A thought about how film fits in our world.

[nolanr66]

[I'm sorry but nothing digital can ever hold a candle to what can be done with film.]

How does going out to dinner with your wife become a film vs digital thing? I wonder if that poor horse will ever finally get beaten to death?

 

[maderik]

Perhaps the Stewart brand link above has me thinking about heresies....

What people don't realize is that 35mm film has the equivalent of something like 40 megapixels of resolution.

Which begs the question of which film and what definition of resolution. What (B&W) film can do very well is to render very high contrast, high frequency inputs (like a test chart) and record differences as very low contrast fine lines. Is this a practical definition of resolution for pictorial purposes? Or is MTF50 better? Depending on your definition of "resolve" and the rest of your assumptions, you can use almost any number you like from 2MP to 40MP.

In the real world, it's very difficult and somewhat expensive to realize a significant portion of that theoretical resolution in useful artistic expressions. Most photographers over the age of 40 have more years experience with film than digital and the vast majority will choose digital. Why? Because even if the theoretical limits are lower, the useful limits that you can realize without extreme discipline is typically higher with digital.

Film, in general can capture a dynamic range of something like ±20 stops. (Correct me if this is wrong.)

Again, it does not matter. You cannot represent 20 stops in print or projected without extreme and artificial tonal remapping. If this were routinely possible, the split ND filter would not have been invented.

There is no digital technology that can come close to that.

Of course there is. It simply requires multiple shots and is typically called HDR. But there is a reason many deride HDR as artificial or fake looking and the same applies to extensive analog tonal compression.

The best digital cameras which cost thousands of dollars are producing just over 20 megapixels right now. Correct? The dynamic range of a digital camera is an order of magnitude smaller.

Order of magnitude usually means log10. I doubt you are suggesting digital has only 2 stops of DR. Perhaps you mean binary or of magnitude or 1/2. But that seems awfully digital of you. Again, the actual numbers will depend on your definitions as to what is distinguishable or even photographically useful. (What film does have that is difficult to replicate is the shoulders and toes of the tone curve.)

We have photographs which are more than 100 to 150 years old.

We also have prints and slides from the 50's through the early 80's that have faded into uselessness. Preserving images is a process not a destination. In both cases, it typically takes care and work to make something last.

There is just no way to say that digital photographs have anywhere near that level of permanence unless they are printed on archival media.

In theory, digital images can be preserved perfectly forever by continual media migration. But like that theoretical 40 megapixels, the reality is typically quite different.

I'm sorry but nothing digital can ever hold a candle to what can be done with film.

Don't hold that candle too close - film can be rather flammable! (Nitrate film bases: another counter example to film's natural archival properties.)

Film and digital are different media but most of photography is not about the media or even the craft of making a technically excellent print. Art is about having something to say. If you really want your work to be preserved, you need to get it collected by people with the money and interest for long term preservation, namely museums. Most of the work currently preserved that way would probably not meet the technical standards of the average apug poster!

While I'm spouting heresies, I'll take on a common one: that grain is supposed to be there. Not really: we only started seeing grain in images when we started enlarging smaller negatives in larger prints. There is no visible grain in a daguerreotype or contact printed wet plate image. If grain was uniformly good, then why have people spent so many years and research dollars in making it smaller and less obvious? Grain is simply an artifact of the process that we have come to accept and sometimes even use for expression. But if you have no tradition of grain, the idiom is meaningless and it will look artificial and ugly. What would all those photographers from the late 1800s think of our modern grainy images?

 

[Worker 11811]

We can start with the differences between a random grain image and a Cartesian arrangement of pixels. The human eye responds to each of them in a different way. Most people will tolerate much more grain in a photographic film image than they will tolerate pixelation or macroblocking in a digital image. In fact, in movies some directors or producers will purposely use a bleach-bypass process to enhance graininess (and decrease saturation, etc.) You would very rarely, if at all, find a director/producer who would intentionally increase pixelation or macroblocking in a digital movie to gain some kind of visual effect unless digital artifacting was part of the plot. (Such as in a Sci-Fi movie where a digital message transmission is experiencing interference.)

In comparing resolution and dynamic range, one has a greater continuum of possibilities with a single frame of film than with digital. One frame of film can capture more than a multiple exposure HDR can capture. Even the "Red One" digital cinema camera can only produce 4096 horizontal by 2304 vertical pixels with 11 stops of total dynamic range. It is probably possible to produce a digital image that looks as good as a frame of film but you would have to either use multiple exposures of the same scene or use extremely expensive technology. (A "Red One" digital cinema camera costs $17,000 just for the body, not including lenses, accessories and storage equipment.) Even if you equalize all that out, the ability of film to capture the dynamic range that you want in a single exposure still trumps digital. Engineers are just now working on digital sensors that have three or more groups of light sensing elements for each pixel of output. Until that gets perfected enough for wide release to consumers you'll have to use a tripod and take multiple shots of the same scene with your digital camera. That eliminates a lot of action shots or even shots of real people. We're stuck with landscapes and still life pictures until that sensor technology becomes more available. Even then, consider the cost. It will take a long time before those prices come down.

