Specific Virtue of Film over Digital (was Re: New Delta 100 in the works?)
Silverman
of traditional film photography that is not achieved using Digital
technology: the negative itself. The orginal negative has a certain
exclusivity, provenance, genuineness. I can decide, for example, to
sell my last handmade print of a popular image along with the
negative. You aren't likely to do that with a digitally made image.
Darrell A. Larose
Then you get into the debate of destroying negatives to ensure that
your print is truly a limited edition. This is important in some art
circles. What prevents the buyer from having your negative printed?
My biggest disappointment was when Yousef Karsh sold his main body
of work the the National Archives of Canada, they held a retrospective
of his work printed by the Government Photo Centre, they printed
them on Ilford Multigrade RC paper, non of them had any sparkle :(
If you want a photo to be exclusive, you may have to destroy the
negative.
I don't see how a digital image is any lesser as art, Art Wolfe
does some truly wonderful prints with an Epson Inkjet printer.
It really isn't about how the image was made, but whether the
piece has appeal
Darrell larose
Ottawa, Canada
Dan Smith, Photographer
won't lose 'information' during a power surge or electrical storm or when
someone with an altered electrical body field handles it.
With no electricity available, one can still get a print from a negative &
photo paper. Try that one with a computer & printer.
Ian Dodd
Sure you can. After selling the last inkjet print of your collectible
image, archive the digital file on some recordable medium for about 10
years. By then no operating system will exist that can still read the
file, so the original will still exist but no more unauthorized prints
can be made, thus protecting the value of the existing stock. Or, if
you must go the Brett Weston route (or was it Cole?) and destroy the
"negative", just pass the Zip disk over a large magnet or put your
computer out in a thunderstorm as another posster suggested.
With tongue firmly in cheek,
Ian
gordito
"Dan Smith, Photographer" wrote:
You print with sunlight?
Why not just use a camera obscura and sketch the image on paper?
Really, all photography is based on the availability of technology.
If you choose to set an arbitrary cut-off point for when you want to
stop accepting new technology, fine, but don't pretend it's got any sort
of supportable rationale.
Dan Smith, Photographer
using sunlight to expose our prints.
If push comes to shove we can also rig up our enlargers to drier duct
material to the outside to bring in sunlight to print with. Not elegant, but
it can be done. Contact printing can also be done with no power.
As I said, they may not be the best way to do some things but they can be
done even without "technological marvels" that are so needed with anything
computer related.
If we had to we could coat our own glass plates & do thing the really old
fashioned way.
As for supportable rationale... try using many of the alt process printing
methods and you may find that too much technology gets in the way.
Dan Smith
gordito <g...@panix.com> wrote in message news:3B4B8CD3...@panix.com...
gordito
"Dan Smith, Photographer" wrote:
> Actually, yes, smartass, I and many others using alt processed do print
> using sunlight to expose our prints.
I've done alt processes. So I also know that the chemicals you use are
refined so that they can be predictably measured. The paper you use is
manufactured (OK, lower tech, but still...). The negative you create is
on film that's manufactured using advanced technology. Many people who
do alt printing processes have to create an enlarged negative first - that's
hard to do without an enlarger and more manufactured film. Some people
even create the negatives using a computer (blasphemy! :))
> If push comes to shove we can also rig up our enlargers to drier duct
> material to the outside to bring in sunlight to print with. Not elegant, but
> it can be done. Contact printing can also be done with no power.
The contact printing is just one part of the process. You're being a
bit disingenuous here.
> As I said, they may not be the best way to do some things but they can be
> done even without "technological marvels" that are so needed with anything
> computer related.
And do you grind your own lenses? If you're using anything other than
a pinhole then you're using something that relies on advanced technology.
> If we had to we could coat our own glass plates & do thing the really old
> fashioned way.
And as I pointed out you could use a pinhole camera obscura and
draw on the wall. Hell, you could do like people did for a LONG time
before photographic technology became available and smear pigments
on flat surfaces to create images. "Old fashioned" to refer to techology
invented during the last century is pushing things a bit. Human civilisation
has been creating images for a lot longer than that.
> As for supportable rationale... try using many of the alt process printing
> methods and you may find that too much technology gets in the way.
Well, foremost is the image. I like the effects that alt printing processes
can provide but you can get very similar results with inkjet printers (except
for gum printing.) Unless we're all thrown back to a technology-free world,
what you like to use and what I like to use are all based in technology and
manufacturing processes. Having a preference is fine, again, it's all about
the image that you create, but picking an arbitrary decade to cut off (or
different decades for different steps of the process, as you're doing) what's
too much technology and what's just right is just silly.
Ryan
<sho...@brigham.net> wrote:
>With no electricity available, one can still get a print from a negative &
>photo paper. Try that one with a computer & printer.
Using what for an enlarger lamp? A candle?
-R
Richard Knoppow
No but in the early days of photography, before electricity became
widespread printing lamps useing Kerosine and especially gas lamps
using Wellsbach mantles (something like a modern Coleman lantern) were
used. Gas mantles are bright enough for projection, and for that
matter, for stage lighting (the origination of the term "lime light").
One can still find kerosine safelights and even candle safelights.
Printing and enlarging were also done by conducting daylight by the
use of mirrors, but that system is pretty clumsey.
Enlarged negatives were made in special cameraas where the original
was at one end, illumintate by, say daylight, the lens was on a board
in the middle, and the film or plate at the other end. A lot of large
studio cameras built up to the 1950's were still capable of this sort
of copying.
Electricity makes darkroom work much more convenient, but is not
absolutely necessary.
Someone in this thread mentioned making one's own lenses. That is
not so far out as it may seem; remember that thousands of amateur
astronomers grind both mirrors and lenses for telescopes.
I would certainly not want to try making something like the lens on
a modern 35mm camera but a decent slow LF lens is not out of the
question, although it would take a lot of work.
Remember that the lens making industry predates the wide use of
electrical power in industry.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Tony Spadaro
downright stupid reasons why film is better than digital - and vice versa.
This one is just plain irrelevent.
Last night I shot irrelevent in my pajamas
What he was doing in my pajamas I'll never figure out.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Silverman" <silv...@wind.winona.msus.edu> wrote in message
news:f6b49ec1.01071...@posting.google.com...
Tony Spadaro
when confronted with fire. It is subject damage from fungus, fingerprints,
and spilt orange juice.
Digital can be damaged too - but it can also be stored in more than one
place.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Dan Smith, Photographer" <sho...@brigham.net> wrote in message
news:%pE27.78334$AM.21...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com...
Tony Spadaro
would actually want to do it very much?
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Dan Smith, Photographer" <sho...@brigham.net> wrote in message
news:qfM27.85550$AM.22...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com...
Dan Smith, Photographer
Ryan <chakal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b4bd01...@news2.nebi.com...
