Are you saying your great grand daughter will be able to access your cloud in 2067? I assume every current technological interface will be dead and gone ten times over by then, as will all the companies that control them. The idea the digital storage picture in 2017 will last ten years, let alone 50, is not born out by anything we know about the technology or the commerce behind the technology.All smartphones these days have automatic cloud storage of all photos taken with the phone.
Yes then the photographs will degrade over time unless you regularly refresh every file. Of course when the OS changes or gets replaced or when the storage format changes or you just replace your computer, there is a risk that the images will be lost. NASA almost lost all the pre Apollo landing surveys, but did lose many other photographs. But that is not important because you are so confident that you know more about digital storage than the industry experts and researchers. Good luck to you.
Too big to fail is a mantra repeated throughout history.It is almost as if the industry as a whole has learned a thing or two over the years and have established standards because of mistakes from the past... Welcome to the modern world of computing, whether options such as error correcting exists, and keeping multiply redundant copies are a trivial thing. Not to mention a very ingrained concept of legacy support.
It isn't the early years with dozens of competing companies all trying to push their brand and their way of doing things, and all the risk of them likely going out of business and the rest of the world moving on with completely different technologies and formats. We're not going to wake up tomorrow and see headlines of Microsoft having gone bankrupt, and everyone shrug their shoulders to say "Well, guess that's that. Lets toss what's probably a Zettabyte or so of data by now and move on to the 'next big thing'. I didn't want those photos anyway..."
When the user base for a technology could be numbered in the thousands, then yes technology eclipsing was a risk. However most of what we all use day to day is being used by billions now.
As for the doomsday "Technology will eventually move on and you won't be able to read the files!!!" - This is why the majority of the computing world runs on fairly open specifications. Did you know that kids with their fancy 3D printers can build a 5.25 floppy drive and read data from them?
We are no more likely to lose the ability to read and translate any file format in wide spread usage now than we are to lose the ability to translate Latin. There is too much of it and it is too important to the world.
Anything digital? All digital still images will not survive? All digital video will not survive? All digital music will not survive? All computer files will not survive? Really? That is your prediction?It all seems like low probability anything digital will survive 100 years.
Anything digital? All digital still images will not survive? All digital video will not survive? All digital music will not survive? All computer files will not survive? Really? That is your prediction?
Too big to fail is a mantra repeated throughout history.
It reminded me of a concept I ran across last month in a book about economic/technical/environmental sustainability in systems, namely RIQ (Relative Intelligence Quotient), which suggests the more technical, complex, or rapidly changing a system becomes, the lower our relative intelligence becomes and therefore the less able we are to cope with problems that arise in the system.
In the 1980's I started writing digital images to film for archiving and then as now it never made much sense to consider a digital image archived. The best you can do is bring it all up to date as tech changes, but that assumes A) you will have the resources to do it, B) you will have access to the technology necessary, and C) someone will continue after you die (and have to manage A and B throughout their lives). It all seems like low probability anything digital will survive 100 years.
None of this considers the growing amount of finite energy resources these systems depend upon. There is real possibility that in order to keep this technology (like any complex infrastructure we rely upon) maintained will begin competing with other necessities like food production. Who wins who looses? Whose infrastructure gets maintained? Can't maintain it indefinitely with the depleting energy resources? I know it sounds like a straw man argument but it is also fallacy or wishful thinking to be sure these technical problems will be solved through continued growth and technical advancement. Isn't that like a snake swallowing it's own tail?
Anything digital? All digital still images will not survive? All digital video will not survive? All digital music will not survive? All computer files will not survive? Really? That is your prediction?
Digital media is vulnerable to technological, commercial, political and environmental change. People don't want to believe it, they think volume alone will carry it through. I disagree. Time will tell who is correct.And when the sun goes down, it will not matter if you have a negative or a JPG. Game Over.
Digital media is vulnerable to technological, commercial, political and environmental change. People don't want to believe it, they think volume alone will carry it through. I disagree. Time will tell who is correct.
I don't know what that means. I'm extrapolating what I know of technology and business into the future, and saying what now seems permanent won't be, and that's true of the near future as well as the distant. If you enjoy updating your systems you might keep up in your own lifetime - so long as the political, social and commercial picture doesn't change - but its accessibility to people you'd like to see your pictures beyond that (family, friends, admirers) is not something I'd trust to the barons of cyberspace. It's clear I don't share the optimism of some here about the stability of any of the platforms or access to whatever replaces them. I doubt most people have even thought about the issue seriously, and few of them care either way.That technology changes is a fact, but believe it or not what it leaves behind is not a trace of a "falling" star
... We're not going to wake up tomorrow and see headlines of Microsoft having gone bankrupt...
...
Did you know that kids with their fancy 3D printers can build a 5.25 floppy drive and read data from them?
...