(P.S. I was thinking in powers of two. I appreciate being corrected. )

You can preserve almost anything if you are willing to spend the time and money. Even nitrate film can be preserved. Luckily, we don't have to worry about nitrate stock very much anymore. (I am a projectionist in a movie theater. I have to be on guard for nitrate. It is illegal to use nitrate film in a projection booth that is not specially outfitted for its use.) Regardless of the stock, improperly preserved images will not last very long at all. If you take care of your photos they will last longer than your lifetime and, likely your grand children's lifetimes. First off, we don't even know how long a digital image can be preserved. Second, the medium on which we store digital images is very likely NOT up to the task of long-term preservation. At this point, a home-burned CD-R is estimated to last 25 to 50 years under ideal storage conditions. The organic dyes break down. Maybe, a factory made disk that uses a glass master can last 100 years or more but how accessible is that technology? And, at what price? But, let's just assume that it is possible to burn a CD-R at home that will last more than 100 years under average conditions. In 50 years, will I still be able to retrieve those images? Will storage technology have changed in that time? Will CD-Rs be obsolete? Will you even be able to find a disk drive that will play it? Will you be able to find a computer that will be able to access that drive? However, I can still view a 100+ year old film photograph. Even if it has degraded, I can duplicate it, print it, project it and repair it. I, personally, have rescued photographs that have been through a house fire. The DVDs, video tapes and computer disks were all, pretty much, destroyed. I simply cut off the charred edges of the prints and rewashed the negatives and they were almost all saved.

Furthermore, the viewing, of photos can be done while sitting around one's living room table. It is very easy to share them among a group of people. (Printing of digital images notwithstanding.) Printing and preservation of 100 year old film images can be done in one's basement. We don't even know what it would take to resurrect a 100 year old image stored on a hard drive. It will probably be very expensive and time consuming. Don't forget, those 100 year old photos were likely made without electricity. If the electrical grid ever goes down, it will become very difficult, indeed ,to retrieve digital photos.

Do, I like digital photography? Yes! I do it all the time. I took a bunch of digital pictures last night. But I also like film. I even developed a roll of film the night before last. I view them both as tools to produce images. And, just as one would not use a screw gun to drive a nail, I think film and digital media have optimal uses. For internet and television, digital media excels where film can not but, for quality, longevity and artistic expression I still don't think you can beat film.

This would be like comparing McDonald's to a fine dining restaurant. If you want a quick snack, fast food is all right but don't even consider it if you want to take your wife out to dinner on Valentine's day!

 

[maderik]

We can start with the differences between a random grain image and a Cartesian arrangement of pixels.

Let's not. As has been pointed out, this particular horse is nothing but bones by now. A lot people have weighed the pros and cons of both and some have chosen to work in digital, some in film, and some in both. My point is that most have made a rational decision based on what works for them.

The human eye responds to each of them in a different way. Most people will tolerate much more grain in a photographic film image than they will tolerate pixelation or macroblocking in a digital image.

I was proposing the theory that this is a current cultural preference as grain has been a part of photography for the last 70 or so years. We'd need to study what humans who have no history of mechanical imaging think looks more natural. I don't know of such a study, do you?

One frame of film can capture more than a multiple exposure HDR can capture. [...] It is probably possible to produce a digital image that looks as good as a frame of film but you would have to either use multiple exposures of the same scene.

You are contradicting yourself here and multiple exposures is exactly what I was referring to as a common still digital photography technique. Yes the technique has it's limitations, but representing significant DR realistically on printed or projected media is a bigger problem.

Luckily, we don't have to worry about nitrate stock very much anymore.

We don't have to worry about obscure hard-sector disk formats anymore either. Certainly the art and science of silver-based media preservation is much more mature than digital preservation. But the state of silver-based media preservation is mature precisely because we've leaned from all of the failures. Only time can really tell what stands the test of time.

If you take care of your photos they will last longer than your lifetime and, likely your grand children's lifetimes.

Some film technologies were inherently unstable, so this is not always true.

First off, we don't even know how long a digital image can be preserved.

We don't know how long a silver image can be preserved. However, we know that some have lasted over 150 years and we can measure the rate of decay to come up with an estimate. You can do the same with digital - what's the oldest digital image? The oldest I have is from 1987 and the amount of degradation is exactly 0. It started out as a gif file on CompuServe and has been migrated from perhaps a dozen different storage devices and/or media over the past 23 years.

