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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Feinman" wrote in message ... [...] If you want a sample just try to do a search for some images on Google or Yahoo. They primarily use the file name as the key, ignoring the metadata (if any) included in the file. That's not true, Robert. Google uses plenty of other data to find photographs - from text, of course, but not even a majority of hits are on titles in many, many searches. Libraries and others are seriously concerned with these issues and have been discussing it for at least twenty years. Yes we have, and serious progress has been made. Librarians are a conservative lot on the whole - slow to implement standards as the technology is emerging. For starters, see this: http://www.xerox.com/innovation/image_categorizer.shtml |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
We can dispense with speculation regarding the ability to decode certain formats, such as JPEG, GIF and TIFF. We will always be able to do that because they are _standards_. If the image was made according to the standard, it can be unwound. The code is trivial and complete. However, there is no industry standard for hard-drive storage, and we do have some ephermeral oddball media such as Zip drives. Therein is my worry. And of course for media _standards_ must be followed when they exist. Foo upon those Macs that still screw up ISO9660!) The best digital storage is analog. -- jjs who lost his raid array 'backup' due to a fan that failed and smoked the CPU. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, jjs john@xstafford.net posted:
We can dispense with speculation regarding the ability to decode certain formats, such as JPEG, GIF and TIFF. We will always be able to do that because they are _standards_. If the image was made according to the standard, it can be unwound. The code is trivial and complete. Oh, I wouldn't bet on that, John. There are more flavors of TIFF files than one might think, and the image editors that used to be able to open and use them have been beaten out of the marketplace by Photoshop, which can't. Neil |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:17:44 GMT, "Shelley"
wrote: I do think they're being ignored, largely by the general, non-technologically-oriented public--the very people whose daily lives are of such interest to historians and archaeologists. Yes, I agree. I didn't realize you were talking about newspapers, TV, the general public, etc. when you posted your first message. Since you posted here I thought you were talking about these things being ignored here and other photo forums. But I think you're right when it comes to general consumers, many of them haven't been properly educated about the short life of CDs and some digital prints, file deterioration, etc. Of course I don't think the general public realized that traditional prints, especially color, would be lost in a few decades either so that they should save the negatives, organize them in a manner such that the negatives could be matched with the prints and reprints made, store them in a cool, dark place, etc. I'm curious about this claim traditional colour prints. Our family photo album has photographs from the early 70s (me as baby, for example) that look fine. No apparent fading or damage. They are stored in a photo album so not generally exposed to light, but there's nothing special about them apart from that. All of my own photos from school in the mid 80s - the ones I still have anyway - still look fine too. [Although now that I've been using decent 35mm and medium format cameras they all look horribly out of focus and grainy....] Do the photographs need to be exposed to light for this damage to occur? Or have we just been lucky? Matt |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Matthew McGrattan wrote: I'm curious about this claim traditional colour prints. Our family photo album has photographs from the early 70s (me as baby, for example) that look fine. No apparent fading or damage. They are stored in a photo album so not generally exposed to light, but there's nothing special about them apart from that. All of my own photos from school in the mid 80s - the ones I still have anyway - still look fine too. [Although now that I've been using decent 35mm and medium format cameras they all look horribly out of focus and grainy....] Do the photographs need to be exposed to light for this damage to occur? Or have we just been lucky? Matt Because a lot of things factor your probably lucky to an extent, Sunlight largely does contribute to fading, without a doubt in my mind. But also who processed the paper, the type of color paper and ultimately the type of book one stores ones images in will over time effect the prints. From the 70-80's EP2 papers had yellowing problems notable in the white border areas. RA papers have eliminated a lot of those issues,....but the best way to assure the image exists 200 years from now is perhaps to make it using B&W materials. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "jjs"
wrote: The way to preserve a digital image is to beam the digital signal into space via high-power laser and leave it to posterity to recapitulate the signal later. Much later. LOL. Lets beam you into space instead. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"jjs" john@xstafford.net wrote:
However, there is no industry standard for hard-drive storage, and we do have some ephermeral oddball media such as Zip drives. Therein is my worry. And of course for media _standards_ must be followed when they exist. Foo upon those Macs that still screw up ISO9660!) I'm forming the opinion that you don't copy data to the latest trendy storage device, you keep it on your hard drive and keep it regularly backed up. With the ever increasing size of hard drives you simply copy your old stuff to your new one each time you upgrade. Pete -- http://www.petezilla.co.uk |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:05:47 GMT, Gregory Blank
wrote: In article , Matthew McGrattan wrote: I'm curious about this claim traditional colour prints. Our family photo album has photographs from the early 70s (me as baby, for example) that look fine. No apparent fading or damage. They are stored in a photo album so not generally exposed to light, but there's nothing special about them apart from that. issues,....but the best way to assure the image exists 200 years from now is perhaps to make it using B&W materials. Yes, I'm sure this is the case. Although it's easier said that done. I suspect most of the prints I get back from labs - from black and white films - are produced by scanning the negative and then printing using the same type of printer used for digital prints onto colour (photographic) paper. The negatives will survive, of course, but I wonder about the prints... Matt |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Matthew McGrattan wrote: I suspect most of the prints I get back from labs - from black and white films - are produced by scanning the negative and then printing using the same type of printer used for digital prints onto colour (photographic) paper. The negatives will survive, of course, but I wonder about the prints... Matt True. Unless your paying specifically for fiber based prints or doing them your self in a darkroom your getting RC (Resin Coated paper) And a lot of labs are using the same color paper by scanning the image. To most people it won't matter until they realize there's an issue with the print, hence there is no incentive for a lab to produce a print that has a guaranteed life span,...its up to us to care. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | January 18th 05 10:01 PM |
How should I permanently store digital photographs? | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 182 | January 3rd 05 03:21 PM |
NYT article - GPS tagging of digital photos | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 4 | December 22nd 04 07:36 AM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 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 |