Film really is superior

[Truzi]

I was having a conversation with my oldest daughter over the weekend. She is a young mother with two little kids. All of her photos are digital. I highly encouraged her to get prints made and put them in albums.
...
Print. Your. Pictures!

I too encourage people to print their digital pictures - and not via their home printer. I tell them to go down to a drugstore or pro-shop with an USB drive. Few have listened. One person I work with, upon my admonition, told me he once lost over 1,500 pictures when his laptop drive crashed. Now he backs-up to CD/DVD. I told him that he really needs to print the photos he wants to save, because a print will last longer than optical media.

 

[benjiboy]

I can't realy say if film is better , because I don't shoot aything else but film..

 

[sepiareverb]

Digital files, as in stored on a hard drive, cloud, viewed on a screen, in a browser, social networks, etc, are essentially worthless and prone to eventually disappear. Anyone really dedicated should at the very least get serious about printing those files for some chance at archival. I have been shooting a bit of digital lately but it is for a photogravure project so for every image there is a digital positive and, more importantly, a copper plate from which beautiful prints are produced that will outlast me and my children. This is the ONLY way I can justify using a digital camera for some of my work. Film is and will always be king.

Well, as much as I love film and take the time to process it well I can't agree that it is absolutely longer lasting than a well cared for, backed-up digital file. All it takes is one fire or flood for every copy of my negatives to be gone. I have an dear friend who lost almost all his negatives in Irene. He and I easily keep multiple copies of our digital work in various places.

 

[Truzi]

Well, as much as I love film and take the time to process it well I can't agree that it is absolutely longer lasting than a well cared for, backed-up digital file. All it takes is one fire or flood for every copy of my negatives to be gone. I have an dear friend who lost almost all his negatives in Irene. He and I easily keep multiple copies of our digital work in various places.

The average person takes care of digital the same they would film. For most people, that fire or flood would likely destroy their pictures regardless of format.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

As I've said before, I put consumer images in two categories: memory and conversational. Traditionally, consumer film images were mostly in the memory category. When I worked on color paper at Kodak in the '70s, I would see customer prints coming off the processors with two (and sometimes three) Christmas celebration photos on one roll of film. Some consumers cared about their prints and placed in in photo albums which survive (for example, I have many from my parents); others really didn't care a lot and put the prints in shoeboxes which may, or may not, survive. Consumer digital images seem to be mostly in the conversational category - but there still are digital memory shots. Those that care will have them made into photobooks (as my two daughters have) which will last; others will leave them on memory cards, CDs, etc and most won't survive. I'm not sure there is any real difference between film and digital in the number of CONSUMER memory photos that will survive long term.

With care, images will last. Without care, they will disappear. This is true for both film and digital.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Those that care will have them made into photobooks (as my two daughters have) which will last; others will leave them on memory cards, CDs, etc and most won't survive. I'm not sure there is any real difference between film and digital in the number of CONSUMER memory photos that will survive long term.

The difference is that the fellow I spoke with has been passively led to believe by the industry that his photos on CDs will last as long as those prints and negatives of his grandparents in shoeboxes.

He thinks this because in the shoebox case he's already seen it happen. And because he's been told over and over that digital photography is exactly the same as film photography,* he also expects his CDs to behave exactly the same as grandma's pictures did in her attic shoeboxes.

You know better. I know better. And the industry that sees fit not to level with him also knows better.

It's true. With care, digital images will last. But the problem is, no one is telling him what level of care is really required to make that happen. And that compared to a shoebox, the volume of care is enormous over time.

So he's putting his precious CDs into shoeboxes and (not unreasonably, from his perspective) expecting to get the same results. And that's a crime.

Ken

* For the love of god, don't get me started again...