Using a contact printing frame. Try shooting something bigger than 35mm &
see the gain in quality you can get.
Or, if using an enlarger, you can hook up clothes dryer tubing to an outside
light area & 'pipe the light' into the enlarger head. I used this one for
enlarging negs while in Arizona a few years ago in a cabin with no
electricity. Could only enlarge during the daytime, but we were able to
print on site.
christine
> "Dan Smith, Photographer" wrote:
>
> > The film won't disappear when someone accidently puts a magnet near it. It
> > won't lose 'information' during a power surge or electrical storm or when
> > someone with an altered electrical body field handles it.
> >
> > With no electricity available, one can still get a print from a negative &
> > photo paper. Try that one with a computer & printer.
>
> You print with sunlight?
>
Yes, actually I do.
-christine
christine
-christine
"Dan Smith, Photographer" wrote:
--
______________________
Christine M. Shepherd
NAPC Technical Support
781.391.3006 x 240
sup...@napc.com
Robert E. Smith
Actually you need to do little or nothing to ruin a digitized
image. I have had several irreplaceable images degraded beyond repair
over the last two years. I use Photoshop, Windows 98, and all the
upgrades, on a Pentium controlled machine. Some were on the hard drive,
some were on a RW-CD, and unfortunantly, non of the floppys are reliable
after four to five years. JPG's were the worst, TIFF's are better but
not perfect. I regularly copy to write-only CDs now. Except some
poorly processed Ansco transparencies made cir. 1950, I have yet to
loose _any_ film images.
Truly, dr bob.
Scott Daniel Ullman
> Then you get into the debate of destroying negatives to ensure that
> your print is truly a limited edition. This is important in some art
> circles. What prevents the buyer from having your negative printed?
His desire to protect his investment. If he makes more prints, it will
devalue the one that he bought.
--
Scott Daniel Ullman
sdullman@i_hate_spam.stanford.ude
(Remove "i_hate_spam" and change "ude" to "edu" to send e-mail.)
el...@no.spam
Dan Smith, Photographer <sho...@brigham.net> wrote:
>The film won't disappear when someone accidently puts a magnet near it.
Neither will a cd-rom or a flash memory.
el...@no.spam
Ian Dodd <ian...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>By then no operating system will exist that can still read the file
In just ten years? How long do you think CDs have been around? As long
as demand lasts to read the medium equipment will be around to read it.
Christopher Bush
> If you choose to set an arbitrary cut-off point for when you want to
> stop accepting new technology, fine, but don't pretend it's got any sort
> of supportable rationale.
You are right--it is silly to arbitrarily stop accepting new technology. At
the present though, digital is unfeasible for any application I would be
using it for, either casual or professional, because of cost. When you can
buy an RB67 kit used for $600, an enlarger for well under $200, and
room-temperature color printing chemicals for $20, how is the much greater
expense for digital justified? I can't see spending $20,000 on a digital
back no matter how much time I'd save with it.
But I think consumer digicams are really cool toys. I'd like to get one
just to exploit the digital "look".
I would like to hear a good argument against my view of digital being
uneconomical, keeping in mind that I use good, but affordable equipment (old
RB67, Rolleiflex TLR, Calumet 4x5, and soon a Voightlaender Bessa-R) and
have no problem doing my own color printing quickly and easily in my small
studio apartment, and get great, and marketable, results.
--
Christopher Bush
http://www.christopherbush.com
Ian Dodd
I think (in fact, I know) CDs have been around just over 20 years. And I
also see them being supplanted by newer media (e.g., DVD, of which many
players are not backwards compatible). I figure the DVD will have
virtually erased the videocasette from existence in the next 5 years (and
I'm talking about in the professional world I work in, not just consumer)
and when the demand for VCRs drops, that equipment will disappear as well.
And I would not be at all surprised to see the CD go the same way not long
after that.
Ian
Tony Spadaro
also plays CD-Roms. I guess I better tell her it's not compatible.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Ian Dodd" <ian...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B4D33F4...@mediaone.net...
DanKPhoto
camera is persuasive, but how about a used 35mm film scanner and an Epson 870
printer? Seven or eight hundred, perhaps? Just a thought. Regards, Dan
Kapsner
Mark Anderson
> Gee, that's funny. The DVD player on the new computer my wife got at work
> also plays CD-Roms. I guess I better tell her it's not compatible.
But there are many CD formats, and it's evolving all the time. In fact,
having recently gotten a new computer w/ CD burner, we burned music onto
a CD-R. Needed that music at school. It wouldn't play on a music CD
player only a few years old. Wouldn't play in my 6 yr. old CD player on
my home stereo system. Wouldn't even recognize that a disk was in the
machine. Would play in the computer or in a recent walkman. Wouldn't
play in a boombox a few yrs. old. Point is, apparently, the default
format being used now, isn't readable by equipment just a few years old.
--
Mark Anderson
DBA Riparia www.teleport.com/~andermar/
"The trouble with good ideas
is that they soon degenerate into a lot of hard work." Anon.
Donavan
"Mark Anderson" <ande...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:1ewes5g.qr...@ip-209-239-211-12.pdx.jps.net...
> Tony Spadaro <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Gee, that's funny. The DVD player on the new computer my wife got at
work
> > also plays CD-Roms. I guess I better tell her it's not compatible.
>
> But there are many CD formats, and it's evolving all the time. In fact,
> having recently gotten a new computer w/ CD burner, we burned music onto
> a CD-R. Needed that music at school. It wouldn't play on a music CD
> player only a few years old. Wouldn't play in my 6 yr. old CD player on
> my home stereo system. Wouldn't even recognize that a disk was in the
> machine. Would play in the computer or in a recent walkman. Wouldn't
> play in a boombox a few yrs. old. Point is, apparently, the default
> format being used now, isn't readable by equipment just a few years old.
Actually it's the media itself that's causing your problems not the format
in which it's stored. Changing to a different media *may* help. At any
rate the transition to any new wizbang storage medium isn't goign to happen
instantly. People can simply transfer their images from the old medium to
the new. That's the beuty of digital it's all ones and zeros no physical
properties to worry about.
John Stafford
one-of-a-kind nature. The owner of the original negative controls the
number of prints. He owns the provenance. (*example last)
I see the day coming when pure digital photographers are shocked into
this realization and work furiously to somehow endow their digital
media images with the same singular virtue of the original negative.
You will see all kinds of machinations, most of them appealing to
remedies supported only via litigation and copyright laws, and we know
that's hopeless. The very fact that an edition can be subverted so
perfectly diminishes its value immediately.
Much of photography is about being there, the thing itself. Digital
subverts that, and is therefore diminished by the same.
