Breaking news: Analog wins. Film at 11.

[btaylor]

There's another spot of good news.

I recently read that Kodak UK is currently offering complete production packages (cameras/film/processing/scanning) to independent productions (up to 10mil UK sterling) at rates comparable to digital production. Apparently this is a trial that will be expanded to other countries if it is successful.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... I am so tired of the cooked, hyper-real look that has become the norm in both photography and film...

Yes, like this one, mentioned in a Digital Photography Review forum:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3799347

Even a fair number of people there didn't like it.

I look through the more popular photo magazines today and they're full of screenshots off a computer monitor, showing you which PhotoShop drop-down menu item to select.

 

[film_man]

A fellow photo student (we're both graduated now, but that's beside the point) had a hard drive fail on her several years ago. Because most of her work was on film, she was able to rescan the the essential negatives, and better than before, since she was more adept at scanning by then. A backup would have helped, but Pixar was supposed to have an official backup for Toy Story 2 and was saved only because one of the lead people took a copy of the film home with her. The backup had failed as well.

Sometimes there's no substitute for having something in tangible, organic form.

What happens when a fire burns the tangible?

 

[Sirius Glass]

What happens when a fire burns the tangible?

Not a problem because there is more than one copy. What happens when the format changes and it was not migrated before the software disappeared.

 

[film_man]

Not a problem because there is more than one copy. What happens when the format changes and it was not migrated before the software disappeared.

The same thing that happens when you leave the negatives in storage for 15 years only to find out they are covered in mould or that they have faded or they are the one and the same with the archival sleeves that didn't end up being that archival in the end. And you mean to tell me that you have done copies of your negatives/slides for backup?

If you have a digital backup strategy in place it is no more or less difficult to understand compared to making physical copies of negatives and then storing them properly and checking them every now and then for degradation or what not.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The same thing that happens when you leave the negatives in storage for 15 years only to find out they are covered in mould or that they have faded or they are the one and the same with the archival sleeves that didn't end up being that archival in the end. And you mean to tell me that you have done copies of your negatives/slides for backup?

This is a silly argument that comes up every time by those who never used or pretend they never used a computer before. People who somehow think that suddenly one day their files will not be readable. Well my JPGs from 1993 are still here next to my Word documents. When the time comes to convert them to whatever format will be available in 30 years it is two clicks to do. In fact in 30 years I'll just tell my computer to do it without worrying about it.

If you have a digital backup strategy in place it is no more or less difficult to understand compared to making physical copies of negatives and then storing them properly and checking them every now and then for degradation or what not.

Anyway, don't know about you but I'm safe. I have my both my negatives, and a digital backup strategy that involves scans on my computer, scans on a hard drive off site and backup online. I even have a digital migration strategy. It is called reading the news so that when JPG becomes obsolete I will know about it.

My experience comes from working with computers and back ups since 1963, fifty years in aerospace engineering as well as being a professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. I have seen that digital is not archival. Did you know that the pre-Apollo surveying photographs of the Moon were nearly lost because of obsolesce? These are not silly arguments that are being made, they are based on experience and facts rather than what one had for breakfast and the mindless love of all things digital.

 

[Truzi]

The same thing that happens when you leave the negatives in storage for 15 years only to find out they are covered in mould or that they have faded or they are the one and the same with the archival sleeves that didn't end up being that archival in the end. And you mean to tell me that you have done copies of your negatives/slides for backup?

If you have a digital backup strategy in place it is no more or less difficult to understand compared to making physical copies of negatives and then storing them properly and checking them every now and then for degradation or what not.

It's not difficult to understand, but that does not mean much. Digital archiving is more expensive, more time-consuming (due to the frequency it must be done), and more prone to "catastrophic failure."

With "cloud" storage, it also leaves you at the mercy of a third-party - and you give up a large degree of control. I'm very happy my grandfather did not leave a password and URI to AOL Homesites in a shoebox in the closet; it was a box of negatives instead.

 

[hgaude]

With "cloud" storage, it also leaves you at the mercy of a third-party - and you give up a large degree of control. I'm very happy my grandfather did not leave a password and URI to AOL Homesites in a shoebox in the closet; it was a box of negatives instead.

+1
This is a very real issue that is not considered very often.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

What happens when a fire burns the tangible?

A good portion of my negatives are in a bank's safety deposit box, in the vault. Those are better conditions than in my house. I have records which indicate which negatives and subjects have been stored away.

Point taken, however - which is why I mentioned the library in Russia that had a fire.

