Is film better for the truth?

[Saganich]

I have a hard time equating truth and reality and when we throw in significance and meaning then were really screwed. Truth and meaning are personal. Cults for example attempt to ascribe similar meaning and significance to their shared reality creating what they hope is a collective truth. Usually, that fails. Other groups of people can share the same reality but have different truths, meanings, and different significance; such as displaced populations, crime victims, prisoners, etc. All of this is reality and it all exists in a world, maybe not your world, but in a world, so any still image, whether digital, analog, manipulated, or fabricated, can represent a world or reality that exists. But truth can only be embodied by individuals and isn't available for collective consumption or representation. Although 20th-century advertising may have come damn close, I mean who doesn't use deodorant? But that's just cult creation 101. Creating a fact (that everyone thinks you smell and you should do something about it) is not the same as truth. I guess facts can be checked, truths cannot. The Brothers Karamazov is full of Christian truths being transformed into worldly facts, it's the classic example of trying to retain significance in a world with changing meanings, realities and truths. We still live in that world except it has expanded significantly since.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

In 4 billion years, yup it will enlarge and swallow up all the inner planets.

Umm, you are aware of this historical event, are you?
https://www.history.com/news/a-perfect-solar-superstorm-the-1859-carrington-event

 

[faberryman]

As you stated the problem with digital backups are:

• Newer and better formats are developed
• Files get lost due to human error
• Files get lost due to operating system upgrades and the files do not get converted
• Files get lost due to operating system become obsolete and the replaced by newer computers and the files do not get converted
• Files get lost due to format upgrades and the files do not get converted
• Files get lost due to format obsolescence, the formats are superseded and the files do not get converted
• The file owner forgets the passwords
• The file owner dies and does not pass on the passwords
• The file owner dies, the credit card gets cancelled and the cloud deletes the files
• The file owner dies and nobody gives a damn about the photographs
• EMP

I make prints. Nobody is going to go through my negatives and digital files after I am gone. My wife and kids will probably get all teary eyed looking at the prints, and then stick them in a closet somewhere. I already checked and MOMA is not interested in them. That's not to say the prints are not absolutely stunning.

 

[Pieter12]

As you stated the problem with digital backups are:

• Newer and better formats are developed
• Files get lost due to human error
• Files get lost due to operating system upgrades and the files do not get converted
• Files get lost due to operating system become obsolete and the replaced by newer computers and the files do not get converted
• Files get lost due to format upgrades and the files do not get converted
• Files get lost due to format obsolescence, the formats are superseded and the files do not get converted
• The file owner forgets the passwords
• The file owner dies and does not pass on the passwords
• The file owner dies, the credit card gets cancelled and the cloud deletes the files
• The file owner dies and nobody gives a damn about the photographs
• EMP

Film and prints get lost due to human error
Film and prints deteriorate over time because of non-archival processing
Film and prints are susceptible to organic issues such as mold and mildew when not stored properly
Film and prints can be destroyed by flooding and fire
Film and prints can be physically damaged by scratching and tearing
Film and prints and be physically damaged by folding and mangling
Film and prints can be irretrievably lost by being disposed of by uncaring individuals.
Chemical processes may no longer be available to produce prints from negatives
Film owner dies, leaves film and print in storage locker that goes unpaid, contents are sold and destroyed (you know the story, but this time no one cares)
Film owner dies, nobody gives a damn about the photographs.

 

[Arthurwg]

Yes.

 

[snusmumriken]

Take this photo by Vivian Maier. It's obviously been hand colored. It is inconceivable anyone would ever go out in public dressed like that.

Well they wore those awful shorts and socks. That's surely undeniable?

I reckon the most common deception perpetrated by journalists is not faking photos but using them out of context to falsely support a point or to convey a misleading impression. It's not the photographer's crime, it's the editors'.

