A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Digital Elephant



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 8th 05, 10:51 PM
LR Kalajainen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Digital Elephant

Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the
"elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so
frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the
present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something
no one can predict or guarantee.

Here are just a few considerations:

1. Software obsolescence: will the next generation(s) of programs be
backward compatible?.
2. Technological hardware development and obsolescence: will the next
machines render images inaccessible?
3. Media for storage; how many hard drives must one have? And even
they have a mechanical shelf-life. No CD's known to this point are
reliable long-term.
4. Digital print longevity: getting better, but nowhere near B&W
silver images.

I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect
sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what
images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now
will have to work with if film loses to digital. Photographs, among
other things, are records. We can study ancient Egypt because they
carved their hieroglyphics in stone. We can appreciate the beauty of
medieval manuscripts copied on paper with pigment inks. How will future
generations study us?


  #2  
Old March 9th 05, 12:14 AM
rafeb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



LR Kalajainen wrote:
Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the
"elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so
frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the
present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something
no one can predict or guarantee.

Here are just a few considerations:

1. Software obsolescence: will the next generation(s) of programs be
backward compatible?.
2. Technological hardware development and obsolescence: will the next
machines render images inaccessible?
3. Media for storage; how many hard drives must one have? And even
they have a mechanical shelf-life. No CD's known to this point are
reliable long-term.
4. Digital print longevity: getting better, but nowhere near B&W
silver images.

I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect
sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what
images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now
will have to work with if film loses to digital. Photographs, among
other things, are records. We can study ancient Egypt because they
carved their hieroglyphics in stone. We can appreciate the beauty of
medieval manuscripts copied on paper with pigment inks. How will future
generations study us?



AFAIK, color prints never used silver anyway, so that
argument is moot. Present day pigment inks have
excellent longevity, better than C prints and maybe
even Ciba. Good monochrome prints are done with carbon
(pigment) inks and should also have excellent longevity.

I'm not too worried about file obsolescence. There are
so many TIF and JPG files in the world -- important ones,
even -- that these will never be orphaned.

I do worry somewhat about archival digital storage media,
having been burned a bit by that in the last year or so.
For now, constant vigilance seems to be the only approach.
Make lots of copies, often. Spread 'em around, and check
them often. Beyond that, hope for the best. Nothing is
"forever" on this planet.

Long term, film is going away, and that's just a simple fact.
As more and more of our images are recorded that way, the
longevity issue will eventually be dealt with. You can bet
there are lots of research dollars going into this.

Final point. *Really* long term longevity may turn out to
be a function of the importance or value of an image, not the
original media on which it was recorded. IOW, if an image is
sufficiently important or valuable, there will be resources to
look after its safety and usability, and to transcribe it to
new media as dictated by current technology.

As Bob M. mentioned several times, a lot of digital capures
taken by casual (read: clueless) users will be lost, and are
being lost as I write this. Hopefully each such incident
will lead to some enlightenment, and eventually that sort of
loss will be minimized.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

  #3  
Old March 9th 05, 02:41 AM
Shelley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the
"elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so
frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the
present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something
no one can predict or guarantee.


Here are just a few considerations: (big snip)


Left out of the discussion so frequently? Good grief, where have you been
all these years? Everything you mention has been pointed out, talked about,
discussed, debated, argued, hashed and rehashed endlessly ad nauseum over
and over and over again here and everywhere else for years. Next you'll be
telling us about Nikon's new F2 camera.

"LR Kalajainen" wrote in message
...
Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the
"elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so
frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the
present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something
no one can predict or guarantee.

Here are just a few considerations:

1. Software obsolescence: will the next generation(s) of programs be
backward compatible?.
2. Technological hardware development and obsolescence: will the next
machines render images inaccessible?
3. Media for storage; how many hard drives must one have? And even
they have a mechanical shelf-life. No CD's known to this point are
reliable long-term.
4. Digital print longevity: getting better, but nowhere near B&W
silver images.

I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect
sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what
images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now
will have to work with if film loses to digital. Photographs, among
other things, are records. We can study ancient Egypt because they
carved their hieroglyphics in stone. We can appreciate the beauty of
medieval manuscripts copied on paper with pigment inks. How will future
generations study us?




  #4  
Old March 9th 05, 02:57 AM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"rafeb" wrote:

Final point. *Really* long term longevity may turn out to
be a function of the importance or value of an image, not the
original media on which it was recorded. IOW, if an image is
sufficiently important or valuable, there will be resources to
look after its safety and usability, and to transcribe it to
new media as dictated by current technology.


The longevity of film is vastly overrated. All it takes is one cleaning
rampage by one's parents and everything you shot in high school and college
is history. Or one fire, one flood, one mildewy summer. Or picking the wrong
building (e.g. the world trade center) to store one's archive.