 

[Sirius Glass]

With "cloud" storage, it also leaves you at the mercy of a third-party - and you give up a large degree of control. I'm very happy my grandfather did not leave a password and URI to AOL Homesites in a shoebox in the closet; it was a box of negatives instead.

Cloud storage has the right to sell copies of your photographs for their profit and you do not get any of the profit. Also by storing photographs on the cloud you sign away your copyrights. Try reading the contracts that most people just click "OK" without reading.

 

[OzJohn]

My experience comes from working with computers and back ups since 1963, fifty years in aerospace engineering as well as being a professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. I have seen that digital is not archival. Did you know that the pre-Apollo surveying photographs of the Moon were nearly lost because of obsolesce? These are not silly arguments that are being made, they are based on experience and facts rather than what one had for breakfast and the mindless love of all things digital.

Boasting academic qualifications is the last refuge of a poor debater. On this forum you are another photographer with an opinion just like everyone else. And by the way this discussion is trending towards "off topic" according to APUG rules but that probably won't matter because it is pure undiluted digital bashing. OzJohn

 

[Sirius Glass]

Boasting academic qualifications is the last refuge of a poor debater. On this forum you are another photographer with an opinion just like everyone else. And by the way this discussion is trending towards "off topic" according to APUG rules but that probably won't matter because it is pure undiluted digital bashing. OzJohn

I also pre-date almost everyone taking digital photographs. In 1977 at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, I programmed the two Voyager spacecrafts to take the digital photographs for the two Jupiter rotation movies and the two Red Spot movies. So not only am I a good debater, I have the experience and credentials above most of the all digital is wonderful crowd. I am not against digital photography, in fact I think it is superior for remote sensing.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

On this forum you are another photographer with an opinion just like everyone else.

"You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."

— Daniel Patrick Moynihan



Ken

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I also pre-date almost everyone taking digital photographs. In 1977 I programmed the two Voyager spacecrafts to take the digital photographs for the two Jupiter rotation movies and the two Red Spot movies. So not only am I a good debater, I have the experience and credentials above most of the all digital is wonderful crowd. I am not against digital photography, in fact I think it is superior for remote sensing.

OzJohn, I believe the expression is "you just got schooled."




You have to have rocks in your head to think any digital form of an image will survive unless it is of great historical importance. Put your hard drive in the closet and try to access it in thirty years. Good luck. Put a print in the closet and you will still have it in thirty years, and fifty years, and longer. If you have a flood in your house you can save the prints and negs even if they get wet. Not so for the hard drive.

People who think digital images will last; you may want to take your head out of the sand. I am not saying that because I am a film shooter, I am saying that because I shoot both and realize from first hand experience that digital does not last. Anything digital i want to keep, like family pictures, gets printed on RA-4 paper.

 

[GaryFlorida]

Watcj Hawaii Five 0 on netflix sometime. The phograpy and colors are astounding. What a testimony to film it is. Then go watch some TV show rerun from the 80s where they were shot with video tape/ Cant barely make out the main characters. Nothing beats film. Nothing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Watcj Hawaii Five 0 on netflix sometime. The phograpy and colors are astounding. What a testimony to film it is. Then go watch some TV show rerun from the 80s where they were shot with video tape/ Cant barely make out the main characters. Nothing beats film. Nothing.

Except a much larger format film.

 

[shutterlight]

RA-4 prints fade in a major way. Stephen Shore's pictures from New Topographics had to be reprinted for the recent traveling exhibition-- a good indication of how they deteriorate over time. Dye transfer prints, of course-- those last.

That aside, it's interesting to consider that digital technology has become known to be a cheap way to make films, allowing filmmakers with almost no budget to make quality films. But, if the front end has lower costs than before, the back end seems to have acquired a lot of that same cost. Not a straight transfer, but if you consider storage costs over 30 years, vs. the virtually zero cost involved in storing away motion picture film, the seemingly low cost method of digital has some hidden problems. Unless you don't care about saving your work, of course.

 

[Sirius Glass]

RA-4 prints fade in a major way. Stephen Shore's pictures from New Topographics had to be reprinted for the recent traveling exhibition-- a good indication of how they deteriorate over time. Dye transfer prints, of course-- those last.

That aside, it's interesting to consider that digital technology has become known to be a cheap way to make films, allowing filmmakers with almost no budget to make quality films. But, if the front end has lower costs than before, the back end seems to have acquired a lot of that same cost. Not a straight transfer, but if you consider storage costs over 30 years, vs. the virtually zero cost involved in storing away motion picture film, the seemingly low cost method of digital has some hidden problems. Unless you don't care about saving your work, of course.

