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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument
Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument,
there's one glaring error in his argument. He asserts that because digital formats change (true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. Now, if one is discussing images made on physical media (film), there *is* the distinct possibility that the image will be rendered unusable through time because of physical degradation of the image. (Witness movies on nitrate stock and color negatives or slides with unstable dyes.) And in the case of digital media, there is always the possibility that the image will become unreadable because of *physical* degradation of the media (tape, magnetic disc, optical disc, etc.) However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. I do know something about this, having worked for a computer media conversion and duplication company for 13 years. In that one small company alone, there exists the ability to read many obsolete digital formats (meaning both the equuipment and the software to decipher the data and deliver it in a usable form): specifically, 9-track tape (remember the old movies with the computers with the spinning tape drives?) and floppy disks, including the old 8" monsters. I'm confident that even data on paper tape could be read; someone, somewhere, has a paper-tape reader connected to his S-100 system (running CP/M), or some other moldy oldie. And if not, a reader could pretty easily be cobbled together. The point is that humanity doesn't collectively forget its own obsolete recording formats, just because something new comes along. Sure, the old formats fall into disuse and become difficult to use, but not impossible. Why, in this very house, I can right now play 78 rpm records if I like, or 45s even. I can also read all of my old 5-1/4" floppies on my computer. I'd like someone to try to name a data storage format (either physical medium or data format) that they think cannot be read today. -- Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message ... Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument, there's one glaring error in his argument. He asserts that because digital formats change (true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. Now, if one is discussing images made on physical media (film), there *is* the distinct possibility that the image will be rendered unusable through time because of physical degradation of the image. (Witness movies on nitrate stock and color negatives or slides with unstable dyes.) And in the case of digital media, there is always the possibility that the image will become unreadable because of *physical* degradation of the media (tape, magnetic disc, optical disc, etc.) However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. I do know something about this, having worked for a computer media conversion and duplication company for 13 years. In that one small company alone, there exists the ability to read many obsolete digital formats (meaning both the equuipment and the software to decipher the data and deliver it in a usable form): specifically, 9-track tape (remember the old movies with the computers with the spinning tape drives?) and floppy disks, including the old 8" monsters. I'm confident that even data on paper tape could be read; someone, somewhere, has a paper-tape reader connected to his S-100 system (running CP/M), or some other moldy oldie. And if not, a reader could pretty easily be cobbled together. The point is that humanity doesn't collectively forget its own obsolete recording formats, just because something new comes along. Sure, the old formats fall into disuse and become difficult to use, but not impossible. Why, in this very house, I can right now play 78 rpm records if I like, or 45s even. I can also read all of my old 5-1/4" floppies on my computer. I'd like someone to try to name a data storage format (either physical medium or data format) that they think cannot be read today. The oldest media you are dealing with is probably the 9 track data recordings. How old are they? probably not more than about forty years, if that. In order to read them you need to have the transport, heads that match the format, and know what the format is. This is quite different from "reading" still photographs, which requires no equipment other than the eye, even for negatives. Motion pictures are more difficult if one requires reproducing the motion but the subject matter is also visiblel to the eye with no help (other than perhaps a magnifyer). Also viewer and projector technology has not changed fundamentally in over a century and is still used. More difficult will be the recovery of data from formats as common as floppy discs. It will probably be possible but will require the construction of suitable reproducers. While a floppy drive is very cheap now it won't be when they are no longer made and must be constructed as a single specialty item. The fact is that recovery of archived material on photographic film requires little specialized equipment while digital data will always require a lot of specialized equipment. It is difficult to predict the future of technology. Usually, predictions are based on extrapolating from current technology but there is no way to predict a "break through" based on new scientific discovery. Science and technology are different in a very fundamental way: science is the discovery of natural laws or principles; technology is the application of known laws or principles. It is also possible that computer technology will eventually reach some sort of equilibrium. It is still a new art (IMHO) which means it is changeing rapidly, but that rate of change may itself change in the future. Here again is an unpredictible factor because we don't know what discoveries may be made which may accelerate change. Certainly digital archiving will become more reliable in the future because it has to in order to be useful. Other forms of electronic storage than digital have also suffered from rapid change in technology. When I started in the TV business 2 inch segmented scan video tape recorders were common. Now they are found only in specialty dub houses for the purpose of recovering material recorded on that format. The example of a 78 disc is trivial. Cylinder recordings are perhaps a more apt example of old technology which yields recoverable data but cylinder recordings were never used for long and are comparitively few against disc recordings. Now, having said all this basically I disagree with the original premise that electonic images are not photography. They obviously are despite any argument about longevity. -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/16/2004 1:51 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message ... Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument, there's one glaring error in his argument. He asserts that because digital formats change (true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. [...] However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. The oldest media you are dealing with is probably the 9 track data recordings. How old are they? probably not more than about forty years, if that. In order to read them you need to have the transport, heads that match the format, and know what the format is. This is quite different from "reading" still photographs, which requires no equipment other than the eye, even for negatives. Motion pictures are more difficult if one requires reproducing the motion but the subject matter is also visiblel to the eye with no help (other than perhaps a magnifyer). Also viewer and projector technology has not changed fundamentally in over a century and is still used. More difficult will be the recovery of data from formats as common as floppy discs. It will probably be possible but will require the construction of suitable reproducers. While a floppy drive is very cheap now it won't be when they are no longer made and must be constructed as a single specialty item. The fact is that recovery of archived material on photographic film requires little specialized equipment while digital data will always require a lot of specialized equipment. [more good stuff snipped] Everything you say is so; my point was simply that it will undoubtedly be possible to read digital images, even from obsolete media and formats, in the future. You pointed out that it may be difficult to do so, which is true. But it will still be possile. -- Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/16/2004 1:51 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message ... Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument, there's one glaring error in his argument. He asserts that because digital formats change (true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. [...] However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. The oldest media you are dealing with is probably the 9 track data recordings. How old are they? probably not more than about forty years, if that. In order to read them you need to have the transport, heads that match the format, and know what the format is. This is quite different from "reading" still photographs, which requires no equipment other than the eye, even for negatives. Motion pictures are more difficult if one requires reproducing the motion but the subject matter is also visiblel to the eye with no help (other than perhaps a magnifyer). Also viewer and projector technology has not changed fundamentally in over a century and is still used. More difficult will be the recovery of data from formats as common as floppy discs. It will probably be possible but will require the construction of suitable reproducers. While a floppy drive is very cheap now it won't be when they are no longer made and must be constructed as a single specialty item. The fact is that recovery of archived material on photographic film requires little specialized equipment while digital data will always require a lot of specialized equipment. [more good stuff snipped] Everything you say is so; my point was simply that it will undoubtedly be possible to read digital images, even from obsolete media and formats, in the future. You pointed out that it may be difficult to do so, which is true. But it will still be possile. -- Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/16/2004 1:51 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus: The fact is that recovery of archived material on photographic film requires little specialized equipment while digital data will always require a lot of specialized equipment. [more good stuff snipped] Everything you say is so; my point was simply that it will undoubtedly be possible to read digital images, even from obsolete media and formats, in the future. You pointed out that it may be difficult to do so, which is true. But it will still be possile. Sure but if it's going to cost hundreds of bucks per image to recover them, how many will be recovered? BTW I have some paper tapes from a 1970's wang machine, know someone who can read them for the same cost as looking at the photo's I took at the same time? :-) -- Stacey |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/16/2004 1:51 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus: The fact is that recovery of archived material on photographic film requires little specialized equipment while digital data will always require a lot of specialized equipment. [more good stuff snipped] Everything you say is so; my point was simply that it will undoubtedly be possible to read digital images, even from obsolete media and formats, in the future. You pointed out that it may be difficult to do so, which is true. But it will still be possile. Sure but if it's going to cost hundreds of bucks per image to recover them, how many will be recovered? BTW I have some paper tapes from a 1970's wang machine, know someone who can read them for the same cost as looking at the photo's I took at the same time? :-) -- Stacey |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The question is, David, why you are behaving like a troll
and cross posting this out of context when the relevant and original thread for this subject was posted (by me) only in rec.photo.darkroom. Anyone who wants to read my reply should read it there, since I'm not about to carry on the same discussion over multiple nsgs. Guess some people simply have too much time on their hands... David Nebenzahl wrote: Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument, there's one glaring error in his argument. He asserts that because digital formats change (true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. Now, if one is discussing images made on physical media (film), there *is* the distinct possibility that the image will be rendered unusable through time because of physical degradation of the image. (Witness movies on nitrate stock and color negatives or slides with unstable dyes.) And in the case of digital media, there is always the possibility that the image will become unreadable because of *physical* degradation of the media (tape, magnetic disc, optical disc, etc.) However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. I do know something about this, having worked for a computer media conversion and duplication company for 13 years. In that one small company alone, there exists the ability to read many obsolete digital formats (meaning both the equuipment and the software to decipher the data and deliver it in a usable form): specifically, 9-track tape (remember the old movies with the computers with the spinning tape drives?) and floppy disks, including the old 8" monsters. I'm confident that even data on paper tape could be read; someone, somewhere, has a paper-tape reader connected to his S-100 system (running CP/M), or some other moldy oldie. And if not, a reader could pretty easily be cobbled together. The point is that humanity doesn't collectively forget its own obsolete recording formats, just because something new comes along. Sure, the old formats fall into disuse and become difficult to use, but not impossible. Why, in this very house, I can right now play 78 rpm records if I like, or 45s even. I can also read all of my old 5-1/4" floppies on my computer. I'd like someone to try to name a data storage format (either physical medium or data format) that they think cannot be read today. -- Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The question is, David, why you are behaving like a troll
