto CD." I didn't mean it is safe to just burn to a CD and leave it there forever, only that the ubiquity of the media ensures a nice, long transition period. I think the transition period for CDs (maybe it has already begun) will be longer than for 3.5" disks, which was much longer than for 5.25" disks, and so on, because computers have become so ubiquitous, and the need for improvement is decreasing. Here is what I do. I have two computers, and one makes nightly backups to the other. Periodically, I copy my data to CDs. When I visit my parents, I take a copy of my backup CDs and leave them there. I expect to switch to DVD soon. My wife puts prints of our favorite photos into scrapbooks - not all of them, but perhaps our favorite dozen or 20 photographs each year. As a whole, I think this system is reasonable and I expect it to work, but my crystal ball is no better than anybody else's. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy wrote:
"timeOday" wrote in message ... IMHO jpeg (not jpeg 2000) is perfectly safe in that regard. WHY would you recommend a lossy format as an archival storage format? I'm saying, if you want to save some space, don't worry about jpeg going away, because it won't. Writable CDs have already been the norm for about 7 years, and all new drives are backwards compatible with them, and will be for the forseeable future. Not according to the Luminous Landscape article on "Digital's Dirty Little Secret." The writer cites examples of formats that were once in common use that are now unavailable. 5.25" disks were never in widespread usage compared to CDs today. Computers themselves weren't in widespread usage them compared to now. Besides, things change. 20 years ago home computers couldn't even display photorealistic images (Amiga HAM mode notwithstanding), and there were a huge number of different manufacturers of incompatible computers and media. The technology has matured a lot. In the late 60s you could look back at the previous 30 years in aerospace and honestly say that *everything* had changed. That's how long it took to go essentially from biplanes to landing on the moon. Now, a little over 30 years later, we're still using airplanes very similar to the late 60s. I cannot say for sure that's hapenning to computers, but I think it is. After reading the "Dirty little secret" article, I realize the author and I are looking at the same information and coming to different conclusions. I don't dismiss the author's opinions, I'm just stating some reasons why I think he may be mistaken on some things. On other things, I think he's right on, for instance I would *not* have confidence in being able to read a Microsoft Word or PowerPoint document 50 years from now. On the other hand I would be very surprised if this usenet exchange we're having doesn't outlast both of us. Responding to the rest of your post, as well, I just don't think it's important to worry about hundreds of years. You are stating an unqualified opinion, as though it were factual. The fact is that countless archivists and digital libraries are struggling with this problem, and there is no solution on the horizon. Well, let me qualify my opinion then (yes, it is certainly a personal opinion). I was talking about personal photos. If I were trying to preserve the US Constitution or the Leaning tower of Pisa or gigabytes of data from the Mars rovers, I agree that is a whole different ballgame. Those artifacts are worth millions of dollars. I quoted exper articles in my previous posts, and you have just dismissed them with a wave of the hand, and have suggested that there is no problem with archival storage with today's media and file formats. Tell that to the Library of Congress and they'll laugh at you. It is irresponsible to suggest to an inquirer that he should, essentially, "just burn it onto CD." I didn't mean it is safe to just burn to a CD and leave it there forever, only that the ubiquity of the media ensures a nice, long transition period. I think the transition period for CDs (maybe it has already begun) will be longer than for 3.5" disks, which was much longer than for 5.25" disks, and so on, because computers have become so ubiquitous, and the need for improvement is decreasing. Here is what I do. I have two computers, and one makes nightly backups to the other. Periodically, I copy my data to CDs. When I visit my parents, I take a copy of my backup CDs and leave them there. I expect to switch to DVD soon. My wife puts prints of our favorite photos into scrapbooks - not all of them, but perhaps our favorite dozen or 20 photographs each year. As a whole, I think this system is reasonable and I expect it to work, but my crystal ball is no better than anybody else's. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Big Bill" wrote in message ... If that's Jim McGee's article as he http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm Sorry about that--you are correct, it WAS the VividLight article that I was referring to. I think he's working under some false impressions. One of the worst is where he talks about the development time and money needed to continue to put CD reading capability into future DVD drives. That's just wrong; the R&D's already been done. He cites a couple of examples where compatibility was maintained for a short time as one format transitioned into another. Later, the compatibility was withdrawn. His point was that manufacturers will make what is cheapest, and they will not necessarily build in backward compatibility once it is unnecessary to do so. (Remember the Canon breech mount? Or 78 RPM records? By the late 60s, most high fidelity turntables were playing 33 and 45 only.) The point is that we must not ASSUME that what exists now will survive well into the future, especially if the technology improves and makes today's technology obsolete. (I wish I could still get mercury batteries for my Spotmatic meter. . .) It's just a matter of bringing *already present* technology into the new DVD drives. This is being done now, and costs are still going down for the new drives; obviously, including the ability to read CDs isn't the financial burden he makes it out to be. They are compatible NOW--no contest on that point. There is no assurance that they will be compatible 