Given the quality of some movies, saving some of them should not be a goal! :devil: My Bad!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

RA-4 prints (from the 70s) fade in a major way.
There, I fixed it for you shutterlight. Even though I don't think RA-4 existed in the 70's.

My parents wedding album is from '65. The color is a little weaker than I would imagine it was back in '65, then again I wasn't around in '65. The prints still look pretty damn good, sharp as a tack, for being pedestrian wedding photos which are 50 years old. I don't know how Shore processed his prints way back in the 70s, but I doubt it was up to current standards. They still exist though even if they faded. That is the difference that people don't understand. Photos on a hard drive that has a problem only exist if someone wants to take it upon themselves to fix the drive. Faded prints exist to anyone with an eyeball.

I would suspect that the reprinting of Shore's work has more to do with competition and revisionism than fading. I saw some of those prints a few years ago. They were quite nice. Better in person than on the internet or in books.

I have also seen some of Eggleston's dye transfers and they weren't anything to marvel at. I was rather surprised by that too after all the hullabaloo surrounding them.

 

[pbromaghin]

The same thing that happens when you leave the negatives in storage for 15 years only to find out they are covered in mould or that they have faded or they are the one and the same with the archival sleeves that didn't end up being that archival in the end. And you mean to tell me that you have done copies of your negatives/slides for backup?

If you have a digital backup strategy in place it is no more or less difficult to understand compared to making physical copies of negatives and then storing them properly and checking them every now and then for degradation or what not.

Your original post was about jpeg, etc. Well, it isn't about jpeg. It's about 8", 5.25", 3.5" discs disappearing, those huge reel-to-reel tape drives thrown in the trash. It's about 2.5" and 3.5" HD, iomega Zip, Mini CD, Mini DVD, 12cm and 20 CM LD, rack mount RAID Storage, IBM 350 or 1311 disk storage, a damned near endless list. All old and obsolete.

Your data just gone, never to return..

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Many years ago I worked under an older generation software engineer. He pre-dated Hollerith cards. He once wrote programs on punched paper tape.

Maybe that's the cross-over solution. If the best practice advice is to put your digital photographs onto paper, perhaps the same should be done with your digital software and other data? Back to cards and paper tape?

Heh, heh. Carl would have loved it...*



Ken

* Carl was, early in his career, a Navy man and one time associate of Admiral Grace. I first heard the moth-in-the-relay story from Carl, who swore up and down he heard it first from her. It doesn't get much more fundamental that that...

 

[AgX]

Maybe that's the cross-over solution. If the best practice advice is to put your digital photographs onto paper, perhaps the same should be done with your digital software and other data? Back to cards and paper tape?

Storing digital files on film has been seriously discussed recently in the photoengineering world.

 

[Europan]

They say that 160 line pairs per millimeter or pixels of 3 microns length are feasible. That leads to 2880 by 3840 line pairs or 11 Megapixel on the 18 by 24 mm film frame. Note that the brightness and colour informations demand about three times that number of pixels, interpolating algorithms applied. Microfilms are able to resolve up to 1000 line pairs/mm but at a certain point the attempt becomes pointless because a good contact copy of the simple photographic original is 1) made much quicker and 2) much cheaper than via the scan-print-out process.

Against many I say that it is most important that the photographic and the reprographic know-how are kept alive and passed on to future generations. An entirely binary-numeric digesting world has not learnt to develop a feel for endangered values. We are already losing our treasures, whatever treasures they might be, to brutes. A painter will not be educated from looking at a digital replica of Mona Lisa but by conquering the craft with paint and brush.

 

[film_man]

My experience comes from working with computers and back ups since 1963, fifty years in aerospace engineering as well as being a professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. I have seen that digital is not archival. Did you know that the pre-Apollo surveying photographs of the Moon were nearly lost because of obsolesce? These are not silly arguments that are being made, they are based on experience and facts rather than what one had for breakfast and the mindless love of all things digital.

I have a MEng in Avionics and a MSc in Advanced Computing. My breakfast was a bluberry muffin and a black coffee. I don't have a mindless love for all things digital as I shoot film only, about 10 rolls/month if you want to know. I also don't have a mindless hatred of all things digital as I live in 2015. Anything else you want to talk about Professor?

 

[film_man]

Cloud storage has the right to sell copies of your photographs for their profit and you do not get any of the profit. Also by storing photographs on the cloud you sign away your copyrights. Try reading the contracts that most people just click "OK" without reading.

Ok Professor, better put your tinfoil hat on. I'm not talking Flickr or Smugsmug or whatever other dinky free thing you read about in last week's rag. I'm talking actual cloud based backup solutions. Anyway, you probably know all about these too so no need to explain further. :confused:

Actually no, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.