 

[Mark Feldstein]

Nathan:
Please drop me a note if you want info on some very good dip and dunk C-41 labs in San Clemente. Just a quick trip up the 5 or by mail.
Mark

 

[rolleiman]

Really great to see all the comments here in favour of film, it gives encouragement to keep shooting in the face of comments like...you have to accept "progress".......progress towards what?....No one seems to have an answer to that one.
I hope the hierachy at Fuji etc., read this site, they might think twice before discontinuing film lines.

 

[MaximusM3]

Well, as much as I love film and take the time to process it well I can't agree that it is absolutely longer lasting than a well cared for, backed-up digital file. All it takes is one fire or flood for every copy of my negatives to be gone. I have an dear friend who lost almost all his negatives in Irene. He and I easily keep multiple copies of our digital work in various places.

Well yes, in case of disaster, neither will survive. In both cases, there has to be a backup system of sort, if that is important to the photographer. Let's not forget that because of digital and the internet, we have become an ADD society that loves to consume and throw away, so the idea of saving images for posterity just doesn't register for most people these days. They take it for granted and, when they are gone, they may not even care. All I know is that I'm still printing negatives from my parents wedding in 1963 and family affairs from 1966-1969, while I have very few decent images (on film) of my own kids back in the late '90s and non-existent or crappy ones from one of the first digital Kodak cameras I bought. Today of course, digital can offer outstanding quality but one really has to pay attention to storage, and printing those important images for archival purposes. It's kind of inexcusable at this point, because if one is even concerned about inkjet archival properties, it is now possible to make quite flawless digital negatives to contact print on silver gel, as lith prints, or beautiful alternative processes.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Well yes, in case of disaster, neither will survive. In both cases, there has to be a backup system of sort, if that is important to the photographer. Let's not forget that because of digital and the internet, we have become an ADD society that loves to consume and throw away, so the idea of saving images for posterity just doesn't register for most people these days. They take it for granted and, when they are gone, they may not even care. All I know is that I'm still printing negatives from my parents wedding in 1963 and family affairs from 1966-1969, while I have very few decent images (on film) of my own kids back in the late '90s and non-existent or crappy ones from one of the first digital Kodak cameras I bought. Today of course, digital can offer outstanding quality but one really has to pay attention to storage, and printing those important images for archival purposes. It's kind of inexcusable at this point, because if one is even concerned about inkjet archival properties, it is now possible to make quite flawless digital negatives to contact print on silver gel, as lith prints, or beautiful alternative processes.

I think I live in a bit of a dream world, because all I do to take care of my negatives is to store them in archival clam shell binders, in Print File sleeves. Should a tornado strike, or a fire, all of that will be lost. In the end I wonder if that isn't a good thing. Perhaps it's good to print a piece of film in only a small series and then destroy it? I don't know.
But with my limited resources, I could not care for digital files properly either. With my complete lack of attention to detail when it comes to backing up even my work computer to an external hard drive, I would ruin something on my own, no doubt. Mostly, however, while digital offers amazing possibilities (anybody who says it doesn't needs to have their head checked), I just don't want to be bothered with the minutia of it. I can say that I have had many CDs and DVDs fail on me, and recently one external hard drive that just stopped working. I've had a memory stick fail, a few that only works sometimes, floppy disks (anybody remember those? It wasn't that long ago, actually), even internal hard drives of computers.

My conclusion is that both film and digital archives can be archival in nature, but I'm willing to bet about 95% of all people are not willing to put up with the effort it takes to make it so, let alone the cost. And to do this in perpetuity, with files amassing. After 40 years of shooting digital, will you REALLY go back and check all those old files from way back when? How do you insure compatibility? Will you even care?

There have been reports of how much it costs to store movie films in archival manner, and the comparison to film is just staggering, where digital sometimes approaches 100 times the cost. Is it worth it? Who knows? We all die at some point, and when we do, not many people will be examining our film negatives or digital files, but they might look at prints, and perhaps find value in some of them. Recently I printed an almost 50 year old negative that was from my dad's first roll of film, a portrait of his father's father, and it came out absolutely beautiful with modern day quality. That ability to have an end product that will last for a long time is nice. So I make film negatives and I print in the darkroom, because it's easy and doesn't involve any head aches surrounding storage. If disaster strikes, I can start again, but all the more reason to make prints and spread them out across the globe, to customers, friends, and relatives. Print print print, and do it well!