*I have a picture that was quite popular at one time. In order to
settle arguments as to who really did the picture, and especially to
demonstrate that it wasn't digital, I have the negative still on the
roll with the out-takes. That goes a long way to prove authenticity,
regardless of the uninformed opinions of those who would say that a
negative can be copied. You can't copy the side-by outtakes because
you don't know what they are! (This image had an interesting
perspective that caused a number of photographers to claim it was a
digital manipulation. It was not. That shows you one way digital has
twisted perception. Something can appear too good to be true - to the
less critical, the less informed, but I digress.
christine
So, have you watched any BETA movies, lately? And how's your 8-track
collection going? ;^)
-christine
ken
> But there are many CD formats, and it's evolving all the time. In fact,
> having recently gotten a new computer w/ CD burner, we burned music onto
> a CD-R. Needed that music at school. It wouldn't play on a music CD
> player only a few years old. Wouldn't play in my 6 yr. old CD player on
> my home stereo system. Wouldn't even recognize that a disk was in the
> machine. Would play in the computer or in a recent walkman. Wouldn't
> play in a boombox a few yrs. old. Point is, apparently, the default
> format being used now, isn't readable by equipment just a few years old.
brook martin
> So, have you watched any BETA movies, lately? And how's your 8-track
> collection going? ;^)
>
> -christine
>
I grin in irony when my step daughter digs through my old collection of
obscure punk and industrial vinyl, looking for something with a "new edge"
for DJ mixing at raves. I gotta hand it to the kids, I can get a new needle
for my turntable now.
Any one had any luck using high end digital cameras in really remote places
with extreme weather? I crashed 2 N90s bodies last year in the Amazon basin,
one deep sixed for good. On the other hand, my old 500c keeps going, and
going.....
Brook
Christopher Bush
both with good results. But those results are still sub-35mm quality, even
if close. I've owned top-end 35mm equipment (Contax G1), but still can't be
satisfied with them knowing that I could just pick up my Rolleiflex and get
much better results. That comes from long hours in a darkroom slaving over
a print and then realizing how silly it was I didn't shoot it on MF. So
there is no affordable digital substitute for MF shooters. But I do concede
that good film scanners and printers can satisfy all but the most discerning
35mm shooters.
--
Christopher Bush
http://www.christopherbush.com
"DanKPhoto" <dank...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010712032709...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
Robert Barnett
their formats together and until they do it will never hot mainstream. Look
how long DVD drives have been available for computers and then ask how many
people would actually pay good money for them. Most people only have in
their computer because they came with the system. They are next to worthless
in computers these days and will be for sometime.
When DVD does over take VHS and I have no doubt it will, VCR's will go way
of record players. You can still by them too and records to go with them.
You have limited choices, but they equipment and media are still available
and I have seen several services that will take a cassette, or CD and
transfer to LP.
Very seldom does something go completely away. Myself I don't care about
LPs, cassettes, 8-tracks or VHS tape. I am DVD movie 100%. On the computer
CD will rain supreme for sometime. There is just nothing elese that comes
close to 650 MBs of store for .10 cents. Not even DVD on the computer will
be doing this for many years to come.
Robert
"Ian Dodd" <ian...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B4D33F4...@mediaone.net...
John Stewart see REAL email address in message.
cameras in a bad situation:
http://www.saycheese.com/articles/lessons_in_borneo/lessons_in_borneo.asp
Greg Finn
Archivists who work with large archives hate digital media. As short
as the history of digital media are, horror stories abound. Within
the computer industry itself, resurrecting old operating systems for
museum purposes has been difficult.
Yes, it is possible to re-record archiveable material from a
soon-obsolete digital medium onto a new digital medium. But that is
not the right question to ask. Is it practical to expect to do so is
the correct question.
Large-scale archives take big budgets and years to record once. The
drawbacks of digital media here become obvious. Their historic media
lifespans have been just too short. Ten or twenty years is much too
short. A century is comfortable.
On a smaller scale, do you expect people to remember to transfer their
older tapes, flash cards, zips? From what I have read there is
already a recognized problem for weddings that rely alomost
exclusively on video. Fifteen years in a box in the closet ... poof
... and VHS is a stable commercial format compared to digital tapes.
People forget. Film, especially B&W, is very forgiving of that.
Digital media may at some time settle down, big mass-storage systems
so inexpensive and so fast that these worries disappear. Not at
present though and one would need decades of hind sight to make that
judgement confidently.
J. Clarke
> el...@no.spam wrote:
>
> > In article <3B4B242D...@mediaone.net>,
> > Ian Dodd <ian...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > >By then no operating system will exist that can still read the file
> >
> > In just ten years? How long do you think CDs have been around? As long
> > as demand lasts to read the medium equipment will be around to read it.
> >
> > --
> > http://www.spinics.net/photo/
>
> I think (in fact, I know) CDs have been around just over 20 years. And I
> also see them being supplanted by newer media (e.g., DVD, of which many
> players are not backwards compatible).
Name ONE model of DVD-ROM drive that cannot read a CD-ROM.
> I figure the DVD will have
> virtually erased the videocasette from existence in the next 5 years (and
> I'm talking about in the professional world I work in, not just consumer)
> and when the demand for VCRs drops, that equipment will disappear as well.
They said that about CDs and cassette tape, too. CDs killed vinyl but
didn't hurt cassette that much because they weren't recordable.
I suspect that the same is going to be true of VCRs vs DVDs. When you
can buy blank 6 hour rewriteable DVDs for the same price as blank 6 hour
tapes and get a machine that will use them to record off the air for
under 100 bucks, then you will see DVD take over from VCR.
> And I would not be at all surprised to see the CD go the same way not long
> after that.
When the cost to manufacture a recorded DVD is the same as the cost to
manufacture a recorded CD, and there are enough DVD recorders out there
to marginalize CD, _then_ you will see the music industry go to DVD.
The music industry is in business to make money, not to popularize new
technology.
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke
ande...@teleport.com says...
> Tony Spadaro <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Gee, that's funny. The DVD player on the new computer my wife got at work
> > also plays CD-Roms. I guess I better tell her it's not compatible.
>
> But there are many CD formats, and it's evolving all the time. In fact,
> having recently gotten a new computer w/ CD burner, we burned music onto
> a CD-R. Needed that music at school. It wouldn't play on a music CD
> player only a few years old. Wouldn't play in my 6 yr. old CD player on
> my home stereo system. Wouldn't even recognize that a disk was in the
> machine. Would play in the computer or in a recent walkman. Wouldn't
> play in a boombox a few yrs. old. Point is, apparently, the default
> format being used now, isn't readable by equipment just a few years old.
Would it play on a brand new audio CD player? Your problem is not that
the standards have changed, it's that you were using a format that was
not in accordance with the standards.
J. Clarke
N...@SPAM-madwolf.dyndns.org says...