30 years from now. In fact, I'd be surprised if DVDs still exist as they do now. The trend is to make everything smaller. We'll probably be storing files on media no bigger than a postage stamp in the next 20 years. Believe me, they will NOT try to make that kind of media backward compatible with today's CDs. It's easy to predict failure, but will the failure he predicts actually come about? I doubt it, at least not as he predicts. The archivist must take stock of the risks. Otherwise he runs the risk of preserving today's information is a way that cannot be decoded easily. There is already an obscure (but growing) field called "Digital Archaeology." Technicians are trying to read obsolete file formats and convert them to current ones. And we are talking about a technology that is no more than 50 years old! If we are having these problems NOW, imagine what it will be like in 50 more years? Yes, there are formats that aren't being used anymore; however, there are *years* of overlap, giving pleanty of time to do the transfer. That is a very short time, when we are talking about a long term time horizon. I have no doubt that big institutions will be able to decode old files, but the typical consumer will probably just throw the showbox full of obsolete media into the trash, rather than mess with it. The other problem that even institutions face is how to cope with the demands of migrating an ever-increasing amount of files. What if there is a budget crunch? Will they continue to commit money and labor to keeping that old stuff alive? They never really had to deal with this before--they just housed the original books, manuscripts, photos in a building (like a library) and it could just sit there. Perhaps they had to provide some temperature and humidity controls (what did libraries do before they had air conditioning? The material still managed to survive). The fact is, if you search the literature, you will find that our most prestigious institutions are struggling with this problem. And the amount of digitized information continues to grow exponentially. They can't cope with what they have now, and they will have many times more of it within just a couple of years. My point is that many amateur photographers are under the mistaken impression that they are creating digital images that will last a lot longer than did the analog prints that their parents and grandparents made. They do not take into consideration that their work will require maintenance (migration of file format and media format) as time progresses. One woman in an online genealogy group boasted that she had just completed a project of scanning all her important family historical documents--birth and death certificates, newspaper clippings, obituaries, marriage certificates, photographs--and she finished by saying that she had shredded and disposed of all the paper originals. I cringed when I read that. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike F" writes:
In general, I agree with what you are saying, but would add a comment here -- when doing the "double copies" thing, use different brands of media for the copies. Good point. And that also guarantees you separate manufacturing batches, which you might not be able to verify otherwise. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeremy" writes:
My own solution is to do my important stuff on film. I use digital for short-time-horizons of under 5 years. And on important digital images, I do have OFOTO make prints on silver halide paper, and I keep them in archival albums. I have tons of CDs, with digital images on them, and I have no reason to think that they will survive long-term. It is a pity that this problem has not been solved yet. Um, what do you mean by "silver halide paper"? To me that refers to one particular approach to making silver-gelatine B&W paper. And Ofoto offers no such service that I've ever found. They print on ordinary chromgagenic color materials -- which have rated lives on the order of 1/5 to 1/10 the rated lives of CD-Rs. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
timeOday writes:
5.25" disks were never in widespread usage compared to CDs today. Computers themselves weren't in widespread usage them compared to now. True enough. Besides, things change. 20 years ago home computers couldn't even display photorealistic images (Amiga HAM mode notwithstanding), and there were a huge number of different manufacturers of incompatible computers and media. The technology has matured a lot. Yes. In the late 60s you could look back at the previous 30 years in aerospace and honestly say that *everything* had changed. That's how long it took to go essentially from biplanes to landing on the moon. Now, a little over 30 years later, we're still using airplanes very similar to the late 60s. Yes and no. There are *still* people flying wood-and-fabric airplanes, as a hobby. And there are still A&P mechanics certified to repair them. And that's *another* 40 years down the road. I cannot say for sure that's hapenning to computers, but I think it is. I think it *has*. I think CDs and jpeg and tiff and ASCII are the "wood and fabric airplanes", though -- which look like they're going to be supported on into the forseeable future. After reading the "Dirty little secret" article, I realize the author and I are looking at the same information and coming to different conclusions. I don't dismiss the author's opinions, I'm just stating some reasons why I think he may be mistaken on some things. On other things, I think he's right on, for instance I would *not* have confidence in being able to read a Microsoft Word or PowerPoint document 50 years from now. On the other hand I would be very surprised if this usenet exchange we're having doesn't outlast both of us. Absolutely agree on those two. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NYT article - GPS tagging of digital photos | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 4 | December 22nd 04 07:36 AM |
Top photographers condemn digital age | DM | In The Darkroom | 111 | October 10th 04 04:08 AM |
Photo Preservation for Chemical & Digital Photographs (Product Info) | Steven S. | In The Darkroom | 7 | February 5th 04 11:30 PM |
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 |