Second, the medium on which we store digital images is very likely NOT up to the task of long-term preservation.

So by definition, you do not depend on a single medium lasting long-term. See above.

It is very easy to share them among a group of people.

Sharing is something digital does much better. Possibly a billion people can access any of my images online. Your living room table is not that big.

If the electrical grid ever goes down, it will become very difficult, indeed ,to retrieve digital photos.

If the society collapses that far, recovering images will be rather low priority. But the one technology that has more proven lasting power than silver-based media is carbon-ink on paper. What is the most common physical expression of a digital image?

for quality, longevity and artistic expression I still don't think you can beat film.

This is a statement that I think many would agree with regardless of what they prefer to work in today. I replied to your original post because it contained a number of exaggerated statements. If you are going to start being more moderate, then perhaps we'll be in violent agreement.

 

[SilverGlow]

You could put a pile of $hit in a box, stamp the word "digital" on it and people would buy it because digital $hit is better than analog $hit.

What people don't realize is that 35mm film has the equivalent of something like 40 megapixels of resolution. Film, in general can capture a dynamic range of something like ±20 stops. (Correct me if this is wrong.) There is no digital technology that can come close to that. The best digital cameras which cost thousands of dollars are producing just over 20 megapixels right now. Correct? The dynamic range of a digital camera is an order of magnitude smaller.

Digital photography does have its benefits. It is easier to do because you don't have to master the darkroom. It is more convenient because you don't have to wait for development. You never have to worry about running out of film. Due to vast economies of scale, prices are falling all the time.

We have photographs which are more than 100 to 150 years old. The vast majority of our digital pictures are less than 1/10 that. There is just no way to say that digital photographs have anywhere near that level of permanence unless they are printed on archival media. You can not count on hard disks and digital memory chips to store photographs for long term. Not only are they just not reliable enough, they become obsolete very quickly. It would be a challenge to retrieve a photograph stored on a floppy disk just a few years ago. If you happen to have a 5-1/4 inch floppy dis, I DARE you to retrieve the data from it today. It would be a challenge! There is just no guarantee that even the best storage medium we come up with in the next few years will be able to match the permanence and longevity that we have been able to achieve with film.

I'm sorry but nothing digital can ever hold a candle to what can be done with film.

Yes, the masses will gravitate toward the convenience and economy of digital photography but I do not think film will ever go away completely.
200 years ago, people who wanted portraits of their family had to hire an artist to paint their portrait. Well, photography has largely supplanted that market but it has not disappeared completely. People who want artistic, life-size renderings of their family and friends STILL turn to portrait painters. (They often work from photographs! ) It is more expensive. It is more time consuming and good artists are harder to come by but you can STILL hire a portrait painter.

I think there will still be photography in 100 years. It will be more expensive. Fewer people will know how to do it. But people who want the quality, permanence and emotional realism that film photography can provide will still be able to do it.

In a nutshell, it will go back to being exclusively a rich-man's game.

I love and use film as much or more then the next guy, but worker, your post has so many flaws, untruths, and subjective bias and outright lies that I am overwhelmed on how to respond.

I love and prefer film but this fact will not compel me to lie, make up stories and exaggerate the qualities of film and digital mediums; I want to stay objective, factual and fair.

Film and digital are not competitors, nor does one replace the other. Surely you tire from fighting this old battle, with all this religion, emotion, and subjectivity, yea?

1. Film does NOT have 20+ stops of DR. How ridiculous to claim this!
2. There are digital cameras that nearly match B&W film in DR.
3. Like digital photography, a film shooter does not have to master the darkroom. You very conveniently didn't mention this. Film and digital shooters can master the darkroom, taking the process slow and following complex workflows, or the opposite.
4. Film cannot, has never been able, and will never better digital in archival permanence. You don't know computers, how they work, how data is stored because if you did, you would not think film to be a better archival medium. That ridiculous example about pulling data off a 20+ year old floppy disk is very lame because all one has to do is copy that file to newer better medium every 5-7 years, and the cost is extremely cheap, and the amount of "hassle" is less then making a cup of coffee in the morning. Of course the film snobs will drastically exaggerate the cost and hassle of moving files to higher capacity and more dependable, and far cheap media. They think this is "so hard and complex"....lol x 1,000!
5. There are awesome master digital shooters that can create awesome digital pictures, and no less stunning then film shooter results.

Film and digital provide the means to make great awesome art.

I really tire of the tedious lies coming from film and digital snobs equally! Both extremists/fundamentalists are terribly wrong xenophobic, and insecure.

 

[Rick A]

So, any how, Mark, it sounds like your valentine dinner with your sweetie went extremely well, and the food superb. While dining out anywhere in Durango gets my nod of approval, I will say that the can of worms this thread morphed into, turned into conversation not fit for the dinner table.
This horse is dead, let it rest in peace.