He probably wrote it full of MP3s.
J. Clarke
What point do you think you are making? Beta and 8 track are defunct
because a competing technology either was technologically superior
(cassette) or better marketed (VHS). Neither is defunct because it was
superseded by a new technology.
In any case, working beta and 8 track equipment can still be obtained.
Tacit
>having recently gotten a new computer w/ CD burner, we burned music onto
>a CD-R. Needed that music at school. It wouldn't play on a music CD
>player only a few years old. Wouldn't play in my 6 yr. old CD player on
>my home stereo system.
This problem is not likely a result of changing formats, but rather a problem
with the brand of CD-R you used.
Many audio players will not play a CD-RW. If you burn an audio CD-R, be aware
that there is a BIG difference between different brands of blanks!
For example, Memorex CD-Rs are garbage. They won't work in fully half the audio
players I have tried. Most won't even recognize a CD is inserted.
On the other hand, I have never found a player that will not play a Verbatim
blank. Even my parents' old CD player, a Radio Shack CD-1000 (the very first CD
player on the American consumer market), will play my Verbatim CD compilations.
------
Literary forums; Onyx, a game of sexual exploration; Xero, the industrial
magazine of art, fiction and photography; fine-art photo gallery--all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
John
<brook...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Any one had any luck using high end digital cameras in really remote places
>with extreme weather? I crashed 2 N90s bodies last year in the Amazon basin,
>one deep sixed for good. On the other hand, my old 500c keeps going, and
>going.....
>
>Brook
RB67SD. And if I had my choice of 35's it would have
been the LX. I tried the semi-auto-everything 645 Pro. I
learned. We all do eventually.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer
http://www.photographers-darkroom.com
==============================
gordito
John wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:07:28 GMT, brook martin
> <brook...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Any one had any luck using high end digital cameras in really remote places
> >with extreme weather? I crashed 2 N90s bodies last year in the Amazon basin,
> >one deep sixed for good. On the other hand, my old 500c keeps going, and
> >going.....
> >
> >Brook
>
> RB67SD. And if I had my choice of 35's it would have
> been the LX. I tried the semi-auto-everything 645 Pro. I
> learned. We all do eventually.
I think the point of all this is that there are some specific benefits
to using film in some circumstances, and some specific benefits to
digital in others. For me, the availability of digitial cameras and
computer-based processing has given me the ability to do things
that I could only do in a darkroom as well as things that I couldn't
do at all in a dark room. In terms of the images that I want to produce,
this is a *good* thing.
Paul Rubin
> Archivists who work with large archives hate digital media. As short
> as the history of digital media are, horror stories abound. Within
> the computer industry itself, resurrecting old operating systems for
> museum purposes has been difficult.
What makes you say this? Do you know people actually working in the
archiving field, who hate digital media? It seems to me that the horror
stories are *because* the history of digital media is so short. But
as we learn more, we get to know how to do these things right.
As a parable, consider the Hawaiian explorers who first landed in
Minnesota. At first they thought it was wonderful, all those nice
lakes and forests. But as winter neared, the air got cold and the
explorers' last desperate radio messages described this mysterious
white stuff falling out of the sky making the roads impassable, before
they froze to death, still wearing their short-sleeved flowered shirts
from Hawaii. The word was passed around through Hawaiian newsgroups
and web sites that Minnesota was an uninhabitable place for half the
year because anyone who went there risked turning into an ice cube.
Today we know better: it's possible to live in Minnesota enjoyably all
year around. You just have to take appropriate technical measures
that took a while to figure out, like wearing warm clothes and plowing
the snow off the roads. Yes there's an occasional unfortunate
incident, but basically it's an understood and solved problem and
millions of Minnesotans go about their lives all winter as if there
was nothing amazing about it.
Now that we understand the issues of media migration for digital
archives, can't we just put systems into place for dealing with them
like the Minnesotans did, stop worrying and get on with it?
Jean-David Beyer
>
> Greg Finn <fi...@isi.edu> writes:
> > Archivists who work with large archives hate digital media. As short
> > as the history of digital media are, horror stories abound. Within
> > the computer industry itself, resurrecting old operating systems for
> > museum purposes has been difficult.
>
> What makes you say this? Do you know people actually working in the
> archiving field, who hate digital media? It seems to me that the horror
> stories are *because* the history of digital media is so short. But
> as we learn more, we get to know how to do these things right.
It seems that people at MIT (sorry I no longer have the reference)
wanted to put some old documents that are on 7-track tapes into
readable form for newer machines. They could find no 7-track
reel-to-reel tape drives. Furthermore, the device drivers (if you want
to call them that) were in the IBM FMS OS, and also in the IBSYS/IBJOB
OS. I imagine no one has run those since the System/360 came out in
the mid 1960s. So you can forget about all that stuff.
[snip]
>
> Now that we understand the issues of media migration for digital
> archives, can't we just put systems into place for dealing with them
> like the Minnesotans did, stop worrying and get on with it?
No. Libraries and such barely have the budget to do their present
work. They do not have a budget to install all the various media and
software from forever into the past and forever into the future. They
barely have the time to acquire the original documents. To require
them to copy their entire archives every 5 to 10 years is out of the
question.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 7:50am up 3 days, 20:04, 4 users, load average: 2.15, 2.13, 2.09
Tumbleweed
"Mark Anderson" <ande...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:1ewes5g.qr...@ip-209-239-211-12.pdx.jps.net...
> Tony Spadaro <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Gee, that's funny. The DVD player on the new computer my wife got at
work
> > also plays CD-Roms. I guess I better tell her it's not compatible.
>
> But there are many CD formats, and it's evolving all the time. In fact,
> having recently gotten a new computer w/ CD burner, we burned music onto
> a CD-R. Needed that music at school. It wouldn't play on a music CD
> player only a few years old. Wouldn't play in my 6 yr. old CD player on
> my home stereo system. Wouldn't even recognize that a disk was in the
> machine. Would play in the computer or in a recent walkman. Wouldn't
> play in a boombox a few yrs. old. Point is, apparently, the default
> format being used now, isn't readable by equipment just a few years old.
>
> --
> Mark Anderson
Interesting but missing the point, since the point of discussion was
backward, not forward compatibility. The *new* stuff can play the *old*
stuff, and will be able to for a considerable time, simple economics, enough
people wouldnt buy a CD player today that only, say, played brand new CD's
less than 6 years old (to use your example).
--
Tumbleweed
Remove 'spam' from email replies (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)
Tumbleweed
news:MPG.15b7c5ade...@news1.attglobal.net...
> In article <3B4DACE6...@napc.com>, chri...@napc.com says...
