 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / June 2004film vs digital in washington times
it's an interesting article with quite a few good points made by those interviewed. http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040616-095521-5280r.htm > it's an interesting article with quite a few good points made by those interviewed. > > http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040616-095521-5280r.htm Quoted from the above-referenced article: " However, printing gives tangibility to the images through the negatives and prints, Ms. Feerick says. "Whether it's a good or bad negative, most people keep it. With digital, they're not going to do that," she says, adding that she is "concerned with that sense of loss of images," whether they are personal or historical. "What's going to happen to visual history?" she asks. " It will be more aesthetically appealing to view. For example, if a photographer happens upon a group of space aliens who have landed he will photograph said aliens. If the aliens are leisurely hanging out the photographer can check his image for visual appeal then reshoot if necessary. If they get back in their flying saucer and leave quickly the photographer still has the original image he captured. I don't see the great difference between the digital and film approach in Feerick's quote. I have a plethora of negatives I will never ever print, but they all still take up space in my archives. These are the types of images I delete with digital; when in doubt of a digital image it gets burned to a CD along with the obvious keepers. Where is the harm? Michael >I don't see the great difference between the digital and film approach >in Feerick's quote. I have a plethora of negatives I will never ever [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Michael AAahhhh but, you see, you have them nonetheless, on the shelf. Later on, say 100 years from now after you're long gone, those images you don't like now will have historical value to your descendants and others. Same with other people. The problem with digital though, even if they backup on CDs, is that most people are not aware of the "CD rot" problem. CDs are not durable, and especially now that they've become a commodity bought in a 100 tubs, the quality standards have fallen horribly. The majority of people think a CD is a CD, regardless of brand. And yet, most don't even backup unless they have to. Only idiots read the Washington Times or the New York Post. Only teh brain dead write for those papers. Only the true losers base their decisions on anything they read in those papers.  Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > it's an interesting article with quite a few good points made by those interviewed. > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Michael >From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com >Date: 19/06/2004 17:49 GMT Daylight Time [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >dead write for those papers. Only the true losers base their decisions on >anything they read in those papers. What do you read? > >From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com > >Date: 19/06/2004 17:49 GMT Daylight Time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What do you read? He probably reads newsgroups exclusively - nuff said. The Washington POST and the NY TIMES, and USA Today. But of course, unlike the crotch rot that buys the W Times and the NY Post - I can read. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > >From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What do you read? > He probably reads newsgroups exclusively - nuff said. > For example, if a photographer happens upon a group of space aliens > who have landed he will photograph said aliens. If the aliens are > leisurely hanging out the photographer can check his image for visual > appeal then reshoot if necessary. If they get back in their flying > saucer and leave quickly the photographer still has the original image > he captured. The obvious issue here is can the space aliens clear the contents of a digital camera? I believe that if you're photographing space aliens, you'd be better off with film and something archival at that, like Kodachrome or non-C41 B&W film. > I don't see the great difference between the digital and film approach > in Feerick's quote. I have a plethora of negatives I will never ever > print, but they all still take up space in my archives. These are the > types of images I delete with digital; when in doubt of a digital > image it gets burned to a CD along with the obvious keepers. Where is > the harm? A photograph that seems too useless to keep in the field may become priceless at some later date. Some digital photographers and photojournalists have learned this the hard way, after deleting seemingly uninteresting images that later turned out to be potential career-makers. "Rats! This picture of the towers was ruined by that plane flying so close by. I'll erase it and try again when we go there tomorrow." SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > it's an interesting article with quite a few good points made by those interviewed. > > http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040616-095521-5280r.htm Without getting into which is better, the final point about permanence of prints is one thing that also concerns me. I have family historical photographs that were taken over 100 years ago. Sure they have deteriorated somewhat, but they are still visible. They have had nothing done other than the print being kept inside an album for the last 100 years. The photos I take with film