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 » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Film Lover's Lament



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old March 22nd 06, 10:41 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament


"Colin D" wrote in message
...


Jeremy wrote:

snip

By the way, the Census data CANNOT be reconstructed, because the paper
original documents were destroyed, leaving only the digital data. Did
you
really think that the Census Bureau was just too lazy to go back to the
paper originals?


No, I would have thought that sifting through 200 million or so census
papers (or, if stored by State, still four or more million) was not
cost-effective, so was vetoed by government. It would have meant
comparing every paper with the digital record to find the missing ones,
a huge task. In fact, it would probably be simpler to just re-enter the
entire census again.

The original census papers were destroyed? That surprises me, Jeremy.
My wife is a genealogist, and she subscribes to various websites and
buys dozens of CD's with digitized images from old English Census
papers, going back to 1841, the year of the first real census in
England. These are still stored by the Public Records Office in
England, and have been accessed by people like Rod Neep for the purpose
of making digital records of the original papers which are then
available for all interested parties.

My own country, New Zealand, destroyed census records until some time in
the 1900's, a wanton act of vandalism IMHO, but I am totally surprised
that the USA has detroyed theirs.

Colin D.


It is a fact, nonetheless. The data is corrupt and cannot be reconstructed.
The original documents were destroyed, apparently in the belief that their
retention was just going to take up space.

There are lots of similar horror stories out there. LONG-TERM digital
archiving has its risks, and microfilm offers a robust and time-tested
solution for an alternative backup source.


  #62  
Old March 23rd 06, 12:33 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

Jeremy wrote:
It is a fact, nonetheless. The data is corrupt and cannot be

reconstructed.
The original documents were destroyed, apparently in the belief that their
retention was just going to take up space.

There are lots of similar horror stories out there. LONG-TERM digital
archiving has its risks, and microfilm offers a robust and time-tested
solution for an alternative backup source.


I am not sure where all you are going with this. Using a silver-based
film to store high contrast documents is rather different then storing
color photographs. History has already shown that color negatives do
not do at all well and slides have a limited life as well.

You make it out that digital archiving is doomed to fail but there are
a lot of people who are right now doing digital archiving and have been
for some time.

And I am not sure what you are advocating, that people not shoot
digital because they will loose their photos if they do? That people
show transfer their photos to slides as a form of backup?

In industry there are all sorts of things that never get backed up as a
hard copy. I don't know of any software company that backups up
their source code on paper. If you loose the digital version you are
pretty much hosed. Board layout is the same thing, it is all stored as
a digital file.

Mechanical designs are now all solid models and rarely backup on
hardcopy.

If a company can't safeguard their digital data these days then they
are in a world of hurt, regardless of what hard copy backups they might
have.

By the way you don't have to do so much SHOUTING. We can read lower
case just fine, if you feel the need put on of these guys in!

Scott

  #63  
Old March 23rd 06, 07:14 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

Mike wrote:
In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:

So far from personal experiance this is what I have seen.
Digital images have lasted the best,
next is prints.
next slides
last negatives.


We've had digital photography available to consumers for how long, 12
years? You're going to try to tell us that you've seen prints, slides,
and negatives deteriorate in that short period of time???? Where were
you storing them -- inside your oven or your microwave?

This has to be among your most bizarre statements yet.


I have had negatives fad in just a few years, less then 5, agfa print
film in even less.
I have had slide grow mold.
Prints do better but still are subject to some slow fading.

I have yet to lose a digital file and of course none of them have faded
at all so even if a
print only fades 1% a year the digital is still ahead.

Scott

  #64  
Old March 23rd 06, 01:26 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

"Mike" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:

So far from personal experiance this is what I have seen.
Digital images have lasted the best,
next is prints.
next slides
last negatives.


We've had digital photography available to consumers for how long, 12
years? You're going to try to tell us that you've seen prints, slides,
and negatives deteriorate in that short period of time???? Where were
you storing them -- inside your oven or your microwave?

This has to be among your most bizarre statements yet.



"Digital images have lasted the best?" Let's revisit that in another 50
years.


  #65  
Old March 23rd 06, 10:16 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament



Mike wrote:
In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:

So far from personal experiance this is what I have seen.
Digital images have lasted the best,
next is prints.
next slides
last negatives.



We've had digital photography available to consumers for how long, 12
years? You're going to try to tell us that you've seen prints, slides,
and negatives deteriorate in that short period of time???? Where were
you storing them -- inside your oven or your microwave?

This has to be among your most bizarre statements yet.


You have to remember that he is on the big island of Hawaii. I suppose
any tropical environment would be harsh for film, or even for prints. I
shudder to think what his closets and cabinets might look like,
considering all his comments about mold. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

  #66  
Old March 23rd 06, 11:10 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

So far from personal experiance this is what I have seen.
Digital images have lasted the best,
next is prints.
next slides
last negatives.