> > el...@no.spam wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3B4B242D...@mediaone.net>,
> > > Ian Dodd <ian...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >By then no operating system will exist that can still read the file
> > >
> > > In just ten years? How long do you think CDs have been around? As
long
> > > as demand lasts to read the medium equipment will be around to read
it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.spinics.net/photo/
> >
> > So, have you watched any BETA movies, lately? And how's your 8-track
> > collection going? ;^)
>
> What point do you think you are making? Beta and 8 track are defunct
> because a competing technology either was technologically superior
> (cassette) or better marketed (VHS). Neither is defunct because it was
> superseded by a new technology.
>
> In any case, working beta and 8 track equipment can still be obtained.
>
manufactured. And pop a 8 track cassette in a player today and it will still
work.
christine
My point was merely this:
Media will be in a constant state of flux as new and better media becomes
available, peoples preferences change, and companies interest in marketing
particular products change. I do not own an 8-track that works even thought I
still have some old 8-track tapes. If I wanted to go to the local video store
and rent a movie on BETA I don't think it would happen. I will always be able
to shine a light, be it from a bulb or the rays of the sun, through my film.
And I'll always love the results. ;^)
-christine
Leo
Excellent post, John.
Leo
>
> In article <3B4B242D...@mediaone.net>,
> Ian Dodd <ian...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >By then no operating system will exist that can still read the file
>
> In just ten years? How long do you think CDs have been around? As long
> as demand lasts to read the medium equipment will be around to read it.
>
> --
> http://www.spinics.net/photo/
And how long have films been around?
Leo
Leo
>
> Gee, that's funny. The DVD player on the new computer my wife got at work
> also plays CD-Roms. I guess I better tell her it's not compatible.
Isn't that telling you that CD-ROM's days are near the end?
Leo
Leo
>
> el...@no.spam wrote:
>
> > In article <3B4B242D...@mediaone.net>,
> > Ian Dodd <ian...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > >By then no operating system will exist that can still read the file
> >
> > In just ten years? How long do you think CDs have been around? As long
> > as demand lasts to read the medium equipment will be around to read it.
> >
> > --
> > http://www.spinics.net/photo/
>
> also see them being supplanted by newer media (e.g., DVD, of which many
> virtually erased the videocasette from existence in the next 5 years (and
> I'm talking about in the professional world I work in, not just consumer)
> and when the demand for VCRs drops, that equipment will disappear as well.
> after that.
>
Have you noticed that VCRs are being sold at $50 a piece lately. It's not
the format of the videocassette that makes them obsolete. It's the price
that will kill them.
Leo
Greg Finn
Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> Greg Finn <fi...@isi.edu> writes:
> > Archivists who work with large archives hate digital media. As short
> > as the history of digital media are, horror stories abound. Within
> > the computer industry itself, resurrecting old operating systems for
> > museum purposes has been difficult.
>
> What makes you say this? Do you know people actually working in the
> archiving field, who hate digital media? It seems to me that the horror
> stories are *because* the history of digital media is so short. But
> as we learn more, we get to know how to do these things right.
I attended talks given by large-scale archivists about this particular
issue. I presume they know what they are talking about. The problems
maintaining digital archives for NASA and HEW are well known. You need to
hire people and purchase new equipment to re-record. Often that does not
happen. Many digital tape archives have material that is now generally
unrecoverable. 7-track obsolescence was a big headache.
Our institute archives have gone inaccessible twice. Once during the
transition from mainframe tape storage, once during the transition from
cartridge tape to laser disk. The tapes are likely still in the bonded
warehouse, but are useless.
If you wanted something preserved, you had to arrange it yourself. Which
brings up another point, what do you do with the data if the software to
read it is no longer available? Just because I copied 1980's Xerox
wysiwyg document format files to my Unix boxes doesn't mean I can read the
stuff. My Xerox workstation is a boat anchor or part of an artificial
reef now as are its file servers. I would have been better off to print
it on paper. Lots of fine proprietary document systems have disappeared
into inky backness over the last 20 years. C'est la guerre.
For material that is originally digitally sourced, you are largely stuck
with the problem. Digital media have been and are likely to remain for
for some time evanescent. That makes them unattractive for archiving.
Digital storage is great for the user, but rotten for the archivist who
worries about what to do ten years from now.
I don't buy the "as we learn more" argument. The principal issue is one
of media change and obsolescence. When the media stabilize the problem
will have largely been solved.
Digital media are great stuff, but there are things that they don't do
well yet. From a longevity standpoint, they stink. I can still read my
1960's books and negatives. When you can say that about digital media
that are 50 years old, things will have changed. For now though, I don't
think so.
Tony Spadaro
just as un-reproducable as negatives.
There is also the "crop" factor. I not only have the original film for
every picture I've ever posted on the web, but I have the un-cropped digital
files for them too. Even if my film is destroyed, along with my contact
prints, thereby leaving no out-takes to prove ownership, I have the
files,and the files Always have more on them than the cropped versions on
the web. Open and shut case. No need for film to prove it.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"John Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote in message
news:ef8b745.01071...@posting.google.com...
Tony Spadaro
machines. Unless you do that it is still in read/write mode and cannot be
used in standard players.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Mark Anderson" <ande...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:1ewes5g.qr...@ip-209-239-211-12.pdx.jps.net...
> Tony Spadaro <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Gee, that's funny. The DVD player on the new computer my wife got at
work
> > also plays CD-Roms. I guess I better tell her it's not compatible.
>
> But there are many CD formats, and it's evolving all the time. In fact,
> having recently gotten a new computer w/ CD burner, we burned music onto
> a CD-R. Needed that music at school. It wouldn't play on a music CD
> player only a few years old. Wouldn't play in my 6 yr. old CD player on
> my home stereo system. Wouldn't even recognize that a disk was in the
> machine. Would play in the computer or in a recent walkman. Wouldn't
> play in a boombox a few yrs. old. Point is, apparently, the default
> format being used now, isn't readable by equipment just a few years old.
>
> --
> Mark Anderson
> DBA Riparia www.teleport.com/~andermar/
> "The trouble with good ideas
> is that they soon degenerate into a lot of hard work." Anon.
Tony Spadaro
his first video recordings in 1980. The video store where I rent still has
many tapes they had when they opened in 1985.
I've restored a number of photographs that were caught in floods a few
years back. The negatives were un-salvagable, and I had to work from prints.
It was expensive for the people who wanted their precious mementos back.
I then scanned all my family photos, and have two CD back-ups of the
pictures - one in my safe-deposit box. I won't mind switching them to new
media eventually. It's worth the effort to know these pictures are safe from
the floods and fires, the fungus and insects, the careless and malicious,
and to some extent, time itself.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Greg Finn" <fi...@isi.edu> wrote in message
news:6wk81ed...@cnn.isi.edu...
Tony Spadaro
media. I wonder who they are.