today will still be around in 100 years, assuming I put them in an album where they won't accidently be thrown out. Again they will have faded a bit, but will still be visible. I wonder if the digital photos I take today will still be viewable in 100 years. If I took digital photos 20 years ago, and put them on the data standard of 20 years ago - 5.25" floppies, and put them in my attic, I would now not be able to view them. If I put photos on CDR or DVDR now, put them in the attic, will I be able to view them in 20, 50 or 100 years? The only way to guarantee the longevity of digital photos is to constantly re-copy them to whatever the new media is. Digital is a bit of an all-or-nothing affair - if you can access the file you get it 100% perfect, but if anything goes wrong it is 100% lost. Working in a computer field, it is amazing how many clients lost all their digital photos when they had a hard drive crash - all their precious memories were entrusted to a failure-prone piece of electronics. It would take a fire or similar drastic event to have the same consequences with film - certainly an event that is much rarer than a hard drive failure. > Without getting into which is better, the final point about permanence of > prints is one thing that also concerns me. I have family historical > photographs that were taken over 100 years ago. Sure they have deteriorated > somewhat, but they are still visible. They have had nothing done other than > the print being kept inside an album for the last 100 years. Ironically, the recent digital discussion here centers around printing. Not *if* they can be printed, but how best to coax out the last unnoticeable detail. We also periodically discuss print longevity, both for optical and digital. We're not far enough into the future yet to add insights to the already voiced uncertainties. I just mean to say digital can be printed just as easily as film. The archiving problems are thus the same, modulo unquantified differences in the keeping qualities of the respective materials. To confuse things even more, I believe that some, if not most or all, mini-lab prints are from scans. > > Without getting into which is better, the final point about permanence of > > prints is one thing that also concerns me. I have family historical [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > keeping qualities of the respective materials. To confuse things even more, > I believe that some, if not most or all, mini-lab prints are from scans. But one of the key differences with digital compared to film, is that you only print the ones you think are worthy of printing. For many people that is only a very tiny proportion of the photos they take. With film, unless you request development only, you get a print of everything. Even if you request development only, you have a negative of everything which is just as long lasting (if not longer) as a print. Who's to say that the 99% of digital photos you don't print, aren't going to be of historical significance in 100 years. >[...] > But one of the key differences with digital compared to film, is that you > only print the ones you think are worthy of printing. For many people that > is only a very tiny proportion of the photos they take. With film, unless > you request development only, you get a print of everything. Who in his right mind has prints made from every frame? > Who's to say that the 99% of > digital photos you don't print, aren't going to be of historical > significance in 100 years. The major issue for the family photos, the kind that we have as faded B&W images of relatives from 100 years ago, is that digital images require work of the owner to keep them over the long haul, but film doesn't, and never has. It will be necessary for the current owner and each subsequent owner of the images to transfer them forward onto new, modern storage media to ensure availablility. Film has never required this, and most of the folks I know who shoot digital for the point-and-shoot family snapshots have not considered this. A few have realized it, but those are the ones who have also found they don't care for being responsibile for printing their photos - the1-hour shop used to do that when they shot film, but now the camera owner has to give up an expensive memory card to get prints (and hope he gets the card back - it's amazing to me how people who've neber lost one and don't know of anyone else who has can mistrust the prinbting system) or stand at a kiosk and struggle with poorly designed software to make prints himself, or buy a printer, paper, and do it at home. Very few family snapshooters were interested in doing their own prints - they'd be nutballs like us if they were. Bob in Las Vegas This is complete crap. Film is not an archival material. Colour negative film has a very limited life while slides and BW material are delicate and must be maintained in decent conditions or they will deteriorate rapidly. Fire and flood will also take a severe toll on film, as it cannot be stored in two places at teh same time. Anyone who thinks archiving on film only takes tossing the stuff into glassine envelopes and coming back in 100 years to look at their treasures is in for a big and unpleasant surprise. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > Who's to say that the 99% of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bob in Las Vegas > Anyone who thinks archiving on film only takes tossing the stuff into > glassine envelopes and coming back in 100 years to look at their treasures > is in for a big and unpleasant surprise. If they live that long, otherwise who cares. Certainly not Joe Blo consumer. SignatureThe joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential of a Blank canvas. This is a provision for the mind's eye. I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home. > This is complete crap. Film is not an archival material. Colour negative > film has a very limited life while slides and BW material are delicate and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > glassine envelopes and coming back in 100 years to look at their treasures > is in for a big and unpleasant surprise. Well, the glassine envelope bit is true: the paste in the seam can raise hell with negatives, and so can some plastic sleeves due to outgassing, HOWEVER, properly fixed and washed B&W film will last a _very_ long time with only adequate storage. Nothing fancy. It will deteriorate a lot slower than current CDROM or DVDs. Color film, especially positives are another story. In rec.photo.equipment.35mm one_of_many <oneofmany@nix.nix> wrote: > > This is complete crap. Film is not an archival material. Colour negative > > film has a very limited life while slides and BW material are delicate and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Color film, especially positives are another story. Huh? Compared to precicely which digital storage medium that can accomodate image file size amounts of data? Even the best - magnetic tape - decays far faster than slide film when both are kept in their respective best storage. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ > In rec.photo.equipment.35mm one_of_many <oneofmany@nix.nix> wrote: > > Well, the glassine envelope bit is true: the paste in the seam can raise > > hell with negatives, and so can some plastic sleeves due to outgassing, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > image file size amounts of data? Even the best - magnetic tape - decays > far faster than slide film when both are kept in their respective best storage. It is difficult to understand what your objection is, but I'll guess: Color transparencies are far more sensitive to aging, exposure to the air, than B&W. I don't know why you find that surprising. Mag tape is pretty much off-topic since we don't use it anymore for archival storage. Believe me, I know magtapes and all their quirks. In rec.photo.equipment.35mm one_of_many <oneofmany@nix.nix> wrote: > > In rec.photo.equipment.35mm one_of_many <oneofmany@nix.nix> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Color transparencies are far more sensitive to aging, exposure to the air, > than B&W. I don't know why you find that surprising. Mag tape is pretty Fine, but they still age considerably more slowly than *any* mass storage digital medium. > much off-topic since we don't use it anymore for archival storage. Believe > me, I know magtapes and all their quirks. Mag tapes and no longer used for archival? Yeah right. So what do you archive things on, latest crop of DVD-R? And precicely how did you get your DVD writing setup to scale up to DLT sizes/speeds (300GB, 36MB/s)? SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ > In rec.photo.equipment.35mm one_of_many <oneofmany@nix.nix> wrote: > > It is difficult to understand what your objection is, but I'll guess: > > Color transparencies are far more sensitive to aging, exposure to the air, > > than B&W. I don't know why you find that surprising. Mag tape is pretty > > Fine, but they still age considerably more slowly than *any* mass storage > digital medium. I was arguing that B&W film is more archival than digital tape. We seemed to agree, but that's not important; I don't care what you think. > > much off-topic since we don't use it anymore for archival storage. Believe > > me, I know magtapes and all their quirks. > > Mag tapes and no longer used for archival? Yeah right. So what do you archive > things on, latest crop of DVD-R? And precicely how did you get your DVD > writing setup to scale up to DLT sizes/speeds (300GB, 36MB/s)? Mag tapes are used as transitory medium. That is: counting as frequency of application, first for incremental backups, then full backups but the persistent media remains raid arrays. Lots of them. Tape is _transitory_ to provide temporary, emergency backup for a _temporary_ total-power-loss case. (You know the drill - two copies in separate remote locations.) No way are we going to put critical data on a tape on a shelf for more than 12 months without refreshing, although I do have tapes from 1977 that I can still read. However, the supporting machine is going into the dumpster and the data is now on discs. I've no friggin interest in this subject any longer. Take it to a digital group or something. > Mag tapes are used as transitory medium. That is: counting as frequency of > application, first for incremental backups, then full backups but the > persistent media remains raid arrays. Lots of them. Tape is _transitory_ > to provide temporary, emergency backup for a _temporary_ total-power-loss > case. No, tape is an archival medium of choice. Less expensive and less volatile than disk, RAID array or not. You set up multiple silos and delivery systems and you can have a zillion terabytes archived. > No way are we going to put critical data on a tape on a shelf > for more than 12 months without refreshing ... Most tapes aren't put on shelves at all these days. They are stored by automated storage systems and loaded and unloaded by robots. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > It is difficult to understand what your objection is, but I'll guess: > Color transparencies are far more sensitive to aging, exposure to the air, > than B&W. I don't know why you find that surprising. Mag tape is pretty > much off-topic since we don't use it anymore for archival storage. Believe > me, I know magtapes and all their quirks. Mag tape is off-topic due to its price. I think it's rhetorical to compare mag tape to celluloid film. I wish the person who suggested it would just point out how much it costs. How much would i need to have a mag tape set up? Last time i checked it was several thousands. > How much would i need to have a mag tape set up? > > Last time i checked it was several thousands. Correct. But it's a very good backup and archive medium. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > I don't know why you find that surprising. Mag tape is pretty > much off-topic since we don't use it anymore for archival storage. Magnetic tapes are still used for archives. I even use them for backups myself. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. But it cannot be reproduced like digital files - ergo it cannot be archived. Try to think before you put your foot so deep into your mouth. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > This is complete crap. Film is not an archival material. Colour negative [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Color film, especially positives are another story. > But it cannot be reproduced like digital files - ergo it cannot be > archived. Try to think before you put your foot so deep into your mouth. You are still the fuckup you always were, Tony. Hey, would you mind sending me some of your 8" floppy disc images? And you are still the moron troll you always were. If you ever knew anything about anything I'm sure it was lost during the shock treatments - go have a few more. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > But it cannot be reproduced like digital files - ergo it cannot be > > archived. Try to think before you put your foot so deep into your mouth. > > You are still the fuckup you always were, Tony. Hey, would you mind > sending me some of your 8" floppy disc images? "Tony Spadaro" posted: "... Anyone who thinks archiving on film only takes tossing the stuff into glassine envelopes and coming back in 100 years to look at their treasures is in for a big and unpleasant surprise. ..." I don't know 'bout that ... Recently I've been going through some film shot by my father in the late 1920s through the mid 1950s. (He was a relatively successful commercial photographer. Guess what? Those images stored in the proverbial "glassine envelopes" were all there ... and in GOOD condition. The early Kodachrome and Ektachrome (E1 ... no less) had some color shifts, but nothing that couldn't be fixed with PhotoShop. And the early B&W stuff all looked pretty much like the proof prints stored with the images. Now here's the "kicker" ... ALL of these negatives and transparencies was stored in conditions that were approximately "living conditions" ... NOT in "archival storage facility" conditions. (FWIW: I haven't gotten to the thousands of early C-41 color negatives yet ...) >I don't know 'bout that ... > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >(FWIW: I haven't gotten to the thousands of early C-41 color negatives yet >...) Bless you! I should kiss you for this reassuring post. Whooo - So I guess they was no fire, flood, or tornado or anythign else that hit them. That makes you very lucky -- and a member of the minority. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > "Tony Spadaro" posted: > "... Anyone who thinks archiving on film only takes tossing the stuff into [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > (FWIW: I haven't gotten to the thousands of early C-41 color negatives yet ...) >Whooo - So I guess they was no fire, flood, or tornado or anythign else that >hit them. That makes you very lucky -- and a member of the minority. Wow, where do you live? I don't know anyone personally who had his home destroyed by fire, flood, tornado, etc. And where you live it is just a minority who did not have disaster struck upon them? SignatureThe Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote: > >Whooo - So I guess they was no fire, flood, or tornado or anythign else that > >hit them. That makes you very lucky -- and a member of the minority. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And where you live it is just a minority who did not have disaster struck > upon them? I guess some rain gods simply read the newsgroups where he posts and thus tornados and floods are sent his way regularily in an attempt to make him behave ;-) SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ I've had everything prior to 1978 destroyed in a fire and a fare amount destroyed by mold since. There is an area about the size of Delaware in NC where one flood wiped out just about everyone's pictures - film and prints. The 3000 Kennedy White House photographs were stored in a safe in the World Trade Center. They found the safe but when they opened it there was only ash inside. Film is not an archival medium. There is a better way available now -- it's called digital files and allows you to have multiple sets stored in multiple locations. Anyone not doing this is gambling - in fact they are not even gambling. No gambler would take such odds over the long haul. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > >Whooo - So I guess they was no fire, flood, or tornado or anythign else that > >hit them. That makes you very lucky -- and a member of the minority. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And where you live it is just a minority who did not have disaster struck > upon them? >I've had everything prior to 1978 destroyed in a fire and a fare amount >destroyed by mold since. There is an area about the size of Delaware in NC [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >doing this is gambling - in fact they are not even gambling. No gambler >would take such odds over the long haul. Hmm, 3rd world countries with poor water management. I wonder how many people select locations in different time zones to store their digital files. Of course, you can also split your film collection and store it in different places. Those 3000 Kennedy White House photographs could have been split and stored in two different locations. With the same lack of planning, they would probably have stored two copies of the digital files, one in each tower. SignatureThe Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Those 3000 Kennedy White House photographs could have been split and > stored in two different locations. With the same lack of planning, they > would probably have stored two copies of the digital files, one in each > tower. NatGeo photographers (some/all?) do split their undeveloped film before shipping. Alternate rolls shipped to Wash D.C. in separate shipments (I imagine on separate days). (Now that they are going more digital (slowly), I'm not sure how they manage the security of the images until they arrive in Wash. Signature--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- How do you store you film in two different places? I suspect you not only don't but never would. The third world country with a flood the size of delaware was the USA - North Carolina to be exact -- millions of photographs were destroyed. If you are stupid enough to believe that saving half you pictures would be a reasonable percentage - keep doing what you are doiung -- but as I said at the top - I doubt you are even splitting your negatives into two separate file cabinets. I have a full archive of my finished files in my safe deposit box -- another full archive at home and a third on a second hard drive in my computer. When I get a DVD writer I'm thinking about having my brother store another set -- 500 miles away from my house. Try that with your film, Ace. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > >I've had everything prior to 1978 destroyed in a fire and a fare amount > >destroyed by mold since. There is an area about the size of Delaware in NC [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > would probably have stored two copies of the digital files, one in each > tower. > If you are stupid enough to believe that saving half you pictures would be > a reasonable percentage - keep doing what you are doiung -- but as I said at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > computer. When I get a DVD writer I'm thinking about having my brother store > another set -- 500 miles away from my house. Try that with your film, Ace. But you can do all of that, plus still keep the film with a decent scanner. After all, there is no difference between scanning a piece of film, and scanning an actual scene with a digital camera. In both cases, you will be limited in resolution by the quality of the digital recording medium. So, why not have the best of both worlds? > But you can do all of that, plus still keep the film with a decent > scanner. After all, there is no difference between scanning a piece of > film, and scanning an actual scene with a digital camera. What if there is? Direct digital is first generation, scanned film second generation. >What if there is? Direct digital is first generation, scanned film second >generation. Can you then explain, Mr Digitalis, why the "second generation" film image when drum scanned beats the dslr's "first generation" image? Your argument though works equally in favor of film. Film need not be scanned and as-is probably makes a much better print than scanned film. > >What if there is? Direct digital is first generation, scanned film second > >generation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Your argument though works equally in favor of film. Film need not be scanned > and as-is probably makes a much better print than scanned film. Yes.....I don't see why you would lose anything by scanning a good piece of film with a drum scanner, since the film is of higher resolution than the digital camera shot would be were you to take the photograph with it to begin with. IOW, the film record of the scene can, for all practical purposes, be considered the original scene since all digitization processes thenceforth will only degrade that scene. Of course, the best of all possible worlds would be to get both records from the original scene, but certainly scanning the film is a very viable alternative. > Can you then explain, Mr Digitalis, why the "second generation" film image when > drum scanned beats the dslr's "first generation" image? Two reasons: (1) both are actually second generation images; and (2) the analog portion of the chain loses less for film than for digital, with respect to the original scene. High-speed analog tape recording can provide better sound than ordinary digital audio CDs, for the same reasons. > Your argument though works equally in favor of film. Film need not be scanned > and as-is probably makes a much better print than scanned film. The best results with film usually come from scanning it. It's very hard to match that quality with direct optical enlargement. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > Direct digital is first generation, scanned film second > generation. No, they are both the same generation. In digital there's a conversion from light to electrical charge and then from electrical charge to numbers. In film there's a conversion from light to film density, and then from film density to numbers. Remember, "digital" cameras are actually analog devices. They are electronic, but not digital. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > Direct digital is first generation, scanned film second > > generation. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > numbers. In film there's a conversion from light to film density, and > then from film density to numbers. Phhhhpt! Talk about simplifications. Color film is at least third or more generation even before hitting the scanner. First is a latent image of silver ions. Second is one or more silver negative images. Third for CN is the coupled dye. For color trannies, there's a bleach, reversal, and redevelopment before the dyes, making for fourth, fifth, and sixth generations. Scanning picks up where digital capture begins: conversion from light to electrical charge. > Remember, "digital" cameras are actually analog devices. They are > electronic, but not digital. Scanners, too. But who's counting? > Talk about simplifications. Color film is at least third or more > generation even before hitting the scanner. First is a latent image of > silver ions. Second is one or more silver negative images. Third for CN is > the coupled dye. For color trannies, there's a bleach, reversal, and > redevelopment before the dyes, making for fourth, fifth, and sixth > generations. The capture process is essentially monolithic from an information-theory standpoint. > Scanners, too. But who's counting? It's important because many people tout the supposed advantages of digital (or tear it down) based on the incorrect belief that digital cameras are actually digital, when in fact they are merely electronic (but still analog). SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Besides - I keep the film too -- I simply don't depend on it surviving long. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > But you can do all of that, plus still keep the film with a decent [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What if there is? Direct digital is first generation, scanned film second > generation. >Besides - I keep the film too -- I simply don't depend on it surviving long. Tony, this reminds me of my frustration last night; one of my CDs contained an important audio recording that i made a few months ago and last night i needed it so i grabbed the CD, which i haven't used for a while, only to find that it was scratched and the CD drive was skipping. My frustration was immense. I tried to find another copy only to see that some other CDs, only a few months old, weren't in a good state either. I'm talking about JVC and Samsung. All kept in a spindle, at room temperature, away from any heat or humidity. In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Digitalis <digi@alis.invalid> wrote: > > But you can do all of that, plus still keep the film with a decent > > scanner. After all, there is no difference between scanning a piece of > > film, and scanning an actual scene with a digital camera. > > What if there is? Direct digital is first generation, scanned film second > generation. I'm not sure what you mean by that 'what if'? And 'direct digital' (which is a really screwed up marketing buzzword) is by no means of the imagination 'in its first generation'. CCD sensors have been around since the mid-1970s. Please go and grow a brain, ok? SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ > And 'direct digital' (which is a really screwed up marketing buzzword) is > by no means of the imagination 'in its first generation'. CCD sensors > have been around since the mid-1970s. CCDs are analog devices. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote: > > And 'direct digital' (which is a really screwed up marketing buzzword) is > > by no means of the imagination 'in its first generation'. CCD sensors > > have been around since the mid-1970s. > > CCDs are analog devices. They are mixed signal devices. Just like any other analog<->digital converter. You know, any device that somehow measures the phenomena of teh physical world and converts it to numbers (esp digital signals) will be. Wheres the big deal? SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ > They are mixed signal devices. They are analog devices, unless the include ADCs on the chip, and even then, that doesn't make the CCD portion any less analog. > Wheres the big deal? None, as long as one understands the concepts. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> What if there is? Direct digital is first generation, scanned film >> second generation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > by no means of the imagination 'in its first generation'. CCD sensors have > been around since the mid-1970s. ROFL! There is nothing quite like creative misquoting. In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Digitalis <digi@alis.invalid> wrote: > >> What if there is? Direct digital is first generation, scanned film > >> second generation. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > There is nothing quite like creative misquoting. Precicely what did I misquote? SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ >How do you store you film in two different places? I suspect you not only >don't but never would. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >computer. When I get a DVD writer I'm thinking about having my brother store >another set -- 500 miles away from my house. Try that with your film, Ace. I have to admit, if you choose to live in an area where the chances that you struck by disaster approach one, it may be different. But where I live, the chance that film gets lost due to fire, floods, etc. is very small. So, on the off chance that your house burns down, storing a selection somewhere is a good approach. Different backup strategies are needed for different situations. If you know that personal archive is going to be destroyed one time or another, it is better to keep copies. SignatureThe Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Whooo - So I guess they was no fire, flood, or tornado or anythign else that > hit them. That makes you very lucky -- and a member of the minority. And any of those disasters would destroy a digital archive too. Sure digital has the advantage that it is relatively easy to create a 2nd copy and store offsite - but how many people do you know who actually do this? Most people I know of, don't even bother making a 2nd copy onto CDR, relying solely on the copy on their hard drive. So not only can all of their photos be destroyed by fire, flood etc, they can all be destroyed by an accidental click of the delete key, a computer virus, the failure of a small electronic component, etc etc etc. Film is easy to make a 2nd copy too, just more expensive. When my father was cleaning up my recently deceased grandmother's house, he discovered a number of colour slides, colour & B&W prints and B&W Negs, that judging by the subjects, date back to the 60's - possibly older. The slides were mounted, and stored in shoebox. The prints were just bunched together in a shoebox. The B&W negs were just kept in sleeves again in a shoebox. They probably haven't even been looked at for nigh on 40 years, yet there they were, still quite viewable. The slides and colour prints have had a bit of colour shift and/or fade, but are still quite viewable. The B&W's still look pretty much spot on. Now - lets assume it was possible back then to store the photos digitally - they would have either been on punch cards or magnetic tape. Punch cards would still be accurate, but no modern equipment can read them. Magnetic tape would most likely have developed a number of errors so possibly be totally unreadable - if it was readable, again no equipment would be able to read them. Even 20 years ago, when 5.25" disks were common, it would be nigh on impossible to find some way of reading those disks now. If I burn photo's on CD now, put them in the attic and forget about them for 40 years, will I be able to read the data from them? Based on history (and the archival ability of CDR), the answer is most likely no. Even if equipment is still available in 40 years to read CD's, they will most likely be damaged to the point of making the data irretrievable. If I take photo's on film, even a C41 film, in 40 years they will still be viewable - yes there will be colour shifts, but they will still be viewable. > Whooo - So I guess they was no fire, flood, or tornado or anythign else that > hit them. That makes you very lucky -- and a member of the minority. The vast majority of the population is never a victim of fire, flood, or tornado. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > Recently I've been going through some film shot by my father in the late 1920s through the > mid 1950s. (He was a relatively successful commercial photographer. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > conditions that were approximately "living conditions" ... NOT in "archival storage > facility" conditions. This does happen. And so does the case where they are stored in slightly more humid conditions and the right fungus get at them and ... etc. Signature--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > > Recently I've been going through some film shot by my father in the late 1920s through the > > mid 1950s. (He was a relatively successful commercial photographer. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > slightly more humid conditions and the right fungus get at them > and ... etc. yeah, not much different from CD-Rs. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ My son stored his cds and cd-rs in our garage for a couple years. All of them are fine. This was an unheated un air conditioned building where the summer humidity makes one only go there when one seriously wants something from it. In much less harsh conditions I had about 1000 slides and I don't know how many rolls of B/W film turned to garbage in less than two months. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > yeah, not much different from CD-Rs. > Anyone who thinks archiving on film only takes tossing the stuff into > glassine envelopes and coming back in 100 years to look at their treasures > is in for a big and unpleasant surprise. It is nevertheless true that film photos are self-archiving to a certain extent, in that the original image is recorded on indelible media that have a considerable lifetime. Digital images are nothing more than numbers and are no more permanent than the medium in which they are recorded (often a volatile medium). Almost all the amateur digital photographs being taken today--as well as a good percentage of professional digital photographs--will be gone in just a few years ... because they are not being backed up. When the disk in the family PC fails, everything is lost. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > This is complete crap. Film is not an archival material. Colour negative > film has a very limited life while slides and BW material are delicate and Does that include micro-filming? That is the gold standard in document storage. It will last about a humdred years as I recall. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.