As Bob M. mentioned several times, a lot of digital capures
taken by casual (read: clueless) users will be lost, and are
being lost as I write this. Hopefully each such incident
will lead to some enlightenment, and eventually that sort of
loss will be minimized.


And how many casual users manage to keep their negatives? The best you get
is a shoebox full of fading drugstore prints.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #5  
Old March 9th 05, 03:26 AM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:

"rafeb" wrote:

Final point. *Really* long term longevity may turn out to
be a function of the importance or value of an image, not the
original media on which it was recorded. IOW, if an image is
sufficiently important or valuable, there will be resources to
look after its safety and usability, and to transcribe it to
new media as dictated by current technology.


The longevity of film is vastly overrated. All it takes is one
cleaning rampage by one's parents and everything you shot in high
school and college is history. Or one fire, one flood, one mildewy
summer. Or picking the wrong building (e.g. the world trade center)
to store one's archive.

All media is subject to those hazards. The difference is that, even if one
is diligent and cognizant of the myriad issues around maintaining digital
data, the possibility that the data will be lost exists. Obsolescent media
is another issue, and one that has the potential to wipe out a good deal
of data, again without negligence or mishaps as a factor.

Regards,

Neil


  #6  
Old March 9th 05, 04:19 AM
Dr. Georg N.Nyman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Shelley wrote:
Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the
"elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so
frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the
present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something
no one can predict or guarantee.



Here are just a few considerations: (big snip)



Left out of the discussion so frequently? Good grief, where have you been
all these years? Everything you mention has been pointed out, talked about,
discussed, debated, argued, hashed and rehashed endlessly ad nauseum over
and over and over again here and everywhere else for years. Next you'll be
telling us about Nikon's new F2 camera.

Sarcasm is not really an appreciated way of communication I guess.
I support these concerns - yes, stored information can waste away ( fire
or water on film as a good example) but nothing is worse than being
aloof and thinking that everything was been pointed out, talked bout
discussed etc....Wait and see how all these wonderful digital storage
media behave in 20 or 30 years from now, if they were able to store
properly the bits and bites and if we still can read them. Tell me, how
would you suggest to read files which have been saved on an Atari
computer from the mid 80's (I am sure you know that Atari has produced
very innovative office computers at that time) - their file format is
not standard anymore, right?
What will be standard in 30 years from now? How will we be able to
retrieve visual information? I have got glass plates with travel
photographs from the late 19th century and yes, I still can print them,
reproduce them and look at them.....
rgds George


"LR Kalajainen" wrote in message
...

Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the
"elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so
frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the
present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something
no one can predict or guarantee.

Here are just a few considerations:

1. Software obsolescence: will the next generation(s) of programs be
backward compatible?.
2. Technological hardware development and obsolescence: will the next
machines render images inaccessible?
3. Media for storage; how many hard drives must one have? And even
they have a mechanical shelf-life. No CD's known to this point are
reliable long-term.
4. Digital print longevity: getting better, but nowhere near B&W
silver images.

I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect
sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what
images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now
will have to work with if film loses to digital. Photographs, among
other things, are records. We can study ancient Egypt because they
carved their hieroglyphics in stone. We can appreciate the beauty of
medieval manuscripts copied on paper with pigment inks. How will future
generations study us?





  #7  
Old March 9th 05, 04:22 AM
Dr. Georg N.Nyman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Shelley wrote:
Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the
"elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so
frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the
present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something
no one can predict or guarantee.



Here are just a few considerations: (big snip)



Left out of the discussion so frequently? Good grief, where have you been
all these years? Everything you mention has been pointed out, talked about,
discussed, debated, argued, hashed and rehashed endlessly ad nauseum over
and over and over again here and everywhere else for years. Next you'll be
telling us about Nikon's new F2 camera.


I support these concerns - yes, stored information can waste away ( fire
or water on film as a good example) but nothing is worse than being
aloof and thinking that everything has been pointed out, talked about
discussed etc....Wait and see how all these wonderful digital storage
media behave in 20 or 30 years from now, if they were able to store
properly the bits and bites and if we still can read them. Tell me, how
would you suggest to read files which have been saved on an Atari
computer from the mid 80's (I am sure you know that Atari has produced
very innovative office computers at that time) - their file format is
not standard anymore, right?
What will be standard in 30 years from now? How will we be able to
retrieve visual information? I have got glass plates with travel
photographs from the late 19th century and yes, I still can print them,
reproduce them and look at them.....
Oh, before I forget, the most recent camera from Nikon is not the F2 but
the F6, which happens to be a film camera :-))
rgds George

"LR Kalajainen" wrote in message
...

Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the
"elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so
frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the
present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something
no one can predict or guarantee.