However I have to agree with the Hawaiians. That white stuff that fall
from the sky is too much for mere humans.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Paul Rubin" <phr-...@nightsong.com> wrote in message
news:7xu20hg...@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
Tony Spadaro
Memorex made crappy tape in the reel to reel era, they made crappy tape
in the cassette era, they made crappy video tape. Anyone who knows the
history of Memorex proiducts knows it ain't worth buying.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Tacit" <tac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010712205337...@ng-md1.aol.com...
Tony Spadaro
the floppies she's had around for 10-15 years.
Perhaps her employer and/or the IT department ther is just smarter than
other places. When I need something off one an old 5 inch floppy they still
have a machine that reads it. They also have changed from a video tape
backup, to bernoulle (sp) box back up, to streaming tape, and I believe now
something else, possibly a CD Rom juke box, possibly something else.
I also know that when the software suppliers have "upgraded" the
programs, old versions were kept around for quite some time afterward to
make sure the data was still accessible.
I've lost one item to upgrading without thinking, a shareware program
that told the moon's phase at any date in history. I think I tossed the disk
out.
Seems to me anyone who cares about their data is going to keep it.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Leo" <leo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B4DD937...@hotmail.com...
John Stafford
arguments from the necessarily insecure digital mavens. And you pay
once, and not over and over trying to keep ahead of the next wave of
digital obsolescence. Take the pictures, develop to archival, turn off
the light and get some sleep. Repeat. Enjoy.
kingrob
8-track
collection going? ;^)
-christine<<
I still have some of both and also reel to reel + a few albums. They are all
backed up on CD-R and the beta 3s
are on vcr's. If it all goes to DVD-R I'll get one of these also.(when the
price comes WAAAYdown)
Keith
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No flies on me.......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.264 / Virus Database: 136 - Release Date: 7/3/2001
Jean-David Beyer
>
> I have video tapes I recorded in 1983 that look jes'fine. My brother made
> his first video recordings in 1980. The video store where I rent still has
> many tapes they had when they opened in 1985.
I bet you cannot play the old RCA (or was it AMPEX?) video tapes that
were, IIRC, on 1" wide tapes that were pulled at 60"/second. This was
from the early 1960s I believe.
> I've restored a number of photographs that were caught in floods a few
> years back. The negatives were un-salvagable, and I had to work from prints.
> It was expensive for the people who wanted their precious mementos back.
> I then scanned all my family photos, and have two CD back-ups of the
> pictures - one in my safe-deposit box. I won't mind switching them to new
> media eventually. It's worth the effort to know these pictures are safe from
> the floods and fires, the fungus and insects, the careless and malicious,
> and to some extent, time itself.
>
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 7:00am up 4 days, 19:14, 4 users, load average: 2.97, 2.99, 2.93
keith nuttle
when it comes to digit images. Currently if I have digital images in an
older format I can use a program like Irfanview and convert all of those
files to the most current format and then save them to the most current
media. I think that comparing lost data from the early days of
computers to losing data today as computers become faster and more
sophisticate, is an apple and oranges comparison. I think the main
thing that a person responsible for the data is to remain aware of
changing technology, just like they have remained aware of better ways
to save paper documents.
Robert E. Smith
The Phillips LP-turntable, cir. 1980. has a broken belt and a
replacement has not yet been found. The Sony 3-motor single-cassette
tape acts like an old woman with hot flashes and cannot be economically
repaired. My early Sony single CD player skips and goes out of orbit
easily and will not respond to “cleaning” also not economically
repairable (also the door sticks shut). My hard drive disassembled
itself (replaced, not repaired under warrantee). One floppy drive was
unreliable - replaced with cheap on-sale item from local Big Purchase
store.
All of my 1950 era cameras still work reliably - shutter maintenance on
some - not all - lenses. No film images, including neatly all
Kodachromes, have degraded beyond presentation quality (some went
through a bad mildew attack in the ‘70s and were recovered with minimum
damage), and all cir.1970 reproduction (enlargers) work and have worked
continuously at no costly upgrades.
When I worked professionally as an engineer, I produced lots of digital
images using digital cameras, PowerPoint, and AutoCad for technical
reports. That was a _good_ _ efficient_ use of digital technology. As
the results of my work and the data therein has limited time value
(technology does change rapidly) there is little use of worrying about
archiving. Never the less, I kept some source files and image files for
personal back up if necessary. Most of these images have become useless
due to one technical reason or another (see another post on this
subject). Even some early Polaroids have outlasted the nore recent
digitized images.
Sorry, dr bob.
Robert E. Smith
>
> I am not in the large archive business but I thing people miss the point
> when it comes to digit images. Currently if I have digital images in an
> older format I can use a program like Irfanview and convert all of those
> files to the most current format and then save them to the most current
> media. I think that comparing lost data from the early days of
> computers to losing data today as computers become faster and more
> sophisticate, is an apple and oranges comparison. I think the main
> thing that a person responsible for the data is to remain aware of
> changing technology, just like they have remained aware of better ways
> to save paper documents.
>
> Greg Finn wrote:
Since 1947 I have expended no funds or labor to upgrade negatives
for compatibility with modern technology. They can still be "read"
using natural light or printed with eqiuipment from all eras, including
today's hi-tech scanners et al., without modification.
Truly, dr bob.
brook martin
>
> Today we know better: it's possible to live in Minnesota enjoyably all
> year around. You just have to take appropriate technical measures
> that took a while to figure out, like wearing warm clothes and plowing
> the snow off the roads. Yes there's an occasional unfortunate
> incident, but basically it's an understood and solved problem and
> millions of Minnesotans go about their lives all winter as if there
> was nothing amazing about it.
>
> Now that we understand the issues of media migration for digital
> archives, can't we just put systems into place for dealing with them
> like the Minnesotans did, stop worrying and get on with it?
Not to mess with your metaphor too much, but have you ever tried to use
anything with a liquid crystal screen at -30f?
Brook, a Minnesotan who likes to shoot outside, no matter the weather.
RICK5347
>you must go the Brett Weston route (or was it Cole?) and destroy the
>"negative",
It was Brett. He sat by his fireplace and on video he tossed negative after
negative into the fire. His fellow fine art photographers generally felt it
was more an effort to control his prices by limiting inventory than a sincere
effort to control the print quality by having only his personally printed
images available. Some even suggested that he destroyed only reject or copy
negatives as a publicity stunt. Cole does his own incredible images as well as
printing his father's negatives. An original Edward Weston print will always
have a much higher value than a Cole Weston print from the same negative. In a
way it is like the Ansel Adams special edition prints done in volume by Alan
Ross.
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
VT
>I think the point of all this is that there are some specific benefits
>to using film in some circumstances, and some specific benefits to
>digital in others. For me, the availability of digitial cameras and
>computer-based processing has given me the ability to do things
>that I could only do in a darkroom as well as things that I couldn't
>do at all in a dark room. In terms of the images that I want to produce,
>this is a *good* thing.