I don't know what that means. I'm extrapolating what I know of technology and business into the future, and saying what now seems permanent won't be, and that's true of the near future as well as the distant. If you enjoy updating your systems you might keep up in your own lifetime - so long as the political, social and commercial picture doesn't change - but its accessibility to people you'd like to see your pictures beyond that (family, friends, admirers) is not something I'd trust to the barons of cyberspace. It's clear I don't share the optimism of some here about the stability of any of the platforms or access to whatever replaces them. I doubt most people have even thought about the issue seriously, and few of them care either way.
Ignorance is repeated more often, almost as much as the denial of reality.
That theory works very well with people not with machines
Again, due to a human decision to stop the process at a given time, not because the storage factor fails (Same thing could happen if my ... daughter decides to burn all my negatives and prints in the future ... or burn the hard drives)
And when the sun goes down, it will not matter if you have a negative or a JPG. Game Over.
It is almost as if the industry as a whole has learned a thing or two over the years and have established standards because of mistakes from the past... Welcome to the modern world of computing, whether options such as error correcting exists, and keeping multiply redundant copies are a trivial thing. Not to mention a very ingrained concept of legacy support.
It isn't the early years with dozens of competing companies all trying to push their brand and their way of doing things, and all the risk of them likely going out of business and the rest of the world moving on with completely different technologies and formats. We're not going to wake up tomorrow and see headlines of Microsoft having gone bankrupt, and everyone shrug their shoulders to say "Well, guess that's that. Lets toss what's probably a Zettabyte or so of data by now and move on to the 'next big thing'. I didn't want those photos anyway..."
When the user base for a technology could be numbered in the thousands, then yes technology eclipsing was a risk. However most of what we all use day to day is being used by billions now.
As for the doomsday "Technology will eventually move on and you won't be able to read the files!!!" - This is why the majority of the computing world runs on fairly open specifications. Did you know that kids with their fancy 3D printers can build a 5.25 floppy drive and read data from them?
We are no more likely to lose the ability to read and translate any file format in wide spread usage now than we are to lose the ability to translate Latin. There is too much of it and it is too important to the world.
That technology changes is a fact, but believe it or not what it leaves behind is not a trace of a "falling" star
I don't know what that means. I'm extrapolating what I know of technology and business into the future, and saying what now seems permanent won't be, and that's true of the near future as well as the distant.
If you enjoy updating your systems you might keep up in your own lifetime - so long as the political, social and commercial picture doesn't change - but its accessibility to people you'd like to see your pictures beyond that (family, friends, admirers) is not something I'd trust to the barons of cyberspace.
It's clear I don't share the optimism of some here about the stability of any of the platforms or access to whatever replaces them. I doubt most people have even thought about the issue seriously, and few of them care either way.
What it means is that Technological advances (hardware & software) do not leave behind any previous document that may have been created, even if that document does not correspond with the new software and its new native management.
I don't believe photographers as a whole do have that knowledge
Photography is making pictures with a camera. It's completely democratic, your grandma can do it, George Eastman made it so. Why introduce a lot of transient hands-on technology when you have a stable, mature, hands-off one open to everyone? The only advantage digital has is the number of shutter clicks it allows you to make, and how quickly you can allow the image to be seen electronically. It's the perfect eBay and Facebook medium, but people have different outcome needs.Then you should consider that as the real problem, and not the storage system, nor the durability over time or the rest of short vision ideas announced in the OP video, as the definitives arguments for shooting film.
Dunno. Yesterday I went to my supermarket, stepped to a photo kiosk, plugged in my smartphone and printed a couple images from it. Didn't seem that difficult.Popular photography developed to require less knowledge to achieve a successful print.
Are you saying your great grand daughter will be able to access your cloud in 2067? I assume every current technological interface will be dead and gone ten times over by then, as will all the companies that control them. The idea the digital storage picture in 2017 will last ten years, let alone 50, is not born out by anything we know about the technology or the commerce behind the technology.
Write down disk/backup passwords and store in a "safe" place, if one exists
Your comments suggest you have an above average knowledge of computing systems. I don't believe photographers as a whole do have that knowledge. Popular photography developed to require less knowledge to achieve a successful print.
Professionals account for less than 1% of photos taken, so aren't relevant to the discussion. I mean photography for pleasure and self expression, the content of most APUG threads.By "photographers", do you mean people who have photography as a serious hobby or as a living, or anybody who uses a camera?
Photography is making pictures with a camera. It's completely democratic, your grandma can do it, George Eastman made it so.
The only advantage digital has is the number of shutter clicks it allows you to make, and how quickly you can allow the image to be seen electronically. It's the perfect eBay and Facebook medium, but people have different outcome needs.
You should write down all your passwords on a notepad, take a photo of the note and store that negative in your binder (which will last forever). Easy
Do you have any figures for the amount of prints made per shutter press, re. film vs digital? Or the amounts of prints made in total compared to film days? I suspect your print making habits are the exception.Dunno. Yesterday I went to my supermarket, stepped to a photo kiosk, plugged in my smartphone and printed a couple images from it. Didn't seem that difficult.
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?