 

[omaha]

^^^^
THIS!

In the end, the photograph is the print.

To me, this is not so much about film v digital as it is prints v anything else.

Unless one of my descendants happens to be a photo bug, no one is going to be interested in a bunch of old negatives or a few TB of digital files. I am far more confident that they might find some interest in a shelf full of albums.

 

[Arctic amateur]

The average person takes care of digital the same they would film. For most people, that fire or flood would likely destroy their pictures regardless of format.

Cloud storage of digital photos is easy. Dropbox or Google+ will do it for you as soon as you stick the SD card into the computer, or with Wi-fi-cameras, as soon as the camera can get online. It's much harder to fire-proof negatives. On the other hand, you will have to write your password in your will.

 

[removed account4]

thestrange thing is that many (who knows .. most) of the state archives have been only accepting digital files for habs/haer recordations for a handful of years now ... it is always difficult to het an archices /state hist pres office to accept film because of storage issues, or because it has traditionally been difficult to find someone to make archival prints at a reasonable price ... and the federal government push for digital over traditional has been intense.

while it is well known about digital rot or how film and paper will last forever ... often timesvitdoesn't matter

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Threads like these never resolve anything. The masses are lazy and, to a large degree, uncaring of their past. Joe Blow is not going to keep a RAID 10 stack running in his basement to safeguard his images; he's going to dump from his cameraphone to a consumer grade USB disk that's small enough to get lost in his pocket and go through the wash. Or he'll buy cloud storage that costs a fortune, is under the control of strangers and might very well be lost by them with no responsibility (It was right there, on page 16 of the EULA). Digital for capture is not going away because there's too many situations where digital kicks film's ass, and it's convenience appeals to time-constrained masses who are excessively prone to advertising and peer pressure.

Now, if you want to talk preservation, if not by Joe Blow then for him, the only sensible course is to take Thomas's advice and print, print, print and then give them away, like Johnny Appleseed. I've many times seen the crudest of my prints of something being given a place of honor on somebody's dresser or an end table or on the window sill above the kitchen sink; looked at every day. You love Photography, Joe likes looking at himself, film needs buying; it's a win-win-win. I think because both sides of the fence use "cameras" we get side-tracked by arguments like these. Digital and analog are two completely different things once you get past the equipment hangup, and you should. When I give someone a print it's not always about what I think of them but what I think I'd think about their great grandchildren.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Cloud storage of digital photos is easy. Dropbox or Google+ will do it for you as soon as you stick the SD card into the computer, or with Wi-fi-cameras, as soon as the camera can get online.

And just what do you think the miracle of "cloud storage" really is?

It's just someone else's computer, real or virtual, sitting in some depressing data center somewhere on the planet. And by using it you are now handing total control and responsibility for the preservation on your priceless images over to the strangers who run those depressing data centers. Strangers who are driven by their own whims and faults. And profit motives.

Do you really think they care about your images as much as you do? They'll tell you they do. Do you believe everything you're told?

Computer-based companies come and go like weeds in your front yard. So does the software and hardware they use. The last six I have worked for have all crashed and burned. All it takes is a momentary interruption in business, and they are out of business.

And your images when that happens? They won't give a rat's ass about those. And they won't legally have to. Read the fine print. Smart people keep local backups of their cloud backups. Read that last sentence again.

Photography began in 1827. This is 2013. Do you really expect that Dropbox and Google+ will still be around in another 186 years? I can still see the View from the Window at Le Gras today...

