Why you should be shooting film

[mynewcolour]

Oh, OK.....i had no idea, never even heard of an E-Reader. I will have to check one out.
I do not know if i will ever read a book with it, but it would be great for:
Schematics
Pamphlets
Looking quickly at a camera manual
Checking out 2-3-4 pages of whatever
Stuff like that.
Thank You

They're a great alternative to carrying large amounts of study material, and for getting quick access (online).

Of course smartphones are great for this too, just not quite as nice for reading long-form.

 

[mynewcolour]

When reading long books, I prefer an actual book. I do prefer digital for science journal articles, reference material and the like. Different uses, purposes, and experiences.

This is largely what the market is finding. Print book sales are doing ok.

Just as with recorded music, tv, and news, independent and self-publishing has completely changed how material is distributed.

 

[dutchsteammachine]

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.

Apollo 16 far ultraviolet camera photos were scanned to digital in 1973 (or something, early 70's) and while they are hard to read, and how they were exactly decoded has been lost to time as the person who wrote the digitize program has passed... they can still be read. So NASA was still able to get them of 70's data tapes.



Lost all pre-apollo landing surveys? Do you mean Lunar orbiter? the Lunar Orbiter tapes from 1976 to 1977 have been read successfully some 8 years back. But I think their encoding was analog?
And yes, it took years of searching and a few tens of thousands of dollars to do it... but were successful. Not even NASA expected it would work, but people made it happen.

If there is a will (and money) there is a way.

Unless you talk about the unprocessed SSTV transmission from Apollo 11, those tapes have yet to be found and are presumed lost. Only the NTSC conversions are known to exist.

I have read, used and archived data from hard drives from the 80's, in anno 2017.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Apollo 16 far ultraviolet camera photos were scanned to digital in 1973 (or something, early 70's) and while they are hard to read, and how they were exactly decoded has been lost to time as the person who wrote the digitize program has passed... they can still be read. So NASA was still able to get them of 70's data tapes.



Lost all pre-apollo landing surveys? Do you mean Lunar orbiter? the Lunar Orbiter tapes from 1976 to 1977 have been read successfully some 8 years back. But I think their encoding was analog?
And yes, it took years of searching and a few tens of thousands of dollars to do it... but were successful. Not even NASA expected it would work, but people made it happen.

If there is a will (and money) there is a way.

Unless you talk about the unprocessed SSTV transmission from Apollo 11, those tapes have yet to be found and are presumed lost. Only the NTSC conversions are known to exist.

I have read, used and archived data from hard drives from the 80's, in anno 2017.

That only works if the equipment is still available. Many NASA Moon Survey photographs [pre 1970, not pre 2017 , also they were pre Apollo 16] were lost because the computer tape recorders no longer exist. The pre 1980 drive are hard to find in working condition and the repair parts are no longer available.

 

[dutchsteammachine]

That only works if the equipment is still available. Many NASA Moon Survey photographs [pre 1970, not pre 2017 , also they were pre Apollo 16] were lost because the computer tape recorders no longer exist. The pre 1980 drive are hard to find in working condition and the repair parts are no longer available.

Yes I know they were pre-apollo. I just used Apollo 16 Far Ultraviolet Camera as an example of a digital scan saved on tape, and that those tapes can still be read. Digital is not as bad of a long-term medium as people may think.

In fact, the only Apollo 16 Far Ultra Violet scans that I know of are the ones made in 1973. And I am the person who decoded the files and uploaded them to Archive.org.

NASA and archive institutions hold and keep many rare tape recorders, in the case any weird tapes need to be read. NASA and one or two other companies have the few remaining recorders that will be capable of playing the original Apollo 11 SSTV recordings. The Lunar Orbiter tapes used to record directly received signals from the Lunar Orbiter crafts have been recovered and digitized. The only two knows recorders on the planet capable of playing back those tapes have been refurbished specially for that task.

No official NASA mission, craft or data set has ever been called 'Moon Survey photographs'. Maybe in layman terms, but nothing official.

There are several pre-apollo missions you can be talking about.