>
I like this thought, and would wholeheartedly agree.
I shoot both digital and film - both have their attributes and
characteristics - which I hope I have managed to take some advantage
of - and I continue to learn.
However I do look forward to the day when digital will be
interchangable or even surpass certain characteristics of my film
results. It's not quite here yet, for what I can or want to afford -
but it isn't that far away.
--
Vincent
vtVi...@Prodigy.Net
RICK5347
>with extreme weather?
I shot alongside of Stephen Johnson once. He has been at the forefront of
digital imaging in landscape work using a 4x5 Sinar. He does great work. He
carried 85 pounds of equipment, about half of the weight was in batteries, to
do much the same thing I did with my "old technology" Toyo Field and tripod
package of less than 20 pounds.
RICK5347
>>one deep sixed for good. On the other hand, my old 500c keeps going, and
>>going.....
>>
>>Brook
>
> RB67SD. And if I had my choice of 35's it would have
>been the LX. I tried the semi-auto-everything 645 Pro. I
>learned. We all do eventually.
>
>
>Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas
Yep, those dang springs and gears never wear out and maintain their factory
tolerances forever, especially in shutter accuracy at the high end.
RICK5347
>to using film in some circumstances, and some specific benefits to
>digital in others.
Speaking as someone who uses both technologies I agree with that statement
completely.
RICK5347
>because a competing technology either was technologically superior
>(cassette) or better marketed (VHS). Neither is defunct because it was
>
>superseded by a new technology.
>
>In any case, working beta and 8 track equipment can still be obtained.
Beta is very much alive and well in professional video production. In consumer
use Sony made a huge mistake in not offering licensing of it's Beta technology
to other manufacturers. The market was flooded with less expensive VHS players
from many manufacturers with more features. By the time Sony woke up it was
too late to regain market share. It was a marketing mistake and Beta format is
still regarded as superior in image quality to standard VHS.
d
grandpa and you're long dead) old box in the attic and find all of those old
blue disc. They have computers built into everything but they don't have a
single CD ROM player. Upgrading your data while you are alive is one thing,
after you are dead is another.
I will print most of my pictures eventually. My grandkids will still be
able to look at the pictures.
Robert E. Smith wrote in message <3B503D...@dmv.com>...
CCD
How do I convert full sized glass negatives to digital for Photoshop processing
and printing?
Silverman
> However I have to agree with the Hawaiians. That white stuff that fall
> from the sky is too much for mere humans.
And we in Minnesota are quite happy that you wish to stay away.
Reasoned Parker
Just look what's happened with video tape... going from quad to 3/4 to
beta to digital.... and many other formats.... much material has been
lost as the machines to play it back are replaced by new
technologies.... and yet film will reamin "readable" as logn as the
image remains on the backing.
I have much material on 3/4 inch tape from just ten years ago that I
cannot view today unles I make special arrangements, and yet Ihave
slides that go back 40 years, and all I have to do is hold them up to
a light.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:22:00 GMT, Ian Dodd <ian...@mediaone.net>
Ken Hart
"RICK5347" <rick...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010714115026...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
Suppose you're at a once-in-a-lifetime event/location/vacation. Which would
you rather have: (A) a bells & whistles top of the line camera with a locked
up microchip that won't do a thing, or (B) an older mechanical-type camera
with shutter speeds that may be off by as much as a stop or so?
Excuse me while I go load some film in my old Canon FX with the "thru the
thumb" metering!
--
Ken Hart
kwh...@aec.nu
christoph manz
> Last night I shot irrelevent in my pajamas
> What he was doing in my pajamas I'll never figure out.
Groucho Marx - sorry, i just had too ;)
++ christoph ++
berlin, germany
--
mailto:zem(at)mailcc.com
Silverman
> What do I do now as a great...great grandchild with a bunch of GLASS negatives?
> How do I convert full sized glass negatives to digital for Photoshop processing
> and printing?
You are joking, right? You scan them in on a proper flat-bed scanner.
I've just done some glass negatives that way, but let me tell you -
prints on silver paper from glass negatives look a lot better than the
facimilies you get via digital processes.
RICK5347
>you rather have: (A) a bells & whistles top of the line camera with a locked
>up microchip that won't do a thing, or (B) an older mechanical-type camera
>with shutter speeds that may be off by as much as a stop or so?
>
>Excuse me while I go load some film in my old Canon FX with the "thru the
>thumb" metering!
Your analogy is flawed. On one hand in your example the digital camera is
non-functional while your example mechanical camera IS functional. A better,
fair and more realistic analogy would be a fully functional "bells & whistles
top of the line camera" which will be functioning with the accuracy that those
electronic "bells & whistles" provide VS an older fully functional mechanical
camera which may be off by a stop or two.
I have been a commercial and artistic photographer for over 30 years and own
everything from 50+ yr old view cameras (4x5 and 8x10), medium format systems
(mechanical Rollei SL66 and electronic Mamiya7) and 35mm Nikon and Canon bodies
from a Nikon F to Canon A2 bodies and a digital camera. I have no preference
for electronic or mechanical, film or digital systems but I do look at each
technology with a realistic appraisal for it's advantages and foibles. I use
whatever system will do the best job for the task at hand. The final result is
what counts, not the tools you use to get there.
Tony Spadaro
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Silverman" <silv...@wind.winona.msus.edu> wrote in message
news:f6b49ec1.01071...@posting.google.com...
Tony Spadaro
I did work for a NET (before they changed to PBS) station in the early
60s and got to watch the 60" (or possibly 30") per second 35mm video tape
machine do it's thing. It was Ampex. It took up a wall of the engineering
booth. I have no idea whether those tapes are playable today - I do know
that if PBS didn't keep them updated it's their own fault. It's not like
things dissapear instantly, unless they are a complete failure.
My brother still has a phonograph that can play 78 RPM records. He
bought it about 5 years ago when his old one wore out. He has a large 78
collection and tapes records for himself and others who are no longer
willing to make their own tapes. I think the last 78's were pressed in the
late 1950s - a minimum of 40 years ago.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Jean-David Beyer" <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:3B5026A5...@exit109.com...
Jean-David Beyer
>
> Why would I want to play one - I've never even seen one.
> I did work for a NET (before they changed to PBS) station in the early
> 60s and got to watch the 60" (or possibly 30") per second 35mm video tape
> machine do it's thing. It was Ampex. It took up a wall of the engineering
> booth. I have no idea whether those tapes are playable today - I do know
> that if PBS didn't keep them updated it's their own fault.
Not necessarily: if Congress did not give them the budget, they had no
where to store those tapes indefinately, and no one to copy all of
them every time the preferred medium changed.