Here are just a few considerations:

1. Software obsolescence: will the next generation(s) of programs be
backward compatible?.
2. Technological hardware development and obsolescence: will the next
machines render images inaccessible?
3. Media for storage; how many hard drives must one have? And even
they have a mechanical shelf-life. No CD's known to this point are
reliable long-term.
4. Digital print longevity: getting better, but nowhere near B&W
silver images.

I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect
sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what
images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now
will have to work with if film loses to digital. Photographs, among
other things, are records. We can study ancient Egypt because they
carved their hieroglyphics in stone. We can appreciate the beauty of
medieval manuscripts copied on paper with pigment inks. How will future
generations study us?





  #8  
Old March 9th 05, 05:23 AM
Shelley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I support these concerns - yes, stored information can waste away ( fire
or water on film as a good example) but nothing is worse than being
aloof and thinking that everything has been pointed out, talked about
discussed etc...


I think these are legitimate concerns too. That wasn't the point. I could
easily find literally thousands of messages talking about software
obsolescence, technological hardware development, and the limited life of
digital storage media, all the things this person seems to think have been
ignored. And I don't think "everything" has been pointed out, talked about,
discussed, etc., just everything that this person seems to think hasn't
been.

"Dr. Georg N.Nyman" wrote in message
...
Shelley wrote:
Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the
"elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so
frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the
present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something
no one can predict or guarantee.



Here are just a few considerations: (big snip)



Left out of the discussion so frequently? Good grief, where have you

been
all these years? Everything you mention has been pointed out, talked

about,
discussed, debated, argued, hashed and rehashed endlessly ad nauseum

over
and over and over again here and everywhere else for years. Next you'll

be
telling us about Nikon's new F2 camera.


I support these concerns - yes, stored information can waste away ( fire
or water on film as a good example) but nothing is worse than being
aloof and thinking that everything has been pointed out, talked about
discussed etc....Wait and see how all these wonderful digital storage
media behave in 20 or 30 years from now, if they were able to store
properly the bits and bites and if we still can read them. Tell me, how
would you suggest to read files which have been saved on an Atari
computer from the mid 80's (I am sure you know that Atari has produced
very innovative office computers at that time) - their file format is
not standard anymore, right?
What will be standard in 30 years from now? How will we be able to
retrieve visual information? I have got glass plates with travel
photographs from the late 19th century and yes, I still can print them,
reproduce them and look at them.....
Oh, before I forget, the most recent camera from Nikon is not the F2 but
the F6, which happens to be a film camera :-))
rgds George

"LR Kalajainen" wrote in message
...

Why, in all the arguments about digital vs. real film, does the
"elephant in the living room" get left out of the discussions so
frequently? I'm referring, of course, to the simple fact that as of the
present moment, long-term survivability of digital images is something
no one can predict or guarantee.

Here are just a few considerations:

1. Software obsolescence: will the next generation(s) of programs be
backward compatible?.
2. Technological hardware development and obsolescence: will the next
machines render images inaccessible?
3. Media for storage; how many hard drives must one have? And even
they have a mechanical shelf-life. No CD's known to this point are
reliable long-term.
4. Digital print longevity: getting better, but nowhere near B&W
silver images.

I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect
sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what
images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now
will have to work with if film loses to digital. Photographs, among
other things, are records. We can study ancient Egypt because they
carved their hieroglyphics in stone. We can appreciate the beauty of
medieval manuscripts copied on paper with pigment inks. How will future
generations study us?







  #9  
Old March 9th 05, 06:24 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

LR Kalajainen wrote:


I have no quarrel with commercial photogs who use digital; makes perfect
sense. Theirs is an ephemeral world anyway. However, I do worry what
images historians and cultural anthropologists 200-300 years from now
will have to work with if film loses to digital.


That's one reason I still shoot both.
--

Stacey
  #10  
Old March 9th 05, 06:29 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David J. Littleboy wrote:



And how many casual users manage to keep their negatives?


Most will. They have to -actively- throw away the negatives, with digital
they have to actively store them. Most people will take the easy route with
either format.

The best you get
is a shoebox full of fading drugstore prints.


Most people I know keep them in the little folder they come in and that has
the negatives along with them. I know when going through my parents old
stuff I found a box full of negatives and the prints were longs gone. These
where shot in the 1920's and still print nice.

I'm shooting some digital now and trying to be active about storage, I doubt
many casual users are. Most seem to have a hard time even downloading them
onto a computer much less archival storing them. They just take the CF card
to walmart, have prints made and erase the card.
--

Stacey
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to Buy a Digital Camera [email protected] Digital Photography 6 January 18th 05 11:01 PM
How should I permanently store digital photographs? Bill Hilton Digital Photography 182 January 3rd 05 04:21 PM
NYT article - GPS tagging of digital photos Alan Browne Digital Photography 4 December 22nd 04 08:36 AM
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 9 June 19th 04 05:48 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.