 

[pentaxuser]

Umm, you are aware of this historical event, are you?
https://www.history.com/news/a-perfect-solar-superstorm-the-1859-carrington-event

In Bealeton, Virginia, larks were stirred from their sleep at 1 a.m. and began to warble. (Unfortunately for them, a conductor on the Orange & Alexandria Railroad was also awake and shot three of them dead.
This excerpt from the above story suggests that the general rule in the U.S. was: If if in doubt, shoot the offenders, even if they weren't trying to rob the train

pentaxuser

 

[George Mann]

Film is a directly captured facsimile where the only deviations are caused by the imperfections of the lens and film stock (assuming correct exposure).

Digital on the other hand is an artificially created facsimile who's only direct link is the primitive optical capture thru its sensor array.

 

[Don_ih]

Film is a directly captured facsimile where the only deviations are caused by the imperfections of the lens and film stock (assuming correct exposure).

Digital on the other hand is an artificially created facsimile who's only direct link is the primitive optical capture thru its sensor array.

In other words, they're exactly the same.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Film is truth; film is beauty.

What more needs be said.

 

[Pieter12]

Film is truth; film is beauty.

What more needs be said.

Film is nothing more than a chemical concoction layered on a clear base. It is what you do with it that matters. And the same applies to digital.

 

[mshchem]

I cleaned my darkroom found several old films. A couple were old, over 20 years. One was of an old girlfriend, I took a picture of her on her 30th birthday, in her camisole, TRUTH is that's as close to naughty pictures as she would allow.

I have always wondered what happened to that photo, I found it this afternoon, over 30 years after I shot it.

 

[George Mann]

In other words, they're exactly the same.

No, they are the complete opposite!

 

[Pieter12]

No, there are the complete opposite!

How are they opposite? They both produce images by converting light into something else.

 

[George Mann]

How are they opposite? They both produce images by converting light into something else.

I explained this in my first post.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Film and prints get lost due to human error
Film and prints deteriorate over time because of non-archival processing
Film and prints can be irretrievably lost by being disposed of by uncaring individuals.
Chemical processes may no longer be available to produce prints from negatives
Film owner dies, leaves film and print in storage locker that goes unpaid, contents are sold and destroyed (you know the story, but this time no one cares)
Film owner dies, nobody gives a damn about the photographs.

So what? Negative can live loose in cardboard boxes under beds or in a closet for years without problems while a CD will decay to be unusable in less than ten years in the same places. Disk drives left without being maintained will irretrievably loose bits and words if not renewed often enough. This was one of the issues that was studied and researched in data reliability.

 

[Pieter12]

Nothing is forever. Prints and negatives left out will also deteriorate and fade.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nothing is forever. Prints and negatives left out will also deteriorate and fade.

But in the long run still more archival than digital. In the future at that may change.

 

[Pieter12]

With regular back-ups I have never had a digital file corrupted or a cd rot. I have had negatives damaged by scratches, heat and the occasional overenthusaistic dog.

 

[Sirius Glass]

With regular back-ups I have never had a digital file corrupted or a cd rot. I have had negatives damaged by scratches, heat and the occasional overenthusaistic dog.

Problems also occur when the storage format changes and not all the files are moved forward. Later people no longer have the programs to advance the format. Example: NASA pre lunar landing photographs were on tape and when the computers and tape machines were destroyed on the heroic effort of a dedicated few save them.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

I have had both floppies and CDs become unreadable. Fortunately, their info had been copied onto newer media. Although negatives and prints can also become damaged, they do not become unreadable (unless destroyed physically)! The do become lost, however...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When you die, your wife's next husband will throw them out.

 

[Pieter12]

I have had both floppies and CDs become unreadable. Fortunately, their info had been copied onto newer media. Although negatives and prints can also become damaged, they do not become unreadable (unless destroyed physically)! The do become lost, however...

I backed up floppies, SyQuest and Zip media when they became obsolete.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When you die, your wife's next husband will throw them out.

Only if she does not do it first.

 

[shuddered]

My question is: do you think that as people become more and more aware of how easy it is to manipulate images and alter their content, they will eventually quit believing anything they see.

people were manipulating photography since the 1840s, photographic images were never truths, but sadly people always think they are