On advantage of paper documents over all the others is that the IO
devices have been compatible for well over 1000 years, something no
other convenient medium has been able to demonstrate.
^^-^^ 6:10am up 5 days, 18:24, 4 users, load average: 3.00, 3.03, 3.00
Ken
>
> You forgot to hit the little command to make the CD playable in all
> machines. Unless you do that it is still in read/write mode and cannot be
> used in standard players.
Not necessarily. I have properly burned CD-R(s) that play fine in my
eight year old high end Sony but yet refuse to play in some of these
cheap boom-box CD players. As I understand it the CD-R doesn't have
the contrast of the commercial CDs and needs a good optical system to
read them.
--
Ken
John
wrote:
Well if they were developed in Dektol 1:1 they might
work better.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer
http://www.photographers-darkroom.com
===============================
bsa...@ix.netcom.com
May I suggest Rodinal at low dilutions? The potassium hydroxide in it is great
for the aluminum coating.
Bert
;-)
gordito
"Robert E. Smith" wrote:
There's no question that storing the bits of information that make
up a photo in an analog form is efficient. So what? They're a hassle
to make prints from. It's not like you're not making a trade-off when
you choose film or go digital.
gordito
Silverman wrote:
As an absolute this is just not true.
Michael Schuler
There's one point that I don't think has been made in this very long
thread. There appears to be much more potential for innovative
processing with real nagatives. They can be processed via hand-made
chemistry, hand-made masks, unique dodging techniques, etc. Digital will
almost always be limited by what a software company decides you might
want to purchase/use.
An analogy is the experience of composer/guitarist Michael Hedges. He has
stated that he was going to go into computer music but realized that to
create what he heard in his head would require studying computer
programming for years because no software existed which could manipulate
sound exactly as he wanted.
While one may master Photoshop, what is the sense that there are creative
limitations imposed by the software? How do these compare to the creative
limitations of chemical processing? While I''ve heard that platinum
paper was unavailable for quite a while, its not that hard to make, no?
But writing digital image manipulation software is a bit trickier.
Silverman wrote:
> Speaking of Fine Art or collectible photography, there is one element
> of traditional film photography that is not achieved using Digital
> technology: the negative itself. The orginal negative has a certain
> exclusivity, provenance, genuineness. I can decide, for example, to
> sell my last handmade print of a popular image along with the
> negative. You aren't likely to do that with a digitally made image.
Ron Andrews
>
> Silverman wrote:
>
> > C...@x.com (CCD) wrote in message news:<3b527ac6...@news.telus.net>...
> > > What do I do now as a great...great grandchild with a bunch of GLASS negatives?
> > > How do I convert full sized glass negatives to digital for Photoshop processing
> > > and printing?
> >
If your question is more than just rhetorical, I suggest you
contact the Rochester Museum and Science Center. The have recently
scanned several thousand glass plate negatives that were shot by a local
news photographer in the early 1900’s. You can check out there work at
http://mcls.rochester.lib.ny.us/rochimag/rmsc.html
There are several problems with scanning glass negatives. A typical
flatbed scanner can do a passable, but not great job of scanning. If you
put the emulsion side down and put a reflective material on top, the
reflected light passes through the glass twice and is diffused. If you
put the emulsion side up, it is not exactly in focus.
Very few film scanners can handle anything wider than 70 mm. A
Scitex scanner that will do a great job scanning glass plates is beyond
the reach of amateurs.
The RMSC adopted the philosophy that digital files will make the
collection available to a mass audience. For best quality, they will be
happy to make a photographic print (for a fee).
The story of the Albert Stone collection is pertinent to this
discussion thread. The only reason this collection was preserved is that
it was recorded on a very stable media (silver) on a very stable support
(glass) in human readable form. This collection is now available to
millions because it was scanned to a digital format. The museum is
committed to updated these files to new formats as they evolve. They are
also committed to preserve the negatives. Digital and chemical imaging
both have their roles.
Silverman
gordito
Silverman wrote:
"digital processes" is too general. Are you talking about what you get
from a consumer-grade inkjet? Then you're right. But I've seen b&w
8x10s from one of these inkjets, from a 6x7 neg, that was indistinguishable
from a contact-printed platinum print.
gordito
Michael Schuler wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> There's one point that I don't think has been made in this very long
> thread. There appears to be much more potential for innovative
> processing with real nagatives. They can be processed via hand-made
> chemistry, hand-made masks, unique dodging techniques, etc. Digital will
> almost always be limited by what a software company decides you might
> want to purchase/use.
You're not serious, I hope.
> An analogy is the experience of composer/guitarist Michael Hedges. He has
> stated that he was going to go into computer music but realized that to
> create what he heard in his head would require studying computer
> programming for years because no software existed which could manipulate
> sound exactly as he wanted.
And I can't play the guitar, but I can modify sounds in the computer.
It's *all* acquired skill.
> While one may master Photoshop, what is the sense that there are creative
> limitations imposed by the software? How do these compare to the creative
> limitations of chemical processing?
I don't think it's arguable that what you can do in a darkroom is
only a subset of what you can do in photoshop, and that anything
you can do in a darkroom you can do in photoshop. Someone may
not know HOW to do it photoshop, but the capability is there.
I'd be interested to hear examples of what you are referring to.
> While I''ve heard that platinum
> paper was unavailable for quite a while, its not that hard to make, no?
> But writing digital image manipulation software is a bit trickier.
Photoshop is an *amazingly* rich piece of software. I don't think
you're making a supportable point here.
Richard Knoppow
>Tony Spadaro wrote:
>>
>> I have video tapes I recorded in 1983 that look jes'fine. My brother made
>> his first video recordings in 1980. The video store where I rent still has
>> many tapes they had when they opened in 1985.
>
>I bet you cannot play the old RCA (or was it AMPEX?) video tapes that
>were, IIRC, on 1" wide tapes that were pulled at 60"/second. This was
>from the early 1960s I believe.
>
>> I've restored a number of photographs that were caught in floods a few
>> years back. The negatives were un-salvagable, and I had to work from prints.
>> It was expensive for the people who wanted their precious mementos back.
>> I then scanned all my family photos, and have two CD back-ups of the
>> pictures - one in my safe-deposit box. I won't mind switching them to new
>> media eventually. It's worth the effort to know these pictures are safe from
>> the floods and fires, the fungus and insects, the careless and malicious,
>> and to some extent, time itself.
>>
>
>--
> .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
> /V\ Registered Machine 73926.
>/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
>^^-^^ 7:00am up 4 days, 19:14, 4 users, load average: 2.97, 2.99, 2.93
There are still a few hellical scan Ampex machines around. The
station I worked for still had 2 inch Ampex AVR-100 machines _one the
air_