Rick

 

[markbarendt]

I agree, dead horse.

 

[benjiboy]

Okay,

So last night my wife and I went out to Valentine's day dinner.

Slow food, great experience.

Two things (besides being out with my wife) made it really special.

1 - The pace of the meal.
2 - The type of meal.

Did I mention slow. 2 1/2 hours start to finish, 8 or so small courses served one at a time with live music. It started with non-alcoholic Prickly Pear cactus bubbly, included a bread made with cattails, a scrumptious curry soup, a sorbet to die for just before the main course, and ended a chocolate coconut hot toddy. All raw and wild foods, purely vegetarian fare.

The evening was truly special because of it's pace and because it isn't normal.

(Side note - Just for giggles I tried this pace again today with more normal rations while I was working around the house and ate half my normal portions and felt very satisfied.)

The group putting this on is a non-profit and the restaurant is a small but growing concern that helps support the non-profit through good old fashioned capitalism. It is even moving from 2 to 3 days a week open. They teach cooking and about wild food gathering and I don't know what all else.

So what does this have to do with analog photography?

This restaurant is bucking the normal hurry-up trend of our world and riding on the back of the green movement, the back to the land movement, vegetarianism, and good old peace-loving liberal (hippy) thought.

My thought is that analog photography's future success is probably based on the elephants in the room that nobody is talking about, and no I'm not talking about digital, I'm talking about the lack of time we all seem to face and the changes in social interaction/communication.

My question now is "what social trends can we surf on going forward?"

I told my wife I'd booked a table for Valentines Day, she asked "where are we going for a meal ?", "meal I replied, It's a snooker table !"

 

[2F/2F]

Film fits into our world as a high-quality and economically efficient medium to produce pictures, as it always has.

Problem is that very few corporations want us to believe this...and the bulk of the spending society has eaten up what they have been feeding us for years, to the point where the damage is already done, and it is just a matter of seeing how long the remaining debris can be made use of.

 

[Van Camper]

I love and use film as much or more then the next guy, but worker, your post has so many flaws, untruths, and subjective bias and outright lies that I am overwhelmed on how to respond.

I love and prefer film but this fact will not compel me to lie, make up stories and exaggerate the qualities of film and digital mediums; I want to stay objective, factual and fair.

Film and digital are not competitors, nor does one replace the other. Surely you tire from fighting this old battle, with all this religion, emotion, and subjectivity, yea?

1. Film does NOT have 20+ stops of DR. How ridiculous to claim this!
2. There are digital cameras that nearly match B&W film in DR.
3. Like digital photography, a film shooter does not have to master the darkroom. You very conveniently didn't mention this. Film and digital shooters can master the darkroom, taking the process slow and following complex workflows, or the opposite.
4. Film cannot, has never been able, and will never better digital in archival permanence. You don't know computers, how they work, how data is stored because if you did, you would not think film to be a better archival medium. That ridiculous example about pulling data off a 20+ year old floppy disk is very lame because all one has to do is copy that file to newer better medium every 5-7 years, and the cost is extremely cheap, and the amount of "hassle" is less then making a cup of coffee in the morning. Of course the film snobs will drastically exaggerate the cost and hassle of moving files to higher capacity and more dependable, and far cheap media. They think this is "so hard and complex"....lol x 1,000!
5. There are awesome master digital shooters that can create awesome digital pictures, and no less stunning then film shooter results.

Film and digital provide the means to make great awesome art.

I really tire of the tedious lies coming from film and digital snobs equally! Both extremists/fundamentalists are terribly wrong xenophobic, and insecure.

You say digital is safer. Well, check out the following-

1. Doomsday book only lasted 15 years, stored by professionals. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning


2. Businesses losing billions of dollars (managed by professionals)
Dead Link Removed

And lets remember that losing your accounting records is serious (lots of $), not just your hobby photos. They try their best to protect data, but they still have losses.

The average digital hobbyist will throw his stuff in a drawer like he did his negs and do nothing for 25 years. When it is time for grandchildren to see the images....the negs will be there, the digital data will be lost (not migrated, improperly managed). That is the truth, some of us serious hobbyists may migrate data, but the rest never heard of it, and think a DVD lasts forever. A decade from now, we're going to see a lot of family pictures GONE, and a change in consumer attitudes when that happens.


Saved data can easily have a virus transfered to all your important disks, becoming inoperable. Migrating files works in the short run, not long run. Eventually the software and other systems have a mismatch. For example, I wrote a bunch of financial programs in BASICA 20 years ago. Try loading the BASICA language into XP, VISTA, or a modern Windows 7 machine (it won't accept it...one is 8 bit, other 64 bit)). You can migrate all those programs I wrote, but it won't do you any good.

