 |
|
|
|
Next: Choice--Rebel XT, D70, or Oly?
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Sep 20, 2004
Posts: 122
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:40 pm
Post subject: The Digital Elephant
Archived from groups: rec>photo>equipment>medium-format (more info?)
|
|
|
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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 110
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:14 pm
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
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.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 06, 2005
Posts: 26
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:40 pm
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> 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" <lrkalajainen RemoveThis @suscom-maine.net> wrote in message
news:mNKdnYkaaN5xg7PfRVn-gA@suscom-maine.net...
> 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?
>
><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 03, 2004
Posts: 1804
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:40 pm
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"rafeb" <rafe.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> 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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 07, 2004
Posts: 65
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:40 pm
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
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" <lrkalajainen.DeleteThis@suscom-maine.net> wrote in message
> news:mNKdnYkaaN5xg7PfRVn-gA@suscom-maine.net...
>
>>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?
>>
>>
>
>
><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 07, 2004
Posts: 65
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:40 pm
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
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" <lrkalajainen.TakeThisOut@suscom-maine.net> wrote in message
> news:mNKdnYkaaN5xg7PfRVn-gA@suscom-maine.net...
>
>>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?
>>
>>
>
>
><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 06, 2004
Posts: 335
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:40 pm
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Recently, David J. Littleboy <davidjl.RemoveThis@gol.com> posted:
> "rafeb" <rafe.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> 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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 04, 2004
Posts: 1156
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:35 am
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
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?
>
>
Both Kodak and Fuji have pushed for people to print their images. Both
companies state that prints are the safest way to insure that you do not
loose all your images due to a virus, computer crash, or future change in
file formats and software. Hopefully, the prints will be good enough
quality to last into the future.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 06, 2005
Posts: 26
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:40 am
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> 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" <gnnyman.DeleteThis@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:eOednSED3Z1H9rPfRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> 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" <lrkalajainen.DeleteThis@suscom-maine.net> wrote in message
> > news:mNKdnYkaaN5xg7PfRVn-gA@suscom-maine.net...
> >
> >>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?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 03, 2004
Posts: 1869
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:24 am
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 03, 2004
Posts: 1869
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:29 am
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 03, 2004
Posts: 1869
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:40 am
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> Both Kodak and Fuji have pushed for people to print their images. Both
> companies state that prints are the safest way to insure that you do not
> loose all your images due to a virus, computer crash, or future change in
> file formats and software. Hopefully, the prints will be good enough
> quality to last into the future.
>
That's really about all you can do. I've also started having "real" photo
paper prints made of good images even if the inkjet ones are nice. $3 isn't
much to pay to save the good ones "saved" as 8X10 prints and then store
them somewhere safe.
--
Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 20, 2004
Posts: 122
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:40 am
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Maybe in photo forums like this or among serious photographers, but not
very often in places like Photo Techniques or the like, which is where
it needs to be. It gets the occasional article, but the vast majority
of people that I talk to who are giving up their cameras for digital are
so enamored by the gee-whiz of the digital process that they are unaware
of the storage/longevity issues.
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.
>
>"LR Kalajainen" <lrkalajainen DeleteThis @suscom-maine.net> wrote in message
>news:mNKdnYkaaN5xg7PfRVn-gA@suscom-maine.net...
>
>
>>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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 20, 2004
Posts: 122
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:08 am
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
That's a big hope! Currently, 75-100 years is the best anyone can hope
from a digital print under ideal storage conditions according to Wilhelm
Research. Maybe they'll improve that. But I doubt they'll improve it much.
Gordon Moat wrote:
>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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Both Kodak and Fuji have pushed for people to print their images. Both
>companies state that prints are the safest way to insure that you do not
>loose all your images due to a virus, computer crash, or future change in
>file formats and software. Hopefully, the prints will be good enough
>quality to last into the future.
>
>Ciao!
>
>Gordon Moat
>A G Studio
><http://www.allgstudio.com>
>
>
>
>
><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: The Digital Elephant |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 30, 2004
Posts: 415
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:14 am
Post subject: Re: The Digital Elephant [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
