David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Tom Phillips <nospam777 RemoveThis @aol.com> writes:
> > David, cold stops dye layer fading. Period.
>
> Nope. Slows it down, only. Arrhenius, and all that.
You don't know what you're talking about, just as you don't know what
you're talking about with regard to digital media longevity.
Arrhenius model depends entirely on the *temperature*. Image stability
curves for all Kodak color films (based on the Arrhenius model) show
*no* dark storage dye fading at 0 degrees F. Only slight dye fading at
45 degrees F, while dye fading increases long term at 75 degrees F. This
is in line with your own stated experience, that your color films faded
in "air conditioned" room temperatures, since all air conditioning does
is maintain a temperature of about 68 degrees.
> > > And, the big point -- you can *never* reduce the loss rate to zero.
> >
> > Except that with an image on film a given lose rate doesn't
> > pragmatically affect the ability to still have and utilize a real image.
> > With digital a given lose rate means you have no image.
>
> Any analog loss rate results, eventually, in complete loss of the
> image.
No. You're wrong and also fail to grasp the issue at hand.
Loss rates in film, regardless of the degree of loss, can be *stopped*
by cold storage. That means even if you have a film image with some dye
fading or Vinegar Syndrome, it's (1) still a usable image, whereas that
same degree of loss makes a digital image completely unretrievable and
unusable, and (2) still preservable since cold storage at 0 degrees F
and lower stops the rate of loss. Even though the image stability curves
showing this are derived from a scientific testing model (reference:
"Predicting Long Term Storage Dye Stability Characteristics of Color
Photographic Products from Short Term Tests." Bard, Larson, Hammond, and
C. Packard, The Journal of Applied Photography, 1980), it ain't rocket
science. Freeze something it ****STOPS**** decay. That why we still find
Woolly Mammoths perfectly preserved in Siberian glaciers thousands and
thousands of years after they died and were frozen. And I don't know
about you, but my freezer is a lot colder than typical glacial ice, at
least minus 20 degrees F.
> > > "Real" images are something that happens in my head, and I don't
> > > really care how the data was stored.
> >
> > I beg to differ 
And so does the ISO. A real image is a tangible image
> > on film, not one "previsualized" or stored as data on a computer.
> > Example, if you scan the Mona Lisa you have a digital representation of
> > the Mona Lisa, not an actual painting. The International Organization
> > for Standardization (draft ISO 12231 Photography Electronic Still
> > Picture Imaging Terminology) in fact states that electronic cameras
> > produce digital signals which *represent* still pictures or still
> > pictures as data on removable media such as a memory cards, magnetic
> > disks, etc. Digital images are representative images, since they're not
> > real images until they are output on either paper or film.
>
> You're wrong on both points, and the ISO is irrelevant (and what you
> quote them as saying doesn't address my points at all anyway).
Spoken like a true digitalphile. Even allowing for esotericism, I think
I get it. You believe all you need to do is imagine an image in your
head for it to be a "real" image as thus captured; an "optical" image.
Sure, it's an image, but not a tangible one. The reality is, no digital
image is a real, tangible image. It's magnetic bits on a hard drive that
are translated into ones and zeros by software. Then you turn your
conputer on and software reads and displays those one and zeros as
representing the optical image you saw. Still not a "real" image,
though. CRT's don't form or project optical images, they display data in
pixel form. Then when you print it out on your inkjet it becomes a
tangible image, but since it's ink it's still not a real photograph but
a sprayed reproduction of the data it represents.
The ISO standards, btw, are determined by the same broad spectrum of
industry experts and scientists who also produce all the film, cameras,
digital silicon sensors, inkjet printers, etc. etc., that you use to
form and reproduce optical images. I'm sure they know the difference
between an optical image, a signal that represents that image, and a
tangible image. Film produces a tangible optical image, not a stored
signal. They know that a digital image is neither an optical or tangible
image as such, but rather a voltage (silicon sensors produce a voltage,
not an "image") regenerated into digital signals via an analog to
digital converter and regenerated further into stored data (ones and
zeros) which then *represent* the optical image originally formed by the
lens.
I think that addresses your point quite accurately in scientific terms.
What exactly you may mean esoterically I can't be 100% certain of.
> > > > > You over-estimate the permanence of film by a *lot*.
> > > >
> > > > No, I don't. The estimate of the permanance of film is from the
> > > > Image Permanance Institute. Get their reports and read. Thousands of
> > > > years are possible. IPI is a *nonprofit* research organization
> > > > staffed by independent scientists. Henry Wilhelm is a paid industry
> > > > consultant and mouthpiece.
> > >
> > > Henry Wilhelm is the guy who *invented* this field of expertise, and
> > > widely recognized as the premiere researcher, whereas I've never
> > > heard of this IPI group. Okay, googling I see they're a group at RIT,
> > > and I *have* heard of a group doing work in this area at RIT; but they
> > > don't have the stature Wilhelm does in the field -- and they don't
> > > disagree with him much that I've noticed, either.
> >
> > They have more stature.
>
> Not with anybody I know.
IPI is not-for-profit. They necessarily have more objectivity.
> I've also seen commercial claims based on RIT data; they just don't
> get *as much* business. Because they don't have the name to make
> their certification worth as much.
*as much* business is Wilhelm's problem. HE's paid to produce results
his clients expect.
> Yes, Wilhelm has made mistakes.
he's made mistakes because he isn't objective.
> Wilhelm doesn't work for the company polluting my water. He works for
> his own organization.
Know what an "analogy" is?
> That organization does contract testing for a
> wide range of clients, including *all* the competing manufacturers of
> quality photo materials.
Not the point. You cannot remain scientifically objective when you're
commercially paid by a company or client to produce results that company
or client expects and is paying for. That's what Wilhelm does and what
my analogy illustrated.
> > Cold dark storage ***stops*** loss. Period.
>
> That's chemical nonsense...
Hardly. It shows neither you nor what you're reading apparently know
much about chemistry, since temperature affects chemical reactions...
> > The degree of loss in a film image before storage is irrelevant,
> > since the rate of loss for magnetic media cannot be stopped at
> > all. That's the difference and why film is a better storage medium
> > for images.
>
> Film is a lousy archival storage medium for images. We're seeing that
> more and more, and that's why there's so much work in rescuing decayed
> movies
You're merely asserting your own propagandistic spin. Making unfounded
assertions is something digital geeks do a lot of. The *reason* there's
a need for motion picture film restoration is becuase all those movies
were treated badly by a profit-conscious industry who stored them
improperly without any thought to their preservation. If you throw your
silver tea serving set into a hot, dank bunker it also will decay and
need restoring. You claim doesn't mean anything.
> > I think the whole point of this discussion is film as stored will
> > outlast digital as stored.
>
> Yes, that's your claim. But it develops as we go that to actually get
> film to last any decent time at all, it requires far more difficult
> and specialized storage than digital media do.
>
> Film *as stored* is a lousy medium, which is why most people's
> color snapshots from the 60s are mostly gone now.
Magnetic hard drives are a lousier medium. CD-Rs only slightly better.
Lucky if a CD-R lasts 40 years before it's stamped layers come apart.
Real photos last forever if properly store. I have hundreds of such
snapshots. They're just fine, in as good as condition as the day they
came back from the lab.
> > With film you're only dependent on avoiding the extremes of climate
> > to maintain usable images. With digital you're dependent on the ups
> > and downs of the availablity and economics of the technology and
> > power source. In an environment where all things are otherwise equal
> > (such as your attic), an image on film *will* without doubt outlast
> > an image stored on electronic media. Perhaps by decades.
>
> CDs will probably outlast color film in untended storage.
Yet another unfounded assertion. Also note we're talking about *CD-Rs*,
not commercially pressed CD's which while more stable are prohibitively
expensive for individual storage purposes. A commercially pressed CD may
last 100 years, if the dye layers don't fade sooner. A CD-R will not.
*PLUS* the technology used to read those CD-Rs changes and is changing
at a very fast pace. Even if they somehow did last, the economics of an
industry that produces technology merely for short term profit and not
for purposeful archival storage of your precious digital images
*predicts* you won't be able to find a compact disk drive that will
actually be able to read and retrieve those 50 year old images on CD-R.
> > > By your own testimony, you can't leave color images in the attic
> > > untended either --
> >
> > But you can likely leave them there longer than you can a CD-R. 19th
> > century images have actually been found in attics that are in decent
> > viewable condition, though it's not recommended.
>
> I don't believe it. 19th century images are B&W film, which is
> immensely more stable than color film.
What you obviously don't know about 19th century photography is a lot.
There are color photographs 150 years old that are in excellent
condition. Also, most 19th century images are on plates. Film wasn't
invented until the 1880s.
> > > you said under 60 degrees and low humidity. And
> > > I've already agreed that digital archives require attention, that
> > > digital media don't work well in untended storage.
> >
> > Dark storage at about 60 - 70 F with 20 - 40% average humidity is AFAIK
> > considered adequate for normal "room" storage conditions. You're black
> > and white negatives and prints are going to last hundreds of years under
> > those conditions. Color film dye layers will fade more slowly than in a
> > hot attic, but they should still be refrigerated if the goal is to
> > actually archive them.
>
> Yea, B&W will last well in those conditions. Probably at least as
> long as a CD. (The Kodak Gold Ultima CDs, for example, are officially
> claimed by Kodak to be good for 120 years).
You're implying CDs can last as long as images on b&w film, which only
shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Black and White film
-- particularly polyester-base films, will last virtually *forever*
under those conditions.
> But I can put CDs of the photos in a dozen different places, if it's
> important.
Doesn't matter where you put them. CDs fade and come apart regardless of storage.
> > > > > The issue of having to copy "thousands of photos" is semi-bogus -- the
> > > > > new medium is nearly always larger than the old one, so you can just
> > > > > bulk-copy everything. You don't actually have to deal with each
> > > > > single image separately.