Film is proven, digital is not. I have negs over 80 yrs old and will still be usable 150 years from now. Office scanners are always needed, and will be even better 150 years from now.

My recommendation is to believe what the statistical reports say, and not comments from non experts in here (due your own research if your photos are important to you). Remember, family photos are a one time deal, and not properly managed at all by the average snapshooter. For these type of people, film is 1000 times safer, you can do NOTHING and pull them from your attack 50 years from now and still use them. It is hard copy. It boils down to a risk, you can believe one way or the other. But starting with film and then digitizing (scanning it) gives you two types of backup (analog and digital). So this makes film the best choice for archival reasons....you then have the best of both.

To many of us are saying that digital is what the commercial guys are using. Well, it is okay for them, car advtg changes yearly, hamburger advtg changes often too....so long term permanence is not a big issue. They have there own set of needs....saving on lab/film costs due to higher volumes, short time frames to get the job done, instant results to avoid reshoots, etc....but long term permanence is not one of them in most cases. Their only interested in NOW, the fastest and cheapest approach. If you have important images you want to keep a long time, or a fine art pro, having film and the scans I believe is the safest method (it's not one or the other).

 

[SilverGlow]

You say digital is safer. Well, check out the following-

1. Doomsday book only lasted 15 years, stored by professionals. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning


2. Businesses losing billions of dollars (managed by professionals)
Dead Link Removed

And lets remember that losing your accounting records is serious (lots of $), not just your hobby photos. They try their best to protect data, but they still have losses.

The average digital hobbyist will throw his stuff in a drawer like he did his negs and do nothing for 25 years. When it is time for grandchildren to see the images....the negs will be there, the digital data will be lost (not migrated, improperly managed). That is the truth, some of us serious hobbyists may migrate data, but the rest never heard of it, and think a DVD lasts forever. A decade from now, we're going to see a lot of family pictures GONE, and a change in consumer attitudes when that happens.


Saved data can easily have a virus transfered to all your important disks, becoming inoperable. Migrating files works in the short run, not long run. Eventually the software and other systems have a mismatch. For example, I wrote a bunch of financial programs in BASICA 20 years ago. Try loading the BASICA language into XP, VISTA, or a modern Windows 7 machine (it won't accept it...one is 8 bit, other 64 bit)). You can migrate all those programs I wrote, but it won't do you any good.

Film is proven, digital is not. I have negs over 80 yrs old and will still be usable 150 years from now. Office scanners are always needed, and will be even better 150 years from now.

My recommendation is to believe what the statistical reports say, and not comments from non experts in here (due your own research if your photos are important to you). Remember, family photos are a one time deal, and not properly managed at all by the average snapshooter. For these type of people, film is 1000 times safer, you can do NOTHING and pull them from your attack 50 years from now and still use them. It is hard copy. It boils down to a risk, you can believe one way or the other. But starting with film and then digitizing (scanning it) gives you two types of backup (analog and digital). So this makes film the best choice for archival reasons....you then have the best of both.

To many of us are saying that digital is what the commercial guys are using. Well, it is okay for them, car advtg changes yearly, hamburger advtg changes often too....so long term permanence is not a big issue. They have there own set of needs....saving on lab/film costs due to higher volumes, short time frames to get the job done, instant results to avoid reshoots, etc....but long term permanence is not one of them in most cases. Their only interested in NOW, the fastest and cheapest approach. If you have important images you want to keep a long time, or a fine art pro, having film and the scans I believe is the safest method (it's not one or the other).

Your post conveniently IGNORES the 99.99% of the others that have never, and will never lose one bit of their account or anything data. The only thing your post does is show that even "pros" can make mistakes and ignore best practices.

 

[Mats_A]

SilverGlow: You are absolutely right that a digital copy will last for ever. But ONLY if you do what you prescribe.
1. Transfer to new media every 5-7 year
2. Store everyting on at least two different hard drives/DVD/CD

The problem is just what Van Camper says. Most people will not and does not do that. A large part of all pictures taken during this ,the 00:s, will be gone in 20 years.
I might not be an expert on analog photography but I have worked with computers since 1983 so I know a bit about them.

I don't have a reference for this but I have heard that even Hollywood archives their movies (even 100% CGI:s) by writing them out to three black-and-white separation negatives and archives these. If that is true then the pros at Hollywood must know something most people dont.

r

Mats

 

[nolanr66]

Cost Co claims their photo DVD will last 100 years. But will there be DVD players around to play them. My Elitechrome is supposed to last 80yrs but who will have a film scanner in 80yrs and who would spend their time scanning a bunch of old stuff anyway. . I met a guy the other day that saves his digital pictures on the memory card. He just fills them up, labels them and files them away. He say's it's cheap enough to do. I have no idea how long a memory card would last. The good news is most pictures do not need to be saved for a particularly long time. I figure pictures that are meant to be saved will be saved and the ones that people do not care about will drop aside.

