The Mother of All Photographic Debates

Ken Nadvornick said:

...
[Edit: A now strange sounding response originally made in reply to a post located directly above it that has mysteriously disappeared...]

:eek:

Click to expand...

Yet additional proof that electronic images --this time in the form of a posting! -- are ephemeral and have no substantive existence!

Didn't think my response was that controversial.

Ken

I have been restoring old film and prints as a small part of my business for years.

Observation 1. Film can deteriorate pretty much the bulk of colour negatives and prints from the 60's and 70's are suspect. As well Black and White film that comes here is sometimes in suspect shape.

In both cases I lay blame on two things, poor process and poor storage.

I just finished a show of prints that were all from negatives 1910-1920 and all were able to produce excellent silver prints. so with good process BW is at least a 100 yr media.

To add a bit of info from the digital side of the coin: We have been able for years to record via LVT recorders any type of image whether its is from scans of film or from digital capture.
A very good example of this is Sebastian Salgado who is printing all of his Genesis work on Ilford Warmtone on an enlarger but with a twist- the capture device is Leica digital camera and 4 x5 BW LVT negatives are being made that go into an enlarger. This has also been the case for many colour workers who are recording digital images onto transparancy and then optically making Cibachrome shows.
BTW this technology has been with us since the early 90's and I am shocked that there are those who are not aware of this method of archiving both methods of capture.

Currently I am making full colour pigment gum over palladium's from digital capture. As well being commissioned to make pt pd prints from digital files. The reason is to produce historically significant Black and White and Colour work. I for one do not think for one second that the digital capture is less capable for producing archival results.

I find all arguments that digital is not as good as film, and vice versa completely boring and quite misinformed to what is actually happening.

There are those who argue from a very narrow experience platform and then there are others who feel this discussion has long been solved.

Tri colour Black and White separation negatives are now quite normal to be considered for preserving ones colour work - whether its from a film camera or digital camera.

Lets hope Sean keeps up his promise so workers like myself can properly show , display, discuss this debate here on APUG with clarity.

With all medias like colour negative or digital capture we will have to make an effort to make a more permanent record- even BW .

QUOTE=Theo Sulphate;1953823092]Sure. Film is much easier to preserve. Regardless of media, I believe the most important criteria is a willingness to preserve the image. Twenty years from now, someone can go to their late aunt Exa's house, open up an old shoebox, look at the negatives, and decide the box's contents are worth keeping. If they open up a desk drawer and see ancient USB sticks, SD cards, or CD's - will those simply get tossed or will someone make the effort to read them?

Digital images are viewable only as long as the following is true: the data is preserved, a device exists to read the media, a software application can interpret it, and that application can create an image on a current display device.

If they make the effort to read the media, will that media still be readable (how long do USB sticks or CD's hold data)? If it is physically readable, will there be a device that can read it (in 20 years will there be a CD reader that Exa's nephew might have access to)? Although I actually do have a dual 8" floppy reader (DEC RX01), I can't expect my successors to be willing to try to find a USB 2.0 reader. Even if they get that far, will they be able to read the NEF file Exa created in 2015 with her Nikon D810?

So that's the point: to preserve a digital image over a hundred or so years someone has to copy that image from its current media to the next new media and maybe re-save it in the next less obsolete format. Sure, it can be done, but it requires not only effort, but also requires will. It's a lot easier to put negatives in a safety deposit box and be sure they'll need no long term maintenance.[/QUOTE]

As usual this thread has slid off into a digital vs analog on which is "better" and now towards which is archivally easier.

The OP was actually about cost of production.

I'm sure someone will pipe in "yeah but" continual archival storage IS part of the cost of production.

And my answer is not really. Its a cost of resurrection of neglected media. And both can cost. And how much each can cost is just another slanted argument.

As cited above, LVT recorders are a viable option for long-term preservation of digital images. Currently in the USA there are Bowhause and Chicago Albumen Works who offer this service. At Bowhause, price for 4X5 is $65 which is inline with my previous post about high cost of digital preservation.
LVT recorders were manufactured by Kodak, then Durst; but I believe there is no current production of them. So I suspect the costs of LVT output will increase while the availability may actually decrease.

I am going to use my Durst Lambda for archiving film and digital capture, as well make permanent prints via large contact negatives.

I believe one of the big players is currently considering producing a state of art LVT device for this market .
prepress in New Rochelle Ian M is also doing this.( I am sworn to secrecy )

I think it has legs for the future. Also a few operations in Paris are doing this as well- see my above regarding Salgado.

doughowk said:

As cited above, LVT recorders are a viable option for long-term preservation of digital images. Currently in the USA there are Bowhause and Chicago Albumen Works who offer this service. At Bowhause, price for 4X5 is $65 which is inline with my previous post about high cost of digital preservation.
LVT recorders were manufactured by Kodak, then Durst; but I believe there is no current production of them. So I suspect the costs of LVT output will increase while the availability may actually decrease.