That's why I digitize my negs.

nat


  #67  
Old March 23rd 06, 11:47 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

Gordon Moat wrote:

You have to remember that he is on the big island of Hawaii. I suppose
any tropical environment would be harsh for film, or even for prints. I
shudder to think what his closets and cabinets might look like,
considering all his comments about mold. ;-)


Mold can attack any bodys slide and in so far we have not had too much
problems with it. It is rust that really gets to everything here.

A few other people also have worries about filme
http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/film.html
http://www.filmforever.org/
http://www.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/conservation/photog.html
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byauth/roosa/roosa1.html

Well the list goes on and on but there are several things to be learn,
only BW is long lasting, color all fades some faster then others.

Noboy views color slide, negatives or prints as a good long term media
for photographs.

I have had prints out last the negative, as in this case
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/55744935

I have had agfa print film go so bad in about 10 years that the color
look like total crap.

If you read about film conservation you will learn that all color film
fades, the best you can do it slow down the fading. The time to fade
is given in decades at best.

Scott

  #68  
Old March 24th 06, 12:13 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

In article LPZTf.3027$4N1.2160@trnddc06, Jeremy wrote:

"Scott W" wrote in message
groups.com...



I am not saying that digital storage does not have risks, but with a
bit of care they can
be pretty much eliminated.

Scott


The National Archives does not agree with you.

When the Clinton Administration ended, they looked for a way to archive the
millions of email messages that were on the White House mail servers. They
ended up printing them onto paper, then microfilming the paper and also
storing the paper.

The Department of Defense requires certain sensitive or critical
plans/schematics/operating instructions to be submitted on microfilm, in
addition to any other electronic format such as PDF.



To be fair to the digital guys, the Department of Defense, and the defense
and aerospace industries in general, are very conservative and tend to be
slow to commit to new technologies.


Actually, I think it has more to do with micro-fiche can be read with
absolutely no electricity.
  #69  
Old March 24th 06, 12:27 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

Jeremy wrote:

"Colin D" wrote in message
...


Jeremy wrote:

snip

By the way, the Census data CANNOT be reconstructed, because the paper
original documents were destroyed, leaving only the digital data. Did
you
really think that the Census Bureau was just too lazy to go back to the
paper originals?


No, I would have thought that sifting through 200 million or so census
papers (or, if stored by State, still four or more million) was not
cost-effective, so was vetoed by government. It would have meant
comparing every paper with the digital record to find the missing ones,
a huge task. In fact, it would probably be simpler to just re-enter the
entire census again.

The original census papers were destroyed? That surprises me, Jeremy.
My wife is a genealogist, and she subscribes to various websites and
buys dozens of CD's with digitized images from old English Census
papers, going back to 1841, the year of the first real census in
England. These are still stored by the Public Records Office in
England, and have been accessed by people like Rod Neep for the purpose
of making digital records of the original papers which are then
available for all interested parties.

My own country, New Zealand, destroyed census records until some time in
the 1900's, a wanton act of vandalism IMHO, but I am totally surprised
that the USA has detroyed theirs.

Colin D.



It is a fact, nonetheless. The data is corrupt and cannot be reconstructed.
The original documents were destroyed, apparently in the belief that their
retention was just going to take up space.

There are lots of similar horror stories out there. LONG-TERM digital
archiving has its risks, and microfilm offers a robust and time-tested
solution for an alternative backup source.



Data from the US Census is never intentionally destroyed. The Census is
required to be conducted every 10 years for the purpose of determining
representation, and the data is a historical government record.

There have been some accidents with Census data, notably the 1890 Census
which was almost completely destroyed by a fire in the Commerce
Department in 1921. Prior to the creation of the Census Bureau, the
Commerce Department was responsible for conducting the Census.
  #70  
Old March 24th 06, 12:48 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament



Jeremy wrote:

"Colin D" wrote in message
...


Jeremy wrote:

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jeremy wrote:
Kodak has gone on record recommending that
consumers consider making prints of special shots, and keeping them
stored
in archival albums, just in case their digital files are lost due to
corruption of the media they are stored on.

Funny how Kodak keeps recommending that people use their products.

There is some truth to what they say and I do make a number of prints.

So far from personal experiance this is what I have seen.
Digital images have lasted the best,
next is prints.
next slides
last negatives.

I am not saying that digital storage does not have risks, but with a
bit of care they can
be pretty much eliminated.

Scott


The National Archives does not agree with you.

When the Clinton Administration ended, they looked for a way to archive
the
millions of email messages that were on the White House mail servers.
They
ended up printing them onto paper, then microfilming the paper and also
storing the paper.


I bet they kept digital files as well, and the microfilm/paper versions
were intended as secondary backups only.