 

[clayne]

2. There are digital cameras that nearly match B&W film in DR.

Bullshit. You understanding nothing about non-linear curves and what makes analog mediums special. Digital cannot offer DR compression and is entirely limited by the raw input to the sensor (try exposing for the shadows and "developing" for the highlights with your silicon wafers). Seriously, look this sh*t up before you get back on here and refute everyone while stroking your 5D - because it's getting old.

 

[Van Camper]

Your post conveniently IGNORES the 99.99% of the others that have never, and will never lose one bit of their account or anything data. The only thing your post does is show that even "pros" can make mistakes and ignore best practices.

Your 99.99% theory is absolutely ridiculous relative to the facts provided (on data loss by business into the billions) in the 2 links given in my previous post. This is hard to dispute, but of course you can ignore it, and everything will be just right if you wish for it.

 

[clayne]

Your 99.99% theory is absolutely ridiculous relative to the facts provided (on data loss by business into the billions) in the 2 links given in my previous post. This is hard to dispute, but of course you can ignore it, and everything will be just right if you wish for it.

I'd have to agree here as well. It's more the exception, than the norm, that end-users actually back up their data (in the correct manner at that).

 

[nolanr66]

I googled around about archival of photos and came across an article on the Vatican. The Vatican wants everything saved basically forever. Currently Tiff lossless files are the thing in addition to archiving existing photos and documents and books and such. The article mentioned a letter by Michelangelo that in spite of best efforts it is continually deterioating due to corrosive metals in the ink. The day will come when that letter will only exist in a digital file and hard copies of the digital file. The methods and equipment mentioned in the article sounded expensive. Here is the link if it may interest someone out there. For what it's worth I am using two external hard drives to hold on to my photos. I also hang onto my negs but I shoot digital more and more these days since there are no longer any labs around.

http://www.vaticanlibrary.va/home.php?pag=ufficio_fotografico&ling=eng&BC=11

 

[Van Camper]

What the Vatican uses was an interesting read. But what meets their needs vs my own or the average person are two different things I feel. They have a dept, with paid professionals. On the other hand, I do landscapes, and if I could afford film before, I certainly can now. So I rather have film, and not worry about migration, etc. The fact that it is scanned for printing adds an extra level of protection (digital copy gives me a second method of protection...so I have the best of both worlds), and I forget about it. I file once and don't go back or worry about it. For the average person not into photography, who just wants party, wedding, family, holiday photos....their is a lack of understanding regarding archiving. They store disks thinking they are safe as their DVD movies which are manufactured differently (stamped). It's tossed into a box, and forgotten. I feel sorry for the day people will be disappointed, say 20-30 yrs from now. Like I said before, Bill Gates doesn't care about archival issues like the printer industry, he only wants to advance the science of computers.....can't stop progress.

When professionals fail, then I can't help but worry about the average person.... from the link I gave earlier on the Doomsday book....." It was meant to be a showcase for Britain's electronic prowess - a computer-based, multimedia version of the Domesday Book. But 16 years after it was created, the £2.5 million BBC Domesday Project has achieved an unexpected and unwelcome status: it is now unreadable. " The special computers developed to play the 12in video discs of text, photographs, maps and archive footage of British life are - quite simply - obsolete."The book survived, the digital copy didn't...end of story.

I've had the same experience with BASICA data files, Word, and a number of other DVD disks (one failed a week later, on its first use). Even losing one important image for Ken Duncan is worth $350k in lost sales in an edition. Film isn't perfect, but it lasts at least 80 years (I have many to prove it).

Interestingly, the Vatican uses a P45 (39mp). For most of us this is not sufficient quality for pro landscape work (if priting large....at 300ppi output this is only a 27 inch print, not nearly enough)....so large format film (4x5 and up) solves that problem, and at 1/20th the cost.

The key is a high quality scanner when using film. I now use roll film backs (612) for my Horseman 45FA, and also Fotoman 617. The Nikon 9000 scanner gives amazing results when you scan the two halves of 617 film and stitch (very easy and automatic in CS3/4). When I need a more square format, I shoot twice with 612 giving me 4x5 once stitched (then scan 4 times total for both negs). When I use 617 and shoot twice, I get 4x7 format (that's 5x7 after I would crop anyways). . Using roll film means no more loading sheet film, no extra weight (a days supply fits in your shirt pocket), easier to process on reels, and at least 50% cheaper for film/processing costs, and multiple bracketing is fast (wind lever or knob).

 

[nolanr66]

I am glad you liked the article Van Camper. I thought it was pretty amazing all the stuff they are doing. The world is a funny place because last night my #3 daughter said she was going to apply for a Master's Program at UCLA and major in Library and Archival Science. I just told her to go for it and I got your back. (That means I will pay for it). So in a few years I will have an Archivist in the family. I kind of wanted a Police Officer to arrest my neighbors when they bug me. (LOL) just kidding.

You are correct that the Vatican has money that we cannot have so we just all have to decide what we want to do. Currently I have my negatives and positives and I also have the family pictures which is mostly medium format from about 1900 to 1970 and my own stuff. These days everything I am interested in gets scanned. The 35mm is scanned to about 1.5mb (photo CD's or my V500) and my Nikon D200 is about 7mb and I keep the files in two external hard drives. Also family shots are printed. My landscape pictures hardly get printed anymore because my wife say's there is to much of my stuff hanging anyway.. My #2 daughter is an Artist and is graduating from UC Berkely (go Cal) later this month. My pictures are slowly coming down and the work she gives us is going up. However she is talented and I am just a snapper. She is giving her Mom a Lithograph (deckeld paper) for Mothers Day. I am honored because my daughter is going to let me frame it. That means she thinks I am good at it. I am off work tomorrow so that will be my project. Luckily it involves a trip to Santa Cruz, Ca and a few pictures of something.

 

[Van Camper]

I am glad you liked the article Van Camper. I thought it was pretty amazing all the stuff they are doing. The world is a funny place because last night my #3 daughter said she was going to apply for a Master's Program at UCLA and major in Library and Archival Science. I just told her to go for it and I got your back. (That means I will pay for it). So in a few years I will have an Archivist in the family. I kind of wanted a Police Officer to arrest my neighbors when they bug me. (LOL) just kidding.

You are correct that the Vatican has money that we cannot have so we just all have to decide what we want to do. Currently I have my negatives and positives and I also have the family pictures which is mostly medium format from about 1900 to 1970 and my own stuff. These days everything I am interested in gets scanned. The 35mm is scanned to about 1.5mb (photo CD's or my V500) and my Nikon D200 is about 7mb and I keep the files in two external hard drives. Also family shots are printed. My landscape pictures hardly get printed anymore because my wife say's there is to much of my stuff hanging anyway.. My #2 daughter is an Artist and is graduating from UC Berkely (go Cal) later this month. My pictures are slowly coming down and the work she gives us is going up. However she is talented and I am just a snapper. She is giving her Mom a Lithograph (deckeld paper) for Mothers Day. I am honored because my daughter is going to let me frame it. That means she thinks I am good at it. I am off work tomorrow so that will be my project. Luckily it involves a trip to Santa Cruz, Ca and a few pictures of something.

When she graduates, I hope she reports back here as to the best solution with respect to archiving. For me, I don't do snaps, my art is important to me, and a digital only solution isn't proven (besides, there is no high-end digital camera that can beat 4x5 or larger sheet film and do it affordably....so film is the ONLY CHOICE for some of us, while those happy with a Canon 5DII can depend on digital only for storage. So for me film is proven (no need to worry about data migration), and if it lasted 80 years before, then it can certainly last at least that long with even better products which we have today (inlcuding longer washing compared to the old days....a reason many b/w images yellowed). Film plus a DVD (stored elsewhere) is as safe as I want to get. I don't trust using only digital as a solution. I guess this is why the Vatican has two depts (film and digital) running at the same time.

When she graduates, I hope she reports back here on the topic of archiving. For me a digital solution isn't proven, so why take the risk. For many satisfied with the quality of a 5DII, digital only for storage is one solution. But if you're into high-end photography (P65 backs don't even match 4x5 just yet) , then there is no affordable choice...film is king (cheap, and superb quality starting from 4x5 to 8x10), and combined with a high end scan I am confident I got my basis covered. I don't need to worry about data migration each time a new digital format arrives, or operating systems change, nor do I need to test if all my files will open a few years from now (with film as my primary backup I can afford to forget migration). I don't need to worry about operating systems, or a virus transferring during migration (your computer could be infected during your data transfer). I got film. If my parents negs could last 80 yrs in a shoebox, then the newer film products today should last even longer, especially when you take into account how much more concerned we are today about this issue.

Commercial guys think short term, speed and low cost rule their thinking. On the other hand look around, most into pro landscape still use film (those who aren't usually are doing calenders, or just don't care). There doesn't have to be any logic, film is proven, and cost is not an issue because you could spend 3 days looking for a perfect shot and then only expose one sheet. If we could afford film before, we certainly can now (it's just that digital makes the expression "free is good" more desirable).Commercial guys on the other hand could end up doing 1000 shots in 3 days....so cost becomes an issue. We can't look at the commercial guy and think if it is good enough for them, then it is good enough for us. They aren't shooting family photos, or art...both needing long life. A hamburger photo a year from now will be erased off their hard drive because it is old, and has no personal value. You would have to be an idiot to shoot film in this environment, it would be throwing money away when it could pay an employees wages in the business.