Click to expand...

I learned early that film is cheaper. The entire process from exposure to final print can be as low as $5. Just the paper + ink for one shot can exceed that. Ink jet paper costs more than photo paper. Ink is way more expensive than chemicals. The film cost is almost trivial compared to the paper.

I know his does not hold for the average point and shoot guy with a cell phone. But that is another use case.

For those of us doing serious wok, or at least attempting to do serious images the cost comparison for straight photography with simple processing is no contest, film is cheaper.

The 50 Grand Decision

How Much 120 Film Can You Get for $48,990?


http://www.thephoblographer.com/2016/01/03/how-much-120-film-can-you-get-for-50000/

Theo Sulphate said:

Sure. Film is much easier to preserve. Regardless of media, I believe the most important criteria is a willingness to preserve the image. Twenty years from now, someone can go to their late aunt Exa's house, open up an old shoebox, look at the negatives, and decide the box's contents are worth keeping. If they open up a desk drawer and see ancient USB sticks, SD cards, or CD's - will those simply get tossed or will someone make the effort to read them?

Digital images are viewable only as long as the following is true: the data is preserved, a device exists to read the media, a software application can interpret it, and that application can create an image on a current display device.

If they make the effort to read the media, will that media still be readable (how long do USB sticks or CD's hold data)? If it is physically readable, will there be a device that can read it (in 20 years will there be a CD reader that Exa's nephew might have access to)? Although I actually do have a dual 8" floppy reader (DEC RX01), I can't expect my successors to be willing to try to find a USB 2.0 reader. Even if they get that far, will they be able to read the NEF file Exa created in 2015 with her Nikon D810?

So that's the point: to preserve a digital image over a hundred or so years someone has to copy that image from its current media to the next new media and maybe re-save it in the next less obsolete format. Sure, it can be done, but it requires not only effort, but also requires will. It's a lot easier to put negatives in a safety deposit box and be sure they'll need no long term maintenance.

Click to expand...

I think this issue is shifting, but not necessarily in a better way. Now that so many people store their photos 'in the cloud' the issue of data migration to new technologies is taken care of as the datacenter holding those files will be constantly upgrading equipment and migrating. The main risk now is pre-cloud digital photos being transferred there.

The new risk I think is since cloud-based photos are tied to a person's account, once they die will the account transfer to descendants? Also, you can't assume cloud companies like Facebook and the like will remain 'on' forever.... or maybe they will? It will be an interesting day is Facebook decides to shut down and delete all of its content, once billions of photos have been uploaded there.

I have to assume though that would be such a cataclysmic event that companies will come forward with 'transfer your Facebook content for $10 to our new site VainTome.com!'

Interesting times.

Also, this reminds me of this ad, which I think is pretty funny:

[video=youtube;rOAiO7Q25Ng]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOAiO7Q25Ng[/video]

The cost of digital for the consumer is quite low, most don't use DSLRs, they use a smart phone or a point and shoot, they make very few prints, most photos are shared electronically. Images are stored on the cloud and as long as the account is maintained they will have access to those images.

For the enthusiast, digital printing is still less expensive than analog, unless the shooter has analog gear.

For a professional, meaning someone who shoots for pay, depends, a wedding photographer digital, a fine arts photographer who shoots in LF film may less expensive.

My wife is always nagging me about my darkroom, she wants her double bath back, but it would cost me at least $30,000 to replace my MF and MF gear with digital, need a high end large format printer, and because I have 50 years of negatives 2 film scanners, 35mm and LF.

a dry drm m

PDH said:

For the enthusiast, digital printing is still less expensive than analog, unless the shooter has analog gear.

Click to expand...

I found the opposite. I would run through a set of ink cartridges for a small number of prints and the replacement was so high I went out and bought 4"x5" color enlarger and drum print dryer from Craig's list. If I went back to digital printing I would have to replace the computer, set us RAID drives for back up, buy software, an expensive printer and rolls of paper. No thank you.

<sarcasm>What? You NEED RAID drives for backup? Why didn't anyone tell me?! I guess I've been doing the impossible without it.</sarcasm> A simple powered desktop-type external HDD ($100), a Raspberry Pi ($80 including power supply, case, Micro SD card, and ethernet cable to hook it to the router), and some free (as in no cost, not free as in freedom, although that is good too) backup software, and a couple evenings to set it all up have been sufficient for me to back up the photos on my wife, my sons, and my computers. Plus I can also use the Raspberry Pi + HDD as a media server to stream to any TV/computer/device in the house.

