film vs digital in washington times

it's an interesting article with quite a few good points made by those interviewed.

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040...5521-5280r.htm

(Mike Henley) wrote in message . com...
it's an interesting article with quite a few good points made by those interviewed.

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040...5521-5280r.htm

Quoted from the above-referenced article:

" However, printing gives tangibility to the images through the
negatives and prints, Ms. Feerick says.
"Whether it's a good or bad negative, most people keep it. With
digital, they're not going to do that," she says, adding that she is
"concerned with that sense of loss of images," whether they are
personal or historical.
"What's going to happen to visual history?" she asks. "

It will be more aesthetically appealing to view.

For example, if a photographer happens upon a group of space aliens
who have landed he will photograph said aliens. If the aliens are
leisurely hanging out the photographer can check his image for visual
appeal then reshoot if necessary. If they get back in their flying
saucer and leave quickly the photographer still has the original image
he captured.

I don't see the great difference between the digital and film approach
in Feerick's quote. I have a plethora of negatives I will never ever
print, but they all still take up space in my archives. These are the
types of images I delete with digital; when in doubt of a digital
image it gets burned to a CD along with the obvious keepers. Where is
the harm?

Michael

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
it's an interesting article with quite a few good points made by those
interviewed.

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040...5521-5280r.htm
Without getting into which is better, the final point about permanence of
prints is one thing that also concerns me. I have family historical
photographs that were taken over 100 years ago. Sure they have deteriorated
somewhat, but they are still visible. They have had nothing done other than
the print being kept inside an album for the last 100 years. The photos I
take with film today will still be around in 100 years, assuming I put them
in an album where they won't accidently be thrown out. Again they will have
faded a bit, but will still be visible. I wonder if the digital photos I
take today will still be viewable in 100 years. If I took digital photos 20
years ago, and put them on the data standard of 20 years ago - 5.25"
floppies, and put them in my attic, I would now not be able to view them.
If I put photos on CDR or DVDR now, put them in the attic, will I be able to
view them in 20, 50 or 100 years? The only way to guarantee the longevity
of digital photos is to constantly re-copy them to whatever the new media
is. Digital is a bit of an all-or-nothing affair - if you can access the
file you get it 100% perfect, but if anything goes wrong it is 100% lost.
Working in a computer field, it is amazing how many clients lost all their
digital photos when they had a hard drive crash - all their precious
memories were entrusted to a failure-prone piece of electronics. It would
take a fire or similar drastic event to have the same consequences with
film - certainly an event that is much rarer than a hard drive failure.

I don't see the great difference between the digital and film approach
in Feerick's quote. I have a plethora of negatives I will never ever
print, but they all still take up space in my archives. These are the
types of images I delete with digital; when in doubt of a digital
image it gets burned to a CD along with the obvious keepers. Where is
the harm?

Michael


AAahhhh but, you see, you have them nonetheless, on the shelf. Later on, say
100 years from now after you're long gone, those images you don't like now will
have historical value to your descendants and others. Same with other people.

The problem with digital though, even if they backup on CDs, is that most
people are not aware of the "CD rot" problem. CDs are not durable, and
especially now that they've become a commodity bought in a 100 tubs, the
quality standards have fallen horribly. The majority of people think a CD is a
CD, regardless of brand. And yet, most don't even backup unless they have to.

Only idiots read the Washington Times or the New York Post. Only teh brain
dead write for those papers. Only the true losers base their decisions on
anything they read in those papers.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"street shooter" wrote in message
om...
(Mike Henley) wrote in message
. com...
it's an interesting article with quite a few good points made by those
interviewed.

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040...5521-5280r.htm

Quoted from the above-referenced article:

" However, printing gives tangibility to the images through the
negatives and prints, Ms. Feerick says.
"Whether it's a good or bad negative, most people keep it. With
digital, they're not going to do that," she says, adding that she is
"concerned with that sense of loss of images," whether they are
personal or historical.
"What's going to happen to visual history?" she asks. "

It will be more aesthetically appealing to view.

For example, if a photographer happens upon a group of space aliens
who have landed he will photograph said aliens. If the aliens are
leisurely hanging out the photographer can check his image for visual
appeal then reshoot if necessary. If they get back in their flying
saucer and leave quickly the photographer still has the original image
he captured.

I don't see the great difference between the digital and film approach
in Feerick's quote. I have a plethora of negatives I will never ever
print, but they all still take up space in my archives. These are the
types of images I delete with digital; when in doubt of a digital
image it gets burned to a CD along with the obvious keepers. Where is
the harm?

Michael

From: "Tony Spadaro"
Date: 19/06/2004 17:49 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id: m

Only idiots read the Washington Times or the New York Post. Only teh brain
dead write for those papers. Only the true losers base their decisions on
anything they read in those papers.


What do you read?

"Justin Thyme" wrote in message
...
Without getting into which is better, the final point about permanence of
prints is one thing that also concerns me. I have family historical
photographs that were taken over 100 years ago. Sure they have
deteriorated
somewhat, but they are still visible. They have had nothing done other
than
the print being kept inside an album for the last 100 years.

Ironically, the recent digital discussion here centers around printing. Not
*if* they can be printed, but how best to coax out the last unnoticeable
detail. We also periodically discuss print longevity, both for optical and
digital. We're not far enough into the future yet to add insights to the
already voiced uncertainties.

I just mean to say digital can be printed just as easily as film. The
archiving problems are thus the same, modulo unquantified differences in the
keeping qualities of the respective materials. To confuse things even more,
I believe that some, if not most or all, mini-lab prints are from scans.

"MikeWhy" wrote in message
m...
"Justin Thyme" wrote in message
...
Without getting into which is better, the final point about permanence
of
prints is one thing that also concerns me. I have family historical
photographs that were taken over 100 years ago. Sure they have
deteriorated
somewhat, but they are still visible. They have had nothing done other
than
the print being kept inside an album for the last 100 years.

Ironically, the recent digital discussion here centers around printing.
Not
*if* they can be printed, but how best to coax out the last unnoticeable
detail. We also periodically discuss print longevity, both for optical and
digital. We're not far enough into the future yet to add insights to the
already voiced uncertainties.

I just mean to say digital can be printed just as easily as film. The
archiving problems are thus the same, modulo unquantified differences in
the
keeping qualities of the respective materials. To confuse things even
more,
I believe that some, if not most or all, mini-lab prints are from scans.
But one of the key differences with digital compared to film, is that you
only print the ones you think are worthy of printing. For many people that
is only a very tiny proportion of the photos they take. With film, unless
you request development only, you get a print of everything. Even if you
request development only, you have a negative of everything which is just as
long lasting (if not longer) as a print. Who's to say that the 99% of
digital photos you don't print, aren't going to be of historical
significance in 100 years.

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...
From: "Tony Spadaro"
Date: 19/06/2004 17:49 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id: m

Only idiots read the Washington Times or the New York Post. Only teh
brain
dead write for those papers. Only the true losers base their decisions on
anything they read in those papers.


What do you read?
He probably reads newsgroups exclusively - nuff said.

In article , "Justin Thyme"
wrote:

"MikeWhy" wrote in message
m...
[...]

But one of the key differences with digital compared to film, is that you
only print the ones you think are worthy of printing. For many people that
is only a very tiny proportion of the photos they take. With film, unless
you request development only, you get a print of everything.

Who in his right mind has prints made from every frame?