Ken

 

[sepiareverb]

Well, after Irene the digital files still exist, and are accessible. Even after one of the drives was underwater for days the back-ups (offsite) survived. Yes, there are some prints of some of those lost negatives too, but the proof sheets? mostly gone as well. Nothing is perfect, and nothing will last forever. I walk in a graveyard regularly, many of the stones are completely illegible. I have watched the emulsion on glass plate negs fall away as the envelope was opened, looked at daguerrotypes that have barely anything left to see, opened a negative book to find a very faded or stained negative and had a few digital files which cannot be opened. It's all tenuous, just not equally so.

I shoot plenty of film, don;t get me wrong here. I'm just not convinced that it is by it's nature a necessarily superior system for long term storage. It all depends on too many variables and, of course, luck.

Freeze? Can? Pickle? Dry? Which really is best? Too many variables.

 

[omaha]

Sitting here today, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the Google data cloud will still be around in 100 years. Facebook too. Smaller players (Dropbox, etal)? Not so much.

But then, Google could be dead and gone in 10 years. Or five. Anyone log into Myspace lately?

But anyone who thinks any of that is the issue is missing the point.

Ok, so you have a bunch of bits (bits aren't photographs...it takes some intervening technology to create an image from bits) sitting at Google.

You die.

30 years later, one of your progeny decide they'd like to dig up your old photos.

Tell me how the fact that Google's data still exists is going to help. How are they going to access the data? How are they going to recover the password? (What is the name of your great great grandfather's first pet?)

Same thing with "home" based digital storage. Earlier in this thread a process was described of continuous refreshing of backups to the tune of $1000/year.

Ok, so you have a bunch of bits sitting on your home storage system.

You die.

30 years later, one of your progeny decide they'd like to dig up your old photos.

How does that work? Who maintained the archive (spending $1000/year in direct expense, not to mention who knows how many hours of work to keep the storage refreshed)? Where is your hardware at? Best case it was all stuffed into a box and stuck in a storage locker somewhere. Or else it was stuffed in a box in someone's basement. And then they moved, and maybe the stuff was moved with them, or maybe not. Maybe the cables are still with it. Maybe not. Even if they get it all put together, does it power up? Are all the bits still there?

The fragility of digital systems is all about the human factor, not the technology.

Print. Your. Photos!

 

[NB23]

Film rules for so many reasons. The first one is because I love to sniff the canister as soon as I open it. Yummy!

And yes, we'll all die soon enough. Geez, that's one parameter I really dislike.

 

[Paul Glover]

Yes, digital files can be backed up, copied and distributed at will; but the problem with digital permanence is it really takes a surprising amount of work. Work which most people are unaware they need to do, or which falls by the wayside because it really can be time consuming and expensive to do properly (guilty on that count, here). Multi-million dollar businesses with dedicated IT departments even fail at this sometimes.

Most people stick their photos on their hard drive or Facebook and call it done. The more diligent might copy stuff to a CD/DVD or keep a single backup on an external drive and think they're safe. Very, very few will have a coherent backup and ongoing data migration strategy such as nonuniform described above (costing $1000 every year to maintain, not to mention the ongoing effort to keep things current!?! Ouch.)

I've been around computers since 1984. I've had data stored on audio tape, weird 3" disks, 3.5" floppies in a myriad of formats, CD and DVD, SmartMedia, CompactFlash, SD, MicroSD and an assortment of hard drives in different formats. Files which were never copied from tape are gone, the tapes long since deteriorated (though oddly enough I do still have that computer and it still works). The 3" disks, which I found in a box recently? No hardware to read them. The 3.5" disks? My ancient PC was one of the last to have a disk drive as standard and even then only the ones in MSDOS format are potentially readable. CD and DVD? The better quality ones from up to 15 years ago are still OK, but some have failed, in some cases very prematurely and I have no guarantee that others will not follow. Hard drives - which interface? Which format? If I found a SCSI drive in a shoebox today, I'd not be able to plug it into any computer I own without a great deal of extra expense and effort. Even then it might not be readable, or intact, or contain anything worth saving. If I find a PATA drive in a box a decade from now, what are the chances it'll fare any better than the SCSI one does now? The PATA drive installed in my old (and apparently, dead) Commodore A4000 isn't formatted in a way my PC can deal with even though it will plug in. What about the current SATA standard, eventually it too will be supplanted and disappear, as will its replacement and whatever follows that. Is it really going to be worth my grandchildrens' time and expense to access the data stored on some old dusty antique hard disk or near-forgotten type of memory card on the off chance that it's still readable and had any real value to begin with? Somehow, I doubt it.