The chances of the backup HDD and the HDD in any one of the computers failing at the same time is low. I don't feel the NEED for RAID in order to backup my photos. For me it would be a nice-to-have, not a necessity. Besides, for the ones taken on film, I still have the negatives or slides as the ultimate backup.

As far as editing software goes, there are free (both in cost and in freedom) options for both editing and developing digital images.

So why do I still shoot film? 1) Because I can, 2) it gives me a look I can't get easily from digital, and 3) You have sat through a slide show, right? The presentation of slides is nearly impossible for digital to beat.

Jim Jones said:

Several companies are designing and making new film cameras today, but for larger film than 35mm.

Click to expand...

Definitely. Today I saw a photograph on facebook posted by a new company, Intrepid Cameras. The picture was of a workbench with piles of CNC cut wooden parts which were waiting to be made into 5x4 cameras which were to be sent out at the end of the week. I would guess it would be parts for about thirty cameras.

As far as saving images is concerned, I think it's strange that photographers are obsessed with the storage and duplication of their images. Artists in other media do not do this. A painter paints something then moves on to the next thing.


Steve.

skorpiius said:

Now that so many people store their photos 'in the cloud' the issue of data migration to new technologies is taken care of...

Click to expand...

The "(there was a url link here which no longer exists)"...



Ken

gzhuang said:

How Much 120 Film Can You Get for $48,990?


http://www.thephoblographer.com/2016/01/03/how-much-120-film-can-you-get-for-50000/

Click to expand...

it might be a lot of film, but where might one store that much film?
rent an industrial walk in refrigerator ?
better add that into the final bill ( rent and electricity to run it )
and the processing costs ...

and if it is color, the lab to process it or chemistry and waste removal fees
( and self printing costs or pritns from the lab fee ) ...

and then the cost to keep all that film / prints stored so they won't degrade

it probably doesn't really add up to as much film as one would hope to have.

ME Super said:

<sarcasm>What? You NEED RAID drives for backup?

Click to expand...

Yes! God damned right. I have been working with computers since October 1962 and I know something about the vulnerabilities of stored data. Ask me about the time at JPL when in spite of the back up system they had on Voyager I added making two tapes in three formats of all my data. Then when they needed to restore the system in 1977 the system back up tapes were bad, two weeks of work was lost except for mine. I was back on line immediately. I can cite a number of occurrences when data was lost by the best of people and the best of systems.

Maybe you photographs are not worth much but mine are. Go sit in the corner for a while and think about it.

Sirius Glass said:

Yes! God damned right. I have been working with computers since October 1962 and I know something about the vulnerabilities of stored data. Ask me about the time at JPL when in spite of the back up system they had on Voyager I added making two tapes in three formats of all my data. Then when they needed to restore the system in 1977 the system back up tapes were bad, two weeks of work was lost except for mine. I was back on line immediately. I can cite a number of occurrences when data was lost by the best of people and the best of systems.

Maybe you photographs are not worth much but mine are. Go sit in the corner for a while and think about it.

Click to expand...

Worth a second—and third—and fourth—read for all those who swallow hook, line, and sinker the tech marketeer's sales pitches that stored computer data is automatically and effortlessly forever...

Ken

ME Super said:

.

The chances of the backup HDD and the HDD in any one of the computers failing at the same time is low.

Click to expand...

I don't share your optimism, since this happened to us. In 2011 we lost our computer in a moving van fire.


Like you, we thought we were ok because we owned a backup drive that travelled in a separate vehicle. Nope: it failed upon power up here and was "unrecoverable". The only remaining images from the time our children were born were film photographs and an album of digital prints.

I now backup the computer to a Netgear Network Raid drive (mirror drives) hooked up in a fire-proof safe, and a separate external drive.

I would probably use "the cloud" or whatever if I wasn't so paranoid about sending personal data hither and yon across the ether.

The only problem with RAID is if your computer is infected with a virus that damages your files, that damage is instantly copied across the drives. RAID is for reliable availability of your files, but is not a backup for disaster recovery.

Personally I just use a PC in my basement as a file server, but have nightly backups to Crashplan. If my computer is stolen, house floods/burns down/etc, I have a backup in their data center. If you're concerned about privacy, you can provide your own secret encryption key and store your files encrypted on their servers, or, you can use Crashplan to backup to another computer that you own elsewhere, or a friends's computer, etc for free.

My friend from Kodak who has gone to the dreaded digital dark side has a RAID system with swapable disks with with three sets of disks. He rotates the three sets in some pattern. He thinks that his system is bullet proof enough.

Yeah physically having some extra backup drives is always an option, unless you're lazy like me