I can't remember who it was at the largeformat forum, but he had a $5000 job he lost because none of his copies (including the one at the cottage) would open. I guess bad data got transferred to multiple copies. Unless you open each file from 1000's on your hard drive....how can you know if they open or not. Data verfication will just tell us that both copies are identical, but not tell us if it is a good or bad file. If it were film, it would have been located easily in a file cabinet. I'll always go for hard copy.

 

[nolanr66]

When she graduates, I hope she reports back here as to the best solution with respect to archiving. For me, I don't do snaps, my art is important to me, and a digital only solution isn't proven (besides, there is no high-end digital camera that can beat 4x5 or larger sheet film and do it affordably....so film is the ONLY CHOICE for some of us,

Well I doubt there is a best solution. Probably a current and evolving solution as methods, materials etc change. I think from what I have seen from the large format it can certainly be beautiful. In Monterey Ca there is a little museum (free to view) that has photo exhibits and other types of exhibits. When they show large format exhibits it's pretty amazing. Of course the photographers are very skilled. Luckily there is a fabric/sewing store across the street. My wife heads over there and I go check out the museum. If you are having a show for your Art in my area let us Bay area folks know and we will check it out. Or do you have a book at I could see at Barnes and Noble. I was heading up their today to order Nick Brandt's book.

 

[SilverGlow]

Your 99.99% theory is absolutely ridiculous relative to the facts provided (on data loss by business into the billions) in the 2 links given in my previous post. This is hard to dispute, but of course you can ignore it, and everything will be just right if you wish for it.

I've offered no theories. I only offered facts. If a person uses best practices to archive their digital data, it will far, far out last film negatives.

When a business loses their digital data, this does not prove digital archive is bad. It just proves that that business didn't follow best practices.

I think a lot of film lovers get emotional about film to the point of being subjective, bias, and unrealistic.

I'm not one of these. I shoot 40+ rolls of Tri-X each month, and I cannot remember the last time I picked up my 5D DSLR's, and as much as I love film I'm not going to (1) get subjective with it, (2) lose sight of the prime directive: The Print, and (3) going to turn my love of film into religion.

 

[SilverGlow]

Bullshit. You understanding nothing about non-linear curves and what makes analog mediums special. Digital cannot offer DR compression and is entirely limited by the raw input to the sensor (try exposing for the shadows and "developing" for the highlights with your silicon wafers). Seriously, look this sh*t up before you get back on here and refute everyone while stroking your 5D - because it's getting old.

Bullshit. I wrote "nearly" not actually? We all agree that film provides wide DR then anything digital. For now.

Seriously, read the posts before you get back on here and refute me, while you're stroking your self - because it's getting old.

 

[clayne]

Bullshit. I wrote "nearly" not actually? We all agree that film provides wide DR then anything digital. For now.

Seriously, read the posts before you get back on here and refute me, while you're stroking your self - because it's getting old.

It's not just "nearly" - which is a weasel word anyways. Read up on sensitometry to understand the importance of curves and how that can significantly affect the look and feel of an image or be used for utilitarian purposes (such as compressing dynamic range). It's not necessary to understand the exact science - but it is necessary to understand how to take advantage of it.

You still appear to be locked into the resolution/sharpness/pixel-density frame of mind and as such ignore all of the other important aspects of analog mediums.

It's like arguing with a sharpness freak.

 

[Van Camper]

I've offered no theories. I only offered facts. If a person uses best practices to archive their digital data, it will far, far out last film negatives.

When a business loses their digital data, this does not prove digital archive is bad. It just proves that that business didn't follow best practices.

I think a lot of film lovers get emotional about film to the point of being subjective, bias, and unrealistic.

I'm not one of these. I shoot 40+ rolls of Tri-X each month, and I cannot remember the last time I picked up my 5D DSLR's, and as much as I love film I'm not going to (1) get subjective with it, (2) lose sight of the prime directive: The Print, and (3) going to turn my love of film into religion.

"If a person uses best practices to archive their digital data, it will far, far out last film negatives."

Well, what do you think these guys were doing, monkey business. These were experts, and 15 years later the data was Goooone! Please read, or wake up. And further down the same article was mentioned.... "The space agency Nasa has already lost digital records sent back by its early probes (I'd say these were important enough to protect), and in 1995 the US government come close to losing a vast chunk of national census data, thanks to the obsolescence of its data retrieval technology. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning