The Digital Elephant

"Ken Hart" wrote in message
...
The way I preserve digital data is to email it to a friend and ask them to
forward it to someone else, who forwards it to someone else, etc...
BTW, everyone here should soon be getting a bunch of "How many ___ does it
take to change a lightbulb?" emails shortly! Just forward them to someone
else!

Hmmm. I think if it fits comfortably in email, much of the detail was
already destroyed. However, I do like the natural selection aspect. Maybe
our focus can be on preserving images worth keeping. Other people can be
much more heartless when they get near the bottom few GB on their drives.

The way I preserve digital data is to email it to a friend and ask them
to
forward it to someone else, who forwards it to someone else, etc...


I used to fret over the question of archival preservation, too. But I've
become more comfortable with the prospects of digital preservation.

1: No camera takes photos that last forever. Film, slides and silver halide
prints all eventually deteriorate or get thrown away by the millions.

2: More photos are being taken today than at any previous time in history.
Some of them will survive.

3: Those that do survive will be able to be reproduced with no color
degradation, since the issue of photo dye shifting and fading does not
affect digital images.

4: Manufacturers and archives are pouring big dollars into research and
development to resolve this problem. I doubt that we, as a society, will
sit back and allow all of our images to just vaporize into thin air, before
we finally get around to solving the preservation issue.

5: Kodak recommends making prints of important images, and storing them
under proper conditions for long-term preservation. That is good advice.
We can store both the digital file AND the resulting prints if we so choose.

In short, those that want to preserve their images, and are willing to put
some effort into it, will be able to do so--probably better than if they had
just negatives and prints. Film-based photography produced only one
negative or slide per image, unlike digital, where one can clone the image
file as many times as desired, and can store those files in multiple
locations. And one can always make more prints, and store them in multiple
locations, too. And it can be done more easily and more cheaply than it
could if the images were film-based.

No one has a crystal ball, but I feel fairly content with the prospects of
future generations seeing our images.

Jeremy wrote:

4: Manufacturers and archives are pouring big dollars into research and
development to resolve this problem. I doubt that we, as a society, will
sit back and allow all of our images to just vaporize into thin air, before
we finally get around to solving the preservation issue.


Really? You must not be a subscriber to Ambrose Bierce? P.T. Barnum?
or whoever, who said "No one ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of the American public." If we as a society sat back and
let ourselves be gulled into going to war in Iraq believing that we were
fighting the war on terror, why should anyone think we'll use any better
judgment with regard to preservation of images?

No one has a crystal ball, but I feel fairly content with the prospects of
future generations seeing our images.

In article ,
LR Kalajainen wrote:

Jeremy wrote:

4: Manufacturers and archives are pouring big dollars into research and
development to resolve this problem. I doubt that we, as a society, will
sit back and allow all of our images to just vaporize into thin air, before
we finally get around to solving the preservation issue.


Really? You must not be a subscriber to Ambrose Bierce? P.T. Barnum?
or whoever, who said "No one ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of the American public." If we as a society sat back and
let ourselves be gulled into going to war in Iraq believing that we were
fighting the war on terror, why should anyone think we'll use any better
judgment with regard to preservation of images?

No one has a crystal ball, but I feel fairly content with the prospects of
future generations seeing our images.

Don't feel bad; only a little better than half the country was gulled.
Its not like, we are all idiots.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"LR Kalajainen" wrote in message
...


Really? You must not be a subscriber to Ambrose Bierce? P.T. Barnum?
or whoever, who said "No one ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of the American public." If we as a society sat back and
let ourselves be gulled into going to war in Iraq believing that we were
fighting the war on terror, why should anyone think we'll use any better
judgment with regard to preservation of images?

Sounds like you wanted to vent your frustration with America, not post a
reasoned response.

What does Iraq have to do with digital archiving?

In article t,
"Jeremy" wrote:

Sounds like you wanted to vent your frustration with America, not post a
reasoned response.

What does Iraq have to do with digital archiving?

Hum well the same could be said about digital archiving
what's it got to do with Medium Format photography,....
since we are interpolating I guess Larry can say what he wants
to make his point.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

This doesn't even begin to approach a "vent." That we are a society
driven by an inordinate trust in technology, susceptibility to
advertising, and a slavish need for the next new thing is hardly even
debatable it's so obvious. That these factors play into the present
demise of film-based photography is the point at issue. I have no doubt
that millions of dollars will be expended eventually on attempting to
extend the life of digital images, but there are industries out there
whose future depends on obsolescence and cross-product incompatibility,
and I just think it's a shame that so many allow themselves to be
sucked into going with the flow--the market flow-- without
consideration or even awareness in many cases, of what the consequences
are likely to be. And I do think that photo magazines are so tied to
their advertisers that they, intentionally or not, end up becoming
shills for the manufacturers, and so are reluctant to really dwell on
the downside--image longevity and inaccessibility creep.


Jeremy wrote:

"LR Kalajainen" wrote in message
...


Really? You must not be a subscriber to Ambrose Bierce? P.T. Barnum?
or whoever, who said "No one ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of the American public." If we as a society sat back and
let ourselves be gulled into going to war in Iraq believing that we were
fighting the war on terror, why should anyone think we'll use any better
judgment with regard to preservation of images?



Sounds like you wanted to vent your frustration with America, not post a
reasoned response.

What does Iraq have to do with digital archiving?

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:53:14 -0500, LR Kalajainen
wrote:

This doesn't even begin to approach a "vent." That we are a society
driven by an inordinate trust in technology, susceptibility to
advertising, and a slavish need for the next new thing is hardly even
debatable it's so obvious. That these factors play into the present
demise of film-based photography is the point at issue. I have no doubt
that millions of dollars will be expended eventually on attempting to
extend the life of digital images, but there are industries out there
whose future depends on obsolescence and cross-product incompatibility,
and I just think it's a shame that so many allow themselves to be
sucked into going with the flow--the market flow-- without
consideration or even awareness in many cases, of what the consequences
are likely to be. And I do think that photo magazines are so tied to
their advertisers that they, intentionally or not, end up becoming
shills for the manufacturers, and so are reluctant to really dwell on
the downside--image longevity and inaccessibility creep.


Getting back to digital cameras rather than life
in general... you don't seem to acknwledge that
they do in fact offer quite a few advantages,
particularly for the "casual" consumer -- the
storage and "archivability" issues notwithstanding.

I'm not sure what industries you might be refering
to whose future depends on "cross-product incompatibility."
Care to expound on that?

As far as media being "shills for the manufacturers,"
this isn't a new phenomenon, is it.

Still and all, we haven't had a good anti-digital
rant for a while, so carry on...


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

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
LR Kalajainen wrote:

If we as a society sat back and
let ourselves be gulled into going to war in Iraq believing that we were
fighting the war on terror, why should anyone think we'll use any better
judgment with regard to preservation of images?

Don't feel bad; only a little better than half the country was gulled.
Its not like, we are all idiots.


:-)

And I bet that half will be the ones who also wonder where all the pictures
of their children and vacations etc disappeared to.
--

Stacey

LR Kalajainen wrote:

That these factors play into the present
demise of film-based photography is the point at issue.

Being honest here; as much as I LOVE mechanical film cameras, being back in
control of the look of my images without having to deal with the color
darkroom is why I'm shooting digital. It has nothing to do with buying
what's popular or being sold on some "great technology". While the
technical perfection of a larger print isn't as good as a nice medium
format shot, the end result is ending up much more like what I
previsualized =more= of the time. YMMV

--

Stacey