1. Ranger Program: 1961 - 1965
TV camera strapped on a lunar orbiter and impactor.
I do not know if the tapes with original TV transmission exist, here is an archive of print and film scans: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ranger/

2. Lunar Orbiter: 1966 - 1967
99% of Original transmissions have been recovered from original tapes.
Complete data set also exists on film generated at the time of receiving on Earth.
Provided highest resolution maps of lunar surface until Apollo.
Original tapes digitization are of higher resolution and better dynamic range than the film digitization.

3. Surveyor program: 1966 - 1968
Lunar Landers.
Data sets exist as prints and film.

 

[CMoore]

I have a few frames of the Apollo film. 35mm...no sprocket holes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No official NASA mission, craft or data set has ever been called 'Moon Survey photographs'. Maybe in layman terms, but nothing official.

There are several pre-apollo missions you can be talking about.

1. Ranger Program: 1961 - 1965
TV camera strapped on a lunar orbiter and impactor.
I do not know if the tapes with original TV transmission exist, here is an archive of print and film scans: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ranger/

2. Lunar Orbiter: 1966 - 1967
99% of Original transmissions have been recovered from original tapes.
Complete data set also exists on film generated at the time of receiving on Earth.
Provided highest resolution maps of lunar surface until Apollo.
Original tapes digitization are of higher resolution and better dynamic range than the film digitization.

3. Surveyor program: 1966 - 1968
Lunar Landers.
Data sets exist as prints and film.

Part of all of those. I was using the generic turn rather than possibly committing a mistake from not exactly naming them correctly!

 

[blockend]

VHS videotape - there probably will not be any device that can read it 50 years from now.

Good point. Throughout the 1980s and into the early 2000s VHS tape was the means by which almost every moving image recorded for consumer use was viewed. People had shelves of tapes at home and there were VHS video hire shops on every high street. Supermarkets and convenience stores sold VHS movies and blank tapes could be bought in the corner shop and the petrol station. Entire rows at Electronics and Hi-Fi stores were dedicated to VCR players. It was unimaginable that the VHS medium would become as commercially relevant and available as 127 film within a decade.

It's worth bearing VHS in mind when people say too big to die of any popular recording format.

 

[George Mann]

he even said digital IQ was better.

Then he has never seen the actual film image!

 

[blockend]

It begins. Photobucket demands $400 for your own photographs. Free storage is passing into history.

 

[darkosaric]

It begins. Photobucket demands $400 for your own photographs. Free storage is passing into history.

I just read it on slashdot.org, you know what they say: "there is no cloud, is just someone else's computer".

 

[klownshed]

It begins. Photobucket demands $400 for your own photographs. Free storage is passing into history.

What they've done is prevent people from sharing photos stored on photo bucket on third party websites. The storage part is still free. Why anybody would ever want to use photobucket in the first place is another discussion!

All online storage should be considered somewhat temporary.

This changes nothing.

 

[dmr]

What they've done is prevent people from sharing photos stored on photo bucket on third party websites. The storage part is still free. Why anybody would ever want to use photobucket in the first place is another discussion!

They tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that Photobucket has backed off on the draconian policy. I don't use it, so I do not know first hand.

All online storage should be considered somewhat temporary.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[blockend]

What they've done is prevent people from sharing photos stored on photo bucket on third party websites.

I'll guess the vast majority of PB users do precisely that.

 

[blockend]

They tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that Photobucket has backed off on the draconian policy.

Probably because it attracted so much flak. It won't stop Photobucket going bankrupt if they fail to raise revenue. That might be by intrusive ads, reducing file sizes or selling your shots back to you or other people. Even paid cloud services are prey to buys outs and speculators keen to know exactly what the true commercial rate of a stored photographic image is. When it's your life's work or family archive there's a lot of financial leverage. It won't happen overnight, but I expect prices for cloud storage to rise exponentially once the commitment and volume factors have reached a tipping point.