and cross posting this out of context when the relevant and original thread for this subject was posted (by me) only in rec.photo.darkroom. Anyone who wants to read my reply should read it there, since I'm not about to carry on the same discussion over multiple nsgs. Guess some people simply have too much time on their hands... David Nebenzahl wrote: Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument, there's one glaring error in his argument. He asserts that because digital formats change (true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. Now, if one is discussing images made on physical media (film), there *is* the distinct possibility that the image will be rendered unusable through time because of physical degradation of the image. (Witness movies on nitrate stock and color negatives or slides with unstable dyes.) And in the case of digital media, there is always the possibility that the image will become unreadable because of *physical* degradation of the media (tape, magnetic disc, optical disc, etc.) However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. I do know something about this, having worked for a computer media conversion and duplication company for 13 years. In that one small company alone, there exists the ability to read many obsolete digital formats (meaning both the equuipment and the software to decipher the data and deliver it in a usable form): specifically, 9-track tape (remember the old movies with the computers with the spinning tape drives?) and floppy disks, including the old 8" monsters. I'm confident that even data on paper tape could be read; someone, somewhere, has a paper-tape reader connected to his S-100 system (running CP/M), or some other moldy oldie. And if not, a reader could pretty easily be cobbled together. The point is that humanity doesn't collectively forget its own obsolete recording formats, just because something new comes along. Sure, the old formats fall into disuse and become difficult to use, but not impossible. Why, in this very house, I can right now play 78 rpm records if I like, or 45s even. I can also read all of my old 5-1/4" floppies on my computer. I'd like someone to try to name a data storage format (either physical medium or data format) that they think cannot be read today. -- Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Knoppow wrote: recordings. Now, having said all this basically I disagree with the original premise that electonic images are not photography. They obviously are despite any argument about longevity. They obviously are not, Richard, since 1. the process are different and produce different results. 2. Digital silicon sensors do not and cannot produce a photograph. What they do produce is a voltage based on the photoelectric effect. This is then regenerated into digital signals that are then used to output reproductions of those signals. At no time during this process is there an optical image nor any photograph. A photograph is an image produce by the direct action of light. Digital does not do this nor can it. The physics don't allow it. 3. The ISO standard states definitively digital still cameras produce a signal that _represents_ still pictures, not actual pictures. As I've pointed out in my posts in rec.photo.darkroom (now being cross posted and the discussion deliberately taken out of context...), people need to look at the processes to determine what digital is vs. what photography is. Looking at the end result is misleading, since in our society the words photo and photographic have come to idiomatically mean any image we see. But as we all well know calendars, though we call them photos/photographs, are not. They are offset reproductions. Simialrly paintings are pictures, but they are not photographs. Digital produces pictures and reproductions, but there is no original photograph created by digital imaging. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Knoppow wrote: recordings. Now, having said all this basically I disagree with the original premise that electonic images are not photography. They obviously are despite any argument about longevity. They obviously are not, Richard, since 1. the process are different and produce different results. 2. Digital silicon sensors do not and cannot produce a photograph. What they do produce is a voltage based on the photoelectric effect. This is then regenerated into digital signals that are then used to output reproductions of those signals. At no time during this process is there an optical image nor any photograph. A photograph is an image produce by the direct action of light. Digital does not do this nor can it. The physics don't allow it. 3. The ISO standard states definitively digital still cameras produce a signal that _represents_ still pictures, not actual pictures. As I've pointed out in my posts in rec.photo.darkroom (now being cross posted and the discussion deliberately taken out of context...), people need to look at the processes to determine what digital is vs. what photography is. Looking at the end result is misleading, since in our society the words photo and photographic have come to idiomatically mean any image we see. But as we all well know calendars, though we call them photos/photographs, are not. They are offset reproductions. Simialrly paintings are pictures, but they are not photographs. Digital produces pictures and reproductions, but there is no original photograph created by digital imaging. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RANT- Reality Check-"The Early Days of Digital Photography" | Drifter | Digital Photography | 40 | October 9th 04 12:02 AM |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr) | Thad | Digital Photography | 466 | September 8th 04 07:33 PM |
2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr) | Thad | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 3rd 04 04:03 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |