Predictions - longevity of MF film

See, berry users just tend to slap together dozens of drawings of
sabertooths and antelope and are done without any thinking. I like to
stare at the cave wall with my pool of water and bit of charcoal and
compose and frame and perfect a wooly mammoth. Sure you can combine
several of your mediocre berry juice animal drawings for a competant
hunting scene that can cover an entire cave wall, but my charcoal wooly
mammoth is a big enough icon to offer sacrifices to.

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:04:57 -0600, "Mike King"
wrote:

And 127 is still (somewhat) available 20+ years after the cameras were
discontinued.


Last I checked it was around $10 a roll. Why bother?



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe b wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:04:57 -0600, "Mike King"
wrote:


And 127 is still (somewhat) available 20+ years after the cameras were
discontinued.



Last I checked it was around $10 a roll. Why bother?

Well, if it fits in a camera that you want to use ...

rafe b wrote:


And to add insult to injury, dSLRs don't even sound right
when you smush 'em, I hear. But seriously.

That sounds like the old argument about why bagpipes are better than banjos.

rafe b wrote:


The "137 other advantages" mostly have to do with
the abstract and ethereal nature of a digital image.
If you can't dig that, I have to wonder what you were
doing in IT all those years.

Nope, I can't dig it. "abstract" and "ethereal" are two things
I refuse to mix in with IT. Sorry...

And anyway, this is rpeMF, and the natives get
annoyed when I preach The Gospel of The Full
Frame CCD.

If only... So far, two Canons. And preciously nothing else...

With my digicams, the ongoing cost nearly
disappears. No lab-stops, no scanning. Too easy.

But a lot of Photoshop nights wasted tweaking this and that?


Except for this one thing. When digitally-captured
images are gone, they are effing gone. Pfft!

To me there is much worse. All those low-rez jpgs I was told
to do back in 98-99 "to save disk space", are an absolutely
unrecoverable POS nowadays. I scanned some old 110
negatives the other day and they were more usable than any
of the jpgs I took from my kids back then. And there isn't the
slightest problem with the 35mm negatives taken at the same time.
In fact, I still have some 1950s K25 and K64 slides taken by
Dad who are as good as new today.

So when it comes to longevity, I'm still in two minds about
digital: too many variables, too many ifs and buts. I wonder what's
gonna happen to all those folks taking RAW digital images off
proprietary camera formats with camera software when in a few years
time the programs refuse to run in their 64-bit computers?
Hmmmm, fun fun fun...

Ah yes: did I mention my first digital camera is now
worth $10 at epay? It's 6 years old. My Nikon F is worth
$200, it's 45 years old. I'm trying to figure out real hard
why I should invest good money after bad on the "convenience"...

Noons wrote:
rafe b wrote:


The "137 other advantages" mostly have to do with
the abstract and ethereal nature of a digital image.
If you can't dig that, I have to wonder what you were
doing in IT all those years.

Nope, I can't dig it. "abstract" and "ethereal" are two things
I refuse to mix in with IT. Sorry...

And anyway, this is rpeMF, and the natives get
annoyed when I preach The Gospel of The Full
Frame CCD.

If only... So far, two Canons. And preciously nothing else...

With my digicams, the ongoing cost nearly
disappears. No lab-stops, no scanning. Too easy.

But a lot of Photoshop nights wasted tweaking this and that?


Except for this one thing. When digitally-captured
images are gone, they are effing gone. Pfft!

To me there is much worse. All those low-rez jpgs I was told
to do back in 98-99 "to save disk space", are an absolutely
unrecoverable POS nowadays. I scanned some old 110
negatives the other day and they were more usable than any
of the jpgs I took from my kids back then.
Wow those must be some pretty bad jpgs if 110 looks better.



slightest problem with the 35mm negatives taken at the same time.
In fact, I still have some 1950s K25 and K64 slides taken by
Dad who are as good as new today.

So when it comes to longevity, I'm still in two minds about
digital: too many variables, too many ifs and buts. I wonder what's
gonna happen to all those folks taking RAW digital images off
proprietary camera formats with camera software when in a few years
time the programs refuse to run in their 64-bit computers?
Hmmmm, fun fun fun...
I agree fully here, anyone who is only storing the raw files is asking
for trouble, I always keep a jpg as well. Raw formats may come and go
but jpg will be here long after I am gone.

why I should invest good money after bad on the "convenience"...


I depends on how many photos you take and what you do with them. Most
of us have found that we need control in the printing of the photos or
they don't tend to come out so go. Using film this means I scan the
negatives (or slides), adjust as needed and there is normally a lot of
adjustment needed and them up load to Costco for printing, I can check
a box when I get them printed telling Costco not to do any "fixing" of
the photos.

Scanning takes a long time figure 5 minutes / photo, it could well me
more then that. That means a roll 36 exposure roll of fillm will take
about 180 minutes to scan or 3 hours for that roll of film. At my
going rate I can pay for a good DSLR in the time it take me to scan and
fix 6 rolls of film.

I don't know about what other have found but I have found that it is
best to scan the negative soon after getting the film processed, I have
negatives that are less then 5 years old that are pretty faded, Kodak
Gold 100-6, since I know someone will ask.

I have some Agfa XRG 200 that is even worse.

I have some Kodachrome that is over 20 years old that is fine, but I
did not shoot everything with Kodachrome.

So scanning is not something that I find I can put off for long, as
each year that goes by makes it that much more of a challange to get a
good image off the negatives.

Scott

Scott W wrote:

Wow those must be some pretty bad jpgs if 110 looks better.

Yup. But back then, the digital camera maker recommended
it as the setting "to save disk space". I should have given
it some thought! (grumble,mumble)

I'm using TIFF with lossless compression for everything now.
Reasoning is: if it's been around for 15 years, it might actually
last as a file format?

negatives (or slides), adjust as needed and there is normally a lot of
adjustment needed and them up load to Costco for printing, I can check
a box when I get them printed telling Costco not to do any "fixing" of
the photos.

Sure. But it all depends on what the workflow is for each of us,
no? For example: my snapshot flow is to drop the film in the morning,
collect it at lunchtime: I ask for negative uncut, images on cd, proof
print. Costs me next to nothing compared to a full print set.
Then at home I can pick and chose what gets printed "quick and dirty".

And what I really want to keep if any. These get scanned from the
negative with all the quality I can get. And go into a cd. And that's
it.
All negatives get stored in proper folders, of course.

Then we have the flow for when I go out on my own (same problem
with the wife here...) to "make" photos. That means simply a drop
by the lab with a single instruction: "develop uncut strip".
And that's it. When I get home, I then spend some time looking
at the slides or negatives, pick what I want to print nice, scan it,
and archive the rest.

Ie, I never end up scanning ALL images in all rolls. No way. Life
is too short for that. But the ones I scan usually end up as 8x10
prints for the family, friends, around the house, etc.

As for the cost of time: if I had planned on including that in the
first place, I would never have gotten into photography. The way I
figure
it is: instead of wasting my time in a darkroom like I used to, I now
seat at the computer, scan the images and play for as long as
I like. No cost anywhere within this equation.

Of course: I am an amateur. If I was a pro, cost of image manipulation
would be a major concern and time to scan would of course be relevant.
That's why so many pros have gone digital, I guess?

But amateurs? Quite frankly, if I can save a bundle in gear by
spending
some time scanning, it doesn't bother me in the least. As I said
befo
digital is fine but its price entry point for anyone with an investment
in
film gear is absolutely horrendous. It'd cost me nearly 10 grand to
gear
up from film to full digital at this stage. No way I'm willing to
spend that
much on gear that will be obsolete in two years when the alternative
is sit at the computer every once in a while (heck, I already do that
every night anyway!) and scan a few photos. Not a problem at all for
me. YMMV, IMHO, etcetc of course.


I have some Agfa XRG 200 that is even worse.

Yup, all brown here as well. And don't even mention
the CT18 stock! I can't find a SINGLE blue in them underwater images,
makes it awfully difficult to convince anyone they were taken while
diving!
By contrast, all the Ekta and KC stuff is excellent. So are
most of the fuji slides and negatives. Some are near
20 years old, others like I said date back to the 50s.

So scanning is not something that I find I can put off for long, as
each year that goes by makes it that much more of a challange to get a
good image off the negatives.

Absolutely: that is a very good point. I've given up on most
of the stock that is damaged. Probably due to my fault,
although the Agfa ones I can't see what I did wrong.
But I won't be scanning everything. By now I've worked out
what lasts and what doesn't. Only these get scanned,
as well as the really good stuff.

Ah yes, and the 110 snapshots! I really want to get rid of
all that rubbish!

Scott W wrote:
[snip]
I agree fully here, anyone who is only storing the raw files is asking
for trouble, I always keep a jpg as well. Raw formats may come and go
but jpg will be here long after I am gone.
[snip]

DNG is a raw format that is likely to be around in decades to come. The
"Sustainability of Digital Formats Planning for Library of Congress
Collections" identifies DNG as the preferred, indeed only, raw format.
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/f...ferences.shtml

It makes sense to back-up both the raw data plus later forms that have
had a lot of work done on them. DNG is the best contender for storing
the raw data.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Barry Pearson wrote:
Scott W wrote:
[snip]
I agree fully here, anyone who is only storing the raw files is asking
for trouble, I always keep a jpg as well. Raw formats may come and go
but jpg will be here long after I am gone.
[snip]

DNG is a raw format that is likely to be around in decades to come. The
"Sustainability of Digital Formats Planning for Library of Congress
Collections" identifies DNG as the preferred, indeed only, raw format.
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/f...ferences.shtml

It makes sense to back-up both the raw data plus later forms that have
had a lot of work done on them. DNG is the best contender for storing
the raw data.
I would agree that DNG would seem the best choice for raw archive.
I was a bit bothered by a couple aspects of the LIbrary of Congress
page, they did not come out and say it but they seem to want to pick
one format and store in that, I have nothing against storing in DNG,
JPG2000 and TIFF file formats, but when you want to be sure that it is
going to be able to be read 50 years from now you can't beat jpg.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
[snip]
I would agree that DNG would seem the best choice for raw archive.
I was a bit bothered by a couple aspects of the LIbrary of Congress
page, they did not come out and say it but they seem to want to pick
one format and store in that, I have nothing against storing in DNG,
JPG2000 and TIFF file formats, but when you want to be sure that it is
going to be able to be read 50 years from now you can't beat jpg.

I don't think that it is sensible to pick just one format. With film, I
personally keep both the original film, (slides or negatives), and the
final results, for example mounted prints.

I do think it is very important to back-up / archive the most raw
version possible, simply because there is most opportunity to go back
and improve things later. I have recently been doing some "strange"
things to photographs I took over 40 years ago:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/physiograms/

But I also have prints that have a lot of work in them, using pigment
inks on a printer that I don't have any more. Those prints, including
20 that got me a qualification, will never be reproduced exactly;
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photog...olios/lrps.htm

I only use JPEG for the web. And I don't consider my web images are
valuable enough to archive! (Although I do back-up my websites). I
sometimes redo them because I have grown tired of them, or realise that
I can do FAR better now. While JPEG probably has longevity, I'm not
convinced it has sufficient quality.

So: DNG + either the PSD or a TIFF-equivalent + the actual mounted
print itself.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/