 

[big-d]

But most people wouldn't know that, right? I mean there are three computer acronyms in that post alone, plus a reasonably advanced skill set which has nothing to do with the ability to capture a good image. A film photographer on the other hand can take a disposable camera to a C41 lab and return with the same hard copy as someone with a Nikon F6, a Jobo kit and a colour Beseler. Sure, we can argue different aesthetic qualities, but both will offer photographs you can look at, pass around and keep for future generations. Digital photographers have that potential, but how many make a 6 x 4" copy of everything they do - and you still don't get a master negative with a hundred + year life.

The point he makes well is a digital image is entirely virtual until it's printed, because the on screen alternatives are infant technology and subject to technological redundancy and commercial changes. You can keep up with those changes but most people probably won't, and even those who do are unlikely to have a relative or friend who cares as much once they pass on. The picture of his great grandparents and grandparents are precisely the kind of thing that gets junked in the digital era, or succumbs to a failing hard drive and people say, well, it was only Aunt Mimi on there so it becomes landfill. Even the crappiest neg shot on a 126 Instamatic has its future potential locked in those halides permanently, or close to it.

I currently shoot digital/film about 50/50, but apart from putting the digital images on a couple of hard drives in different places, I don't have the energy to future proof those files, and doubt its even possible.

Color film can all will fade over time without proper(cold) storage. Dead Link Removed

 

[jtk]

I almost didn't open this YouTube page because it looked like another hipster doing what hipsters do, but he speaks some of the best sense about film photography in a digital age I've heard anywhere:

He's not a "hipster," he's a know-nothing. Not necessary to back up to a hard drive, easy (and free) to back up in any of several free cloud storage systems.

 

[blockend]

He's not a "hipster," he's a know-nothing. Not necessary to back up to a hard drive, easy (and free) to back up in any of several free cloud storage systems.

Free for now. There's no such thing as cloud storage, just other people's hard drives.

 

[blockend]

The previous post was July last year. jtk seems to enjoy reanimating zombie threads. In large type faces.

 

[Sirius Glass]

He's not a "hipster," he's a know-nothing. Not necessary to back up to a hard drive, easy (and free) to back up in any of several free cloud storage systems.

Free for now. There's no such thing as cloud storage, just other people's hard drives.

Is it time to start an endless thread about the lack of archive-ability for digital images and how film is forever? We have not had a good rant about that for at least a day or two!

 

[blockend]

Is it time to start an endless thread about the lack of archive-ability for digital images and how film is forever? We have not had a good rant about that for at least a day or two!

I answered your post in its previous deleted incarnation above. The reply is the same.

 

[jtk]

Free for now. There's no such thing as cloud storage, just other people's hard drives.

Blockend begged for enlightenment: The film I care about is all backed up on both hard drives and cloud. This naturally means my print files are backed up in both of those places, as well as in prints. Since I do retain that film (archival) I'll soon abandon hard drives...will just be film, prints, and cloud.

 

[removed account4]

He's not a "hipster," he's a know-nothing. Not necessary to back up to a hard drive, easy (and free) to back up in any of several free cloud storage systems.[/QUOTE]

he's not a know nothing at all he knows probably more than a lot of people on THIS site...
the last thing i want is my "stuff" on the cloud. i don't want my personal information there
my health records or my photography ... maybe it's convenient ? but its not where i want to be ..
am i a know nothing because i am not interested in cloud storage ? btw, nothing is ever free or FOREVER.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Just from a privacy perspective, and a control perspective, I don't know why anyone would store anything with someone else, especially with a company that might or might not keep the information safe. Better to just do it yourself. There is no such thing as free in life.

 

[CMoore]

Wow.....he also has this video below.
I only shoot film, do not own a digital camera. But that is all personal choice.
I see and LIKE Thousands and Thousands of digital photos, and Dozens and Dozens of photographers that use Digital cameras.
I kind of hate to see this stuff.....the "Film Snob" thing does not do us film Guys/Gals any good. We are all just photographers.
We cannot all do and use all the photo tools that are available. I appreciate what others DO Know and Use....ESPECIALLY when it differs from myself.
It kind of sounds like he is trying to put himself on a bit of a pedestal.?
Perhaps i am wrong. Whatever.....




.