That is a fabrication of the digital world. I am concerned about archival properties because I want my work to be done properly and last a long time in frames or photographic albums. Please do not inflict your insecurities on me!
Why this talk of the archival qualities of properly fixed and toned black and white photographs? Because photographers who use film and print in the darkroom are still digging for something to distinguish their preferred process from digital imaging and printing. That's all. They don't spend much time talking up the archival qualities of color prints for instance.
An image stored digitally can be reprinted at any point in the future. Prints made in the future might even look better than those made today due to advances in printing technology. Since this is information being stored instead of an artifact, it's conceivable, but unlikely, that a digital image could last until the heat death of the universe.
... Also look at the loss of the Moon Surveyor Photographs taken before the first Lunar landing due to lose of computer tape players and the types of computers that could run the software. ...
...
yeah, that is why i should ditch all those test prints and strips if i haven't already ...
...
An image stored digitally can be reprinted at any point in the future. ...
... Also look at the loss of the Moon Surveyor Photographs taken before the first Lunar landing due to lose of computer tape players and the types of computers that could run the software. Yes we all know that Micro$oft never changes any formats.
Do you know if the majority of photos were printed?
This is critical, applies to both film and digital, and is the reason most photographers should not be worried. Look at your images as ask the question who besides you cares whether it exists or not.Someone sees value in preserving the media on which the images reside and pays to keep it there or copy it to new media. A print in a shoebox is immediately viewable and can be kept or tossed. A USB stick or DVD in a drawer cannot be viewed unless someone in the future has the interest and means to view it.
A few years back there was a massive project taken to find the last few computers and tape drives so that the tapes could be read and saved. You only saw the photographs recently because of that heroic effort. The point is without such efforts the photographs would have been lost. So much for those who think digital photographs last forever.
This is critical, and applies to both film and digital, and is the reason most photographers should not be worried. Look at your images as ask the question who besides you cares whether it exists or not.
Only if you post your shoebox of images on the web.The way one's shoe box of snaps or one's digital files will be found in the future has mostly to do with digital records...e.g. Microsoft, Google et all..who are continuously quietly updating..
What you think you almost remember was technically resolved successfully decades ago, not "a few years back". What you're inadvertently demonstrating proves the opposite of what you imagine.
As for "heroic measures", that's precisely what we what we get every day from our technology. It's getting smarter and more capable on a continual basis.
... one's digital files will be found in the future has mostly to do with digital records...e.g. Microsoft, Google et all..who are continuously quietly updating. ...
This is critical, applies to both film and digital,
you can say that again !Fate is fickle and unpredictable
A few years back covers decades in the scheme of time. You are spending all the time splitting hairs and going out of the way to understand points made by others and myself. Are naturally obtuse or do you work at it?[/QUOTE
"scheme of time" .. wow! maximum meaningless.
You are not making "points," you are repeatedly shooting yourself in the foot.
Have you seen Sony's digital theatrical release of "Lawrence of Arabia" ? If not you are out of your depth, blythely unaware of digital scans of material vastly larger than 8X10. All of your thinking is outdated. Better you should shoot film and be happy.
Google, Microsoft, et al. are not my friends. I don't want to rely on them for long term storage of my images nor entrust them with my data. If others choose to do so, that is fine.
Only if you post your shoebox of images on the web.
You need not rely on Google. If you're posting your images anywhere online they're already on the road to eternal.
and if the shoe box didn't get wet and the ink run, or the ink wasn't from inkkdadddy and it was aftermarket and not good quality or ...
personally i don't want to leave my personal archive of images in the hands of some company that will end up charging me money to view
my images seeing possession is 9/10 of the law .. at least if my goldfish holds my prints hostage i can print another without issue
They will become a needle in an eternal haystack! I think I remember reading that people are now taking more than 1 trillion ( with a "t" ) photographs per year. Mostly with their "smart" phones. So, let's say we start looking at them... maybe we can glance at 1 photo per second. After over 300,000 years we'll have seen the first year's worth of photos....You need not rely on Google. If you're posting your images anywhere online they're already on the road to eternal.
Both teams stink in my opinion... now lets go leafs.
whoever that was was brilliant !Someone here once said they liked making prints, the "more ephemeral the better"I make a few like that myself.
Actually... there was a thread here once about a student who took photos ( I think they were digital, but not sure ) and wouldn't let her teacher see them because that would ruin them ( they are in the camera... and that was the point, they were not meant to be seen! ) I wish I could find that thread again, it was pretty funny.
In one of his blogs, Joe VC made a kind of mental camera: a block of wood vaguely shaped like a camera which "clicks" when you press the "shutter". A device to click moments into memory. Isn't it amazing how we can remember the moments we took a picture... more than what the scene looked like but how it made us feel, impressions that go beyond anything words can describe. I was being a little silly mentioning those things, but there really is something to them: something being both beautiful and ephemeral like a sand painting, and what the act of making a photograph does to the photographer....i can see why the student didn't want her teacher to look at her images, a perfect performance, perfect memories.
No kidding. The professional photographer with the flashy brochure we hired at the hospital on the day my daughter was born gave us a "print". It has slowly faded in it's frame until now it almost can't be seen. I don't have a negative or a file or anything else to replace it... sometimes we want at least some permanence.. that leaves me feeling like we were cheated in a bad way ( duped into thinking the photo would last, or that we didn't need a real photograph! )If you like you work to disappear I recommend dye based inkjet prints and expose to light.
That's true only if all these are true:
* The bits are being refreshed on a timely basis to prevent bit rot (storage on a single USB stick probably won't last 10 years; a DVD maybe 20).
* The image is regularly copied to new media.
* Someone or some entity (e.g. cloud storage provider) continues to ensure the images exist on the servers, media, whatever.
* Someone sees value in preserving the media on which the images reside and pays to keep it there or copy it to new media. A print in a shoebox is immediately viewable and can be kept or tossed. A USB stick or DVD in a drawer cannot be viewed unless someone in the future has the interest and means to view it.
* The format that the image is in has to be readable in the future by some program. Will .NEF, .PEF, or .RAF files be viewable 100 years from now?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?