film vs digital in washington times

"Mike Henley" <mnhenley.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6005702b.0406181819.2b2efd80@posting.google.com...
 > it's an interesting article with quite a few good points made by those
interviewed.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040616-095521-5280r.htm</font" target="_blank">http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040616-095521-5280r.htm</font</a>>
Without getting into which is better, the final point about permanence of
prints is one thing that also concerns me. I have family historical
photographs that were taken over 100 years ago. Sure they have deteriorated
somewhat, but they are still visible. They have had nothing done other than
the print being kept inside an album for the last 100 years. The photos I
take with film today will still be around in 100 years, assuming I put them
in an album where they won't accidently be thrown out. Again they will have
faded a bit, but will still be visible. I wonder if the digital photos I
take today will still be viewable in 100 years. If I took digital photos 20
years ago, and put them on the data standard of 20 years ago - 5.25"
floppies, and put them in my attic, I would now not be able to view them.
If I put photos on CDR or DVDR now, put them in the attic, will I be able to
view them in 20, 50 or 100 years? The only way to guarantee the longevity
of digital photos is to constantly re-copy them to whatever the new media
is. Digital is a bit of an all-or-nothing affair - if you can access the
file you get it 100% perfect, but if anything goes wrong it is 100% lost.
Working in a computer field, it is amazing how many clients lost all their
digital photos when they had a hard drive crash - all their precious
memories were entrusted to a failure-prone piece of electronics. It would
take a fire or similar drastic event to have the same consequences with
film - certainly an event that is much rarer than a hard drive failure.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times 

Only idiots read the Washington Times or the New York Post. Only teh brain
dead write for those papers. Only the true losers base their decisions on
anything they read in those papers.

--
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.chapelhillnoir.com" target="_blank">http://www.chapelhillnoir.com</a>
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html" target="_blank">http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html</a>
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html" target="_blank">http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html</a>
"street shooter" <michael.j.hoffman RemoveThis @att.net> wrote in message
news:2e0183f8.0406190253.3112b11c@posting.google.com...
 > mnhenley RemoveThis @msn.com (Mike Henley) wrote in message
news:<6005702b.0406181819.2b2efd80 RemoveThis @posting.google.com>...
  > > it's an interesting article with quite a few good points made by those
interviewed.
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040616-095521-5280r.htm</font" target="_blank">http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040616-095521-5280r.htm</font</a>>
 >
 > Quoted from the above-referenced article:
 >
 > " However, printing gives tangibility to the images through the
 > negatives and prints, Ms. Feerick says.
 > "Whether it's a good or bad negative, most people keep it. With
 > digital, they're not going to do that," she says, adding that she is
 > "concerned with that sense of loss of images," whether they are
 > personal or historical.
 > "What's going to happen to visual history?" she asks. "
 >
 > It will be more aesthetically appealing to view.
 >
 > For example, if a photographer happens upon a group of space aliens
 > who have landed he will photograph said aliens. If the aliens are
 > leisurely hanging out the photographer can check his image for visual
 > appeal then reshoot if necessary. If they get back in their flying
 > saucer and leave quickly the photographer still has the original image
 > he captured.
 >
 > I don't see the great difference between the digital and film approach
 > in Feerick's quote. I have a plethora of negatives I will never ever
 > print, but they all still take up space in my archives. These are the
 > types of images I delete with digital; when in doubt of a digital
 > image it gets burned to a CD along with the obvious keepers. Where is
 > the harm?
 >
 > Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times 

Justin D. "Nick" O'Thyme wrote-

 > If I took digital photos 20
 >years ago, and put them on the data standard of 20 years ago - 5.25"
 >floppies, and put them in my attic, I would now not be able to view them.
 >If I put photos on CDR or DVDR now, put them in the attic, will I be able to
 >view them in 20, 50 or 100 years?
 >The only way to guarantee the longevity
 >of digital photos is to constantly re-copy them to whatever the new media
 >is.

That is one of the better elucidations I've heard regarding this subject. As a
fan of high-end audio, I am reminded of similar problems brought forth by the
public's incessant clamoring for the digital promise of "perfect sound
forever". The obsolescence rate of all things digital is something that must
be considered in the long run.




--
Eschew obfuscation!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times 

"Justin Thyme" <pleasedontspamme.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:40d43610@news.comindico.com.au...
 > Without getting into which is better, the final point about permanence of
 > prints is one thing that also concerns me. I have family historical
 > photographs that were taken over 100 years ago. Sure they have
deteriorated
 > somewhat, but they are still visible. They have had nothing done other
than
 > the print being kept inside an album for the last 100 years.

Ironically, the recent digital discussion here centers around printing. Not
*if* they can be printed, but how best to coax out the last unnoticeable
detail. We also periodically discuss print longevity, both for optical and
digital. We're not far enough into the future yet to add insights to the
already voiced uncertainties.

I just mean to say digital can be printed just as easily as film. The
archiving problems are thus the same, modulo unquantified differences in the
keeping qualities of the respective materials. To confuse things even more,
I believe that some, if not most or all, mini-lab prints are from scans.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times 

"MikeWhy" <mikewhy.TakeThisOut@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:Lk1Bc.7251$kK7.6230@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
 > "Justin Thyme" <pleasedontspamme.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote in message
 > news:40d43610@news.comindico.com.au...
  > > Without getting into which is better, the final point about permanence
of
  > > prints is one thing that also concerns me. I have family historical
  > > photographs that were taken over 100 years ago. Sure they have
 > deteriorated
  > > somewhat, but they are still visible. They have had nothing done other
 > than
  > > the print being kept inside an album for the last 100 years.
 >
 > Ironically, the recent digital discussion here centers around printing.
Not
 > *if* they can be printed, but how best to coax out the last unnoticeable
 > detail. We also periodically discuss print longevity, both for optical and
 > digital. We're not far enough into the future yet to add insights to the
 > already voiced uncertainties.
 >
 > I just mean to say digital can be printed just as easily as film. The
 > archiving problems are thus the same, modulo unquantified differences in
the
 > keeping qualities of the respective materials. To confuse things even
more,
 > I believe that some, if not most or all, mini-lab prints are from scans.
But one of the key differences with digital compared to film, is that you
only print the ones you think are worthy of printing. For many people that
is only a very tiny proportion of the photos they take. With film, unless
you request development only, you get a print of everything. Even if you
request development only, you have a negative of everything which is just as
long lasting (if not longer) as a print. Who's to say that the 99% of
digital photos you don't print, aren't going to be of historical
significance in 100 years.
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times 

In article <40d4b793.RemoveThis@news.comindico.com.au>, "Justin Thyme"
<pleasedontspamme.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:

 > "MikeWhy" <mikewhy.RemoveThis@my-deja.com> wrote in message
 > news:Lk1Bc.7251$kK7.6230@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
 >[...]

 > But one of the key differences with digital compared to film, is that you
 > only print the ones you think are worthy of printing. For many people that
 > is only a very tiny proportion of the photos they take. With film, unless
 > you request development only, you get a print of everything.

Who in his right mind has prints made from every frame?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times 

"Justin Thyme" <pleasedontspamme.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:40d4b793@news.comindico.com.au...
 >
 > Who's to say that the 99% of
 > digital photos you don't print, aren't going to be of historical
 > significance in 100 years.

The major issue for the family photos, the kind that we have as faded B&W
images of relatives from 100 years ago, is that digital images require work
of the owner to keep them over the long haul, but film doesn't, and never
has. It will be necessary for the current owner and each subsequent owner
of the images to transfer them forward onto new, modern storage media to
ensure availablility. Film has never required this, and most of the folks I
know who shoot digital for the point-and-shoot family snapshots have not
considered this. A few have realized it, but those are the ones who have
also found they don't care for being responsibile for printing their
photos - the1-hour shop used to do that when they shot film, but now the
camera owner has to give up an expensive memory card to get prints (and hope
he gets the card back - it's amazing to me how people who've neber lost one
and don't know of anyone else who has can mistrust the prinbting system) or
stand at a kiosk and struggle with poorly designed software to make prints
himself, or buy a printer, paper, and do it at home. Very few family
snapshooters were interested in doing their own prints - they'd be nutballs
like us if they were.

Bob in Las Vegas<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times 

street shooter wrote:

 > For example, if a photographer happens upon a group of space aliens
 > who have landed he will photograph said aliens. If the aliens are
 > leisurely hanging out the photographer can check his image for visual
 > appeal then reshoot if necessary. If they get back in their flying
 > saucer and leave quickly the photographer still has the original image
 > he captured.

The obvious issue here is can the space aliens clear the contents of a digital camera? I believe that if
you're photographing space aliens, you'd be better off with film and something archival at that, like
Kodachrome or non-C41 B&W film.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times 

lots of consumers have every photo printed, and why not? It is much
cheaper to print every photo - twice with free dupe prints - than it
is to develop film, do an index sheet, select the best shots to be
printed, and then print those shots individually. The high costs are in
the human labor to remount the selected image, not the cost of bulk photo
paper rolls Dupe prints are so popular I'd be surprised if less than
half of all consumer print film (94% of market) are not printed twice

grins bobm
--
***********************************************************************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times 

This is complete crap. Film is not an archival material. Colour negative
film has a very limited life while slides and BW material are delicate and
must be maintained in decent conditions or they will deteriorate rapidly.
Fire and flood will also take a severe toll on film, as it cannot be stored
in two places at teh same time.
Anyone who thinks archiving on film only takes tossing the stuff into
glassine envelopes and coming back in 100 years to look at their treasures
is in for a big and unpleasant surprise.
--
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.chapelhillnoir.com" target="_blank">http://www.chapelhillnoir.com</a>
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html" target="_blank">http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html</a>
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html" target="_blank">http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html</a>
"JRF" <flddb.RemoveThis@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:ec3Bc.25532$0z6.22844@fed1read07...
 >
 > "Justin Thyme" <pleasedontspamme.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
 > news:40d4b793@news.comindico.com.au...
  > >
  > > Who's to say that the 99% of
  > > digital photos you don't print, aren't going to be of historical
  > > significance in 100 years.
 >
 > The major issue for the family photos, the kind that we have as faded B&W
 > images of relatives from 100 years ago, is that digital images require
work
 > of the owner to keep them over the long haul, but film doesn't, and never
 > has. It will be necessary for the current owner and each subsequent owner
 > of the images to transfer them forward onto new, modern storage media to
 > ensure availablility. Film has never required this, and most of the folks
I
 > know who shoot digital for the point-and-shoot family snapshots have not
 > considered this. A few have realized it, but those are the ones who have
 > also found they don't care for being responsibile for printing their
 > photos - the1-hour shop used to do that when they shot film, but now the
 > camera owner has to give up an expensive memory card to get prints (and
hope
 > he gets the card back - it's amazing to me how people who've neber lost on
e
 > and don't know of anyone else who has can mistrust the prinbting system)
or
 > stand at a kiosk and struggle with poorly designed software to make prints
 > himself, or buy a printer, paper, and do it at home. Very few family
 > snapshooters were interested in doing their own prints - they'd be
nutballs
 > like us if they were.
 >
 > Bob in Las Vegas
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times 

In article <ZmEBc.64317$2o2.3577467@twister.southeast.rr.com>, "Tony
Spadaro" <tspadaro.RemoveThis@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:

 > This is complete crap. Film is not an archival material. Colour negative
 > film has a very limited life while slides and BW material are delicate and
 > must be maintained in decent conditions or they will deteriorate rapidly.
 > Fire and flood will also take a severe toll on film, as it cannot be stored
 > in two places at teh same time.
 > Anyone who thinks archiving on film only takes tossing the stuff into
 > glassine envelopes and coming back in 100 years to look at their treasures
 > is in for a big and unpleasant surprise.

Well, the glassine envelope bit is true: the paste in the seam can raise
hell with negatives, and so can some plastic sleeves due to outgassing,
HOWEVER, properly fixed and washed B&W film will last a _very_ long time
with only adequate storage. Nothing fancy. It will deteriorate a lot
slower than current CDROM or DVDs.

Color film, especially positives are another story.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times 

In article <ZmEBc.64317$2o2.3577467@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Tony Spadaro" <tspadaro DeleteThis @ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:

 > Anyone who thinks archiving on film only takes tossing the stuff into
 > glassine envelopes and coming back in 100 years to look at their treasures
 > is in for a big and unpleasant surprise.

If they live that long, otherwise who cares. Certainly not Joe Blo consumer.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times 

"Tony Spadaro" posted:
"... Anyone who thinks archiving on film only takes tossing the stuff into
glassine envelopes and coming back in 100 years to look at their treasures
is in for a big and unpleasant surprise. ..."

I don't know 'bout that ...

Recently I've been going through some film shot by my father in the late 1920s through the
mid 1950s. (He was a relatively successful commercial photographer.

Guess what? Those images stored in the proverbial "glassine envelopes" were all there ...
and in GOOD condition. The early Kodachrome and Ektachrome (E1 ... no less) had some color
shifts, but nothing that couldn't be fixed with PhotoShop. And the early B&W stuff all
looked pretty much like the proof prints stored with the images.

Now here's the "kicker" ... ALL of these negatives and transparencies was stored in
conditions that were approximately "living conditions" ... NOT in "archival storage
facility" conditions.

(FWIW: I haven't gotten to the thousands of early C-41 color negatives yet ...)
 >> Stay informed about: film vs digital in washington times