Darkroom classes

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

And some haven't. We have pictures of WWI and WWII and older.

there weren't digital cameras back then.

Yes and those photos exceed the age of any digital photo.

only because digital is new.

yes and 20 year old photos are better than 20 year old digtal from the
POV of quality.

only because digital was in its infancy 20 years ago.

compare early digital photos with the very first film photos. if you
can find any, that is.

Depends on whehter you'd call it a photograph doesn't it.

if it was taken by a camera, it is a photograph. period.


A friends smart phone didn;t survive a dip in the canel.
Digital IS NOT indestructable.

nothing is.

That's the 4th time his phone has taken a dip , removing the batteries and
letting it dry out for a few days, and it springs back to life it's an old
nokia about as smart as my cats arse, ancient technolgy, and I'll admit an
iPhone would probbly stop working for good when it detected it was heading
for a dip.

buy a lottery ticket.

How does buying a lottery ticket help.

because he is exceptionally lucky for a phone to have been in water and
continue to work.

however, it will outlast film and without any degradation whatsoever.

Provided it's reguallry backed up on current media.
That's the theory as yet unproven.

what's to prove? if you have backups, you can't lose the data.

Which is why there are companies selling recovery utils.

those are for the idiots *without* backups.


only the medium on which it's stored is different.

Until viewed.

if someone put a print made from a digital camera and a print made from
a film camera in front of you, you would not be able to tell which was
which (assuming the digital image was reduced in quality to look like
film).

That is NOT the issue.

yes it is.