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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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