The Digital Elephant

Recently, rafe bustin posted:

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

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.
[...]

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

This is pretty easy, rafe. Just about every product is dependent on
proprietary components. You can't put an oil filter from a Ford Explorer
on a Focus. The software industry has long relied on proprietary file
formats and limited backwards compatibility with *their own* products. For
example, InDesign CS can't save files in InDesign 2.x format; QuarkXPress
6.x can't save files in any XPress format earlier than version 5, and
doesn't reliably open earlier XPress format documents.

While it's understandable that feature sets may restrict the opening of
newer formats from older versions of software (which is really a design
issue, as some software has done it right -- earlier versions of
Framemaker can open documents from newer versions, and those features that
are missing are simply ignored), there is little reason why newer versions
couldn't have the ability to save to earlier version formats beyond the
desire to force people into upgrading.

I don't see LR's comments as being an anti-digital rant so much as an
expansion of "The Digital Elephant" theme. Yes, digital photography has
its benefits for certain uses. Archival applications just don't happen to
be in the list of those benefits.

Neil

Recently, Stacey posted:

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

So... the issue for you is being able to manage a color darkroom? I fully
understand, which is why I have relied on pro photo labs for the last
decade or two. IMO, color wet-work is best done under very tightly
controlled conditions, and those doing it full-time have a much better
chance at establishing and maintaining those conditions.

OTOH, getting images to end up more like one's previsualization is a
matter of building the skill set to control those images, and I don't see
that prerequisite being different for digital than it is for film, only
the particular skills vary.

Regards,

Neil

Why not shoot with film, negative or transparency, and then scan the
negs to make your digital pints; at least you still have something
"hard" to go back to when they fade. Your negs will still be around.

Stacey wrote:

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

No, I don't like or want to manage a color darkroom. When I do print
color, whichisn't often anymore, it's Ilfochrome, which doesn't demand
much modification of my darkroom, processes, or even chemical formulas.
I mix my own Ilfo developer, which is essentially just a modified B&W
developer, and then use Ilford's bleach and fix. I don't even mind the
notion of making digital prints. I make a few myself, though haven't
invested in the high-end film scanners or high-end printers (yet). When
I do make digital, however, it always is from a negative or
transparency. That's my bottom line. The digital print may not last
more than a few years, but at least I have something tangible to begin
with and go back to.

Neil Gould wrote:

Recently, Stacey posted:



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



So... the issue for you is being able to manage a color darkroom? I fully
understand, which is why I have relied on pro photo labs for the last
decade or two. IMO, color wet-work is best done under very tightly
controlled conditions, and those doing it full-time have a much better
chance at establishing and maintaining those conditions.

OTOH, getting images to end up more like one's previsualization is a
matter of building the skill set to control those images, and I don't see
that prerequisite being different for digital than it is for film, only
the particular skills vary.

Regards,

Neil

"LR Kalajainen" wrote in message
...
This doesn't even begin to approach a "vent." That we are a society
driven by an inordinate trust in technology, susceptibility to
advertising, [... snip the good snip ...]

True, all true, however let's move on and consider how we can survive and
prosper regardless.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...

Stacey is going to the Dark Side. Let's all watch as Stacey rationalizes it
very step of the way. Look, She's in the first level of Hell now. Let's
listen in.

[...] 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.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

OTOH, getting images to end up more like one's previsualization is a
matter of building the skill set to control those images [...]

Or lowering one's expectations to match the convenience of digital.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:06:48 -0500, LR Kalajainen
wrote:

Why not shoot with film, negative or transparency, and then scan the
negs to make your digital pints; at least you still have something
"hard" to go back to when they fade. Your negs will still be around.


Works for me.

But film is generally a pain, and when digital
capture evolves to where it beats MF, I'll be
happy to go there.

Digital won't be beating LF any time soon, at
least not within my budget.


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

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:21:56 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
m...

OTOH, getting images to end up more like one's previsualization is a
matter of building the skill set to control those images [...]

Or lowering one's expectations to match the convenience of digital.


Bah. I work in digital (film scanning, mostly)
because it gives me far better control over my
prints than I could ever achieve in the darkroom.

And this experience isn't mine alone, I've cited
many pros and well known masters of photography
who've gone the same route.


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

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


[Neil Gould:]
This is pretty easy, rafe. Just about every product is dependent on
proprietary components. You can't put an oil filter from a Ford Explorer
on a Focus. The software industry has long relied on proprietary file
formats and limited backwards compatibility with *their own* products. For
example, InDesign CS can't save files in InDesign 2.x format; QuarkXPress
6.x can't save files in any XPress format earlier than version 5, and
doesn't reliably open earlier XPress format documents.

While it's understandable that feature sets may restrict the opening of
newer formats from older versions of software (which is really a design
issue, as some software has done it right -- earlier versions of
Framemaker can open documents from newer versions, and those features that
are missing are simply ignored), there is little reason why newer versions
couldn't have the ability to save to earlier version formats beyond the
desire to force people into upgrading.


Compatibility issues often arise as new technology
is introduced, and often are introduced deliberately
for competitive reasons.

Long term, though, survival in the marketplace depends
on standards and interoperability. Digital imaging
(for example) would not have flourished if it were not
for a set of very clearly defined file formats.

Proprietary designs can only last so long on their own
technical merits.

Having built a number of PCs, I'm amazed at the degree
and level of interchangeability of the components involved.


I don't see LR's comments as being an anti-digital rant so much as an
expansion of "The Digital Elephant" theme. Yes, digital photography has
its benefits for certain uses. Archival applications just don't happen to
be in the list of those benefits.


And I'm not denying the importance of this issue.
It is a critical one. OTOH, given the current
trends, it's inconcievable to me that decent
solutions won't be found in the near future.

I've had a number of experts recommend DAT tape
drives to me, of late. I was (am?) mildly skeptical
but the recommendations were strong and unequivocal.
The hardware isn't cheap ($500 or so for 20/40G drives)
but not astronomical either.



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