But they'll be able to pull my photo prints and negatives and contact sheets out of the next box and see what they were without additional effort (they might still chuck them away, but at least they could make an informed decision in doing so!)

Yes, the pace of change is slower than it was when I started in computing, but things still change and "old" hardware, media and data formats fade into unsupported obscurity. Data will be lost if it isn't actively taken care of. I'm under no illusion whatsoever that future access to a TIFF, JPEG or especially RAW file's content is a certainty even if it does reside on media that is readable. Perhaps it will be, perhaps it won't. History would suggest it won't. By comparison, my negatives and silver gelatin prints ought to outlast me and will remain "readable" without obscure hardware or software.

As for keeping things safe from disaster, I could always file the negatives somewhere safer (safety deposit box?) and put up with the loss of some convenience in access.

 

[GRHazelton]

I seem to recall Kodak stating sometime in the 1970s that color negative materials would begin to show uncorrectable color shifts in seven years or so. Of course, scanning may be able to correct such shifts. At that time Kodachrome was best transparency film for long term storage, but Ektachrome would withstand projection better.

And of course silver based film properly stored will last .... who knows? I have negatives my father shot and processed himself in the mid 1930's that are in excellent condition; BW negatives and fiber prints I shot, processed and printed in the 70's are fine, and I didn't take any extreme archival processing methods, just reasonable care in storage.

 

[clayne]

The one significant difference between film and digital archiving is that film (for the substantial most part) is a self describing material. There is no encoding, no translation, or other algorithms involved (orange mask stuff really doesn't count). As such it is not prone to technology shifts and can always be recovered/viewed given standard chemical/physical techniques. Physical self evidence combined with a decently highly amount of detail/space occupied makes it a quite good archiving material even if it is prone to minute degradation over the years.

I'd rather take a faded negative over an unreadable digital format (Domesday Book anyone?)

 

[DREW WILEY]

I suspect color neg permanence has improved quite a bit. And while some people complained about their negs going bad in a couple of years,
it might have been related to storage conditions, and I've able to print my own twenty-year-old Vericolor negs with no problems. Electronic
storage isn't the same thing anyway. You gotta reproduce it digitally, even if you are lucky enough for your data to still be retrievable. And
ain't there somethin' just so adorable and cuddly about looking at a box of discs, or having some appraiser fondle them on Antiques Roadshow
fifty years hence? Good for nuthin except skeet shooting as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ian Grant]

Film and digital arte two different media. My take for over 20 years is that that digital is just a different way to capture an image alongside B&W, Colour negative and positive, Instant films etc.

The argument of long term permance is valid, but it's cheap to save digital files in a number of ways to ensure they won't be lost although few do this. A fire couldn wipe out many of our negatives and prints.

I'm scanning all my important negatives at high resolutions and these are going to a record office to be archived alongside negatives, prints are going to a gallery. In ther short term scans will be held in in at least two sites.

My take is both originals and digitalm forms need archiving well.

Ian

 

[Paul Glover]

I'd rather take a faded negative over an unreadable digital format (Domesday Book anyone?)

There's a blast from the past. I remember the big deal about the BBC Domesday Project in the mid 1980s, commemorating the 900th anniversary of the original (and still readable) Domesday Book. Not even 20 years later it took significant effort and some good fortune to resurrect the project in a form usable on modern computer systems, and had it been left another few years it's conceivable that it could have been lost altogether.

 

[Vilk]

Film has a physical integrity. I rest my case.

hey here's an idea for an ontological film fanboy slogan--

FILM IS