> > > >
> > > > Raw data files can be quite large. I'm not talking about low res
> > > > prosumer JPEGS.
> > >
> > > Neither am I. My scanned images are 25 megabytes and up, digital
> > > camera originals get as big as 36 megabytes.
> >
> > Mine are a lot bigger than that. A typical scanned image is 80 to 100
> > MB. If I were shooting digital, my images might routinely approach 250
> > MB. Of course it depends on the application, but I'm generally referring
> > to high end digital: Sinar, Better Light, etc., not one-shot prosumer
> > Kodak or Nikon SLRs.
>
> Interesting, digital-original images are smaller than scanned images
> for the same image quality everywhere else.
No. A typical high end digital in-camera original scan can be up to 250
MB. You're thinking strictly about one-shot prosumer imaging, which uses
a bayer pattern and interpolation to produce a low res image. I would
never use such since those images are purely software-algorithm produced
(i.e., not optically true.) If I shoot digital, I want the detail
captured by that scan to be 100% accurate and true to the optical image
as formed by the lens. To do that you have to shoot a high end system
that captures true pixels, not interpolated pixels and also offers high
enough pixels resolution to, at least a degree, overcome such scanning
limitations as Nyquist. Nyquist is a mjor limiting factor in digital
imaging, something film doesn't suffer from.
What you call "quality" is in fact a "fake" or interpolated image. One
shot prosumer "megapixel" images look good due to enormous software
interpolation and fixes, but don't and cannot record true optical images
like film does and cannot handle the high frequency detail most lenses
are capable of transmitting.
> > > > > In fact, hard drives are growing so fast that what actually makes
> > > > > sense, for individual photographers, is to keep everything online,
> > > > > with copious and frequent backups.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who stores their images in an online archive (again still
> > > > magnetic media/hard drive), is a risk taker. Such images are not "safe,"
> > > > plus you're trusting someone (or something) else to ensure the viability
> > > > of your digital images and *completely* dependent on them and the
> > > > economy of that business. And if you have to copiously and frequently
> > > > back it up (which you do since hard drives frequently fail) what's the
> > > > point? Better to photograph using a permanant media like film and then
> > > > scan. Then you have an "hard" copy original that's permanant and can
> > > > always make a digital copy.
> > >
> > > Huh? How am I trusting somebody else? I'm talking about *my*
> > > frigging hard drive sitting in *my* computer on *my* desk.
> >
> > You said "online" archiving storage options. You said it "makes sense."
> > Need to read your own words as posted 15 lines above.
>
> "Online" means live in my computer now, as opposed to "offline"
> which would mean removable media not currently in the drive. (I've
> worked in computers 34 years now).
That's not what "online" storage and archiving means in general computer
business vernacular. Online archiving as a service means storage on
someone else's system you can then access via modem. According to the
Dictionary of Computing, "Online" means an active user -- especially on
the internet.
> > > Your basement will flood first.
> >
> > And that's why we've in fact been warned about terrorists targeting
> > government and industry computer systems and power grids? Right. What
> > was that massive eastern power failure just a little while ago -- a
> > flood? Out here on the western grid we have power failures *routinely*
> > thanks to too many air conditioners and companies like Enron.
>
> Power grid issues are irrelevant to this discussion.
No, they're not. They're very relevant.
> > BTW, my basement cannot flood, as I don't live in a flood plain and only
> > get 10 inches rainfall per year.
>
> You seem to be an optimist, if not an actual fool. Your drains can
> back up, for example.
Now you're an expert contractor. The fact you must now resort to name
calling shows your arguments can't hold water.
> > > And my hard drive isn't dependent on the power grid; yanking power
> > > won't damage it (and besides it's on a UPS, so it'll get shut down
> > > gracefully).
> >
> > The need for generated power to retreive and view and use your images is
> > a need for power, regardless.
>
> Irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about archiving. A few
> minutes or even few days loss of access to the archive is irrelevant.
Obviously you do little or no commercial photographic work. That
explains a lot...
> > > > > In 750 years, there will be essentially *no* photographs
> > > >
> > > > nonsense.
> > >
> > > Wait and see.
> >
> > But you simply have no basis, scientific or otherwise, for predicting
> > that.
>
> Sure I do. And I've explained it all, but you're not interested.
Of course, everything in future will be digitized into one "Matrix."
Nothing "real" will remain. Oh, I forgot, you think cyberspace and
digitized reality *is* real. In that case, scan yourself and enjoy
> It's pretty clear that you're emotionally invested in film to the
> point where you can't bear to contemplate its death. Meanwhile, Kodak
> has pulled all R&D funding for film work. Film is nearly gone from
> photojournalism, is starting to dissappear tremendously fast from the
> wedding and portrait business, and digital is even making inroads into
> the snapshot market.
Film is a better imaging medium. Digital has a place, but cannot ever
replace the imaging abilities film posseses. The physics simply don't
allow it. But that's another discussion.
> Okay! Sounds good.
You don't sound good at all. You sound like a brainwashed digitalphile.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: Digital 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