The tone of your post seems fixated on the problems of digital storage,
but there are considerable problems with physical or analog storage as
well. The sheer space requirements, indexing, and searchability issues
are major with document storage. Imagine someone saying "I remember
Bill Clinton mentioning something about xyz in an email, way back." How
would you set about finding that email in a pile of millions of email
printouts? Or on microfilm? Whereas, searching a digital archive would
return you *all* mentions of xyz in a fraction of a second, as you no
doubt know.

Basically, once the amount of data stored with hard copy or analog
methods exceeds a critical point, that data is already effectively lost,
since the effort to find a given piece is beyond the time available to
find it, and the relevance decreases with time as well. Lawyers have
this problem with case law.

The Department of Defense requires certain sensitive or critical
plans/schematics/operating instructions to be submitted on microfilm, in
addition to any other electronic format such as PDF.


Again, I would think as secondary backup.

Part of the 1970 US Census has become lost to us, because the data files
can
no longer be read. One of NASA's missions to Mars has had a portion of
its
data lost because of corrupt and unreadable digital storage.


Part of the census problem is, as mentioned above, the sheer volume of
data from hundreds of millions of people, not to mention the statistical
derivations from that data. Way back in the year 1890, Hollerith
invented a sortable system of cards with punched holes around the
perimeter, to aid in speeding up the census results. In the 1900's IBM
and others got into the act with early computers. The actual census
returns were and are still stored as paper, and whatever calculations
and statistical results are required are now done with the computer data
derived from the paper. It is simply impossible to do it any other way
within a useful timeframe.

The parts of the 1970 census you say have been lost could be recovered
from the original stored paper - if sombody had the time and necessity
to do so. And that highlights what I said earlier about that data being
effectively lost, even though it still exists.

Nasa has lost more than that Mars episode. But, is it really lost? or
is it stored in a now unreadable format? This is the same problem that
those concerned about digital archival storage keep mentioning -
compatibility lost because of neglect to transfer the data to newer
standards. If they *really* needed to read that data, they could locate
or build gear that could do it. If the effort is greater than the need,
then it won't get done.

A new paradigm is needed here. Old ideas of archiving data meant
physical storage in a controlled environment, to preserve the original
documents as long as possible. Data was not considered as being
separate from the medium on which it is stored. Data storage was
evolutionary; better climate control, inert gas storage, low-light
environment, all of which extended the life of the media, but when the
media finally becomes unusable the data is lost.

The paradigm needs to be shifted to realize that the *information*
stored is what is being kept, not the medium on which it is stored. And
if it is trivial to transport the information to new media at intervals,
then that is what should be done.

Paper will eventually decay, microfilm will eventually decay.
*Information* decays along with it. Until now. We have, with digital
storage, the capability to store data *for ever*, without decay, simply
by regular and timely transfer of data to new media. That capability,
in anyone's language, is a revolution.

Colin D.


Well, there is no point in your arguing this with ME--you should call the
various Government departments that insist upon microfilm and tell them that
they've got it all wrong . . .

You are apparently convinced that long term archiving (i.e. for centuries)
is a simple affair--one that can be easily implemented. From what I've been
reading, institutions charged with maintaining digital collections do not
seem to agree with your perspective.

While digitization clearly offers benefits for short time horizon uses,
people that a re a lot smarter than me have gone on record as saying that
there are long-term issues that have yet to be solved, and that analog
storage offers a margin of safety for the time being.

By the way, the Census data CANNOT be reconstructed, because the paper
original documents were destroyed, leaving only the digital data. Did you
really think that the Census Bureau was just too lazy to go back to the
paper originals?


Another thought occurs. (some are painful!) Way down here at the end
of the earth, the possibility of a nuclear blast is pretty remote, but I
wonder if the authorities in America are worried about a possible
magnetic pulse from a nuclear attack wiping out all magnetically-based
storage, and hence use non-magnetic storage media for archival records?
If that is the case, then microfilm would indeed seem to offer the best
medium - provided it wasn't at ground zero.

Reminds me of the report about a Russian pilot who defected with his MIG
to Japan. When they inspected his aircraft, the inspectors laughed
themselves sick at the sight of all the primitive valve-based circuitry,
not a diode or transistor anywhere.

That was until somebody realized that valves were immune to radiation
and magnetic pulses, whereas solid state ...

Colin D.
 




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
Elementary questions on film handling. Liopleurodon In The Darkroom 22 December 8th 05 07:37 AM
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital Bill Hilton Photographing Nature 15 December 8th 05 12:03 AM
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital Bill Hilton Digital Photography 1 November 28th 05 08:44 PM
What film? Art Reitsch Large Format Photography Equipment 5 November 10th 05 01:14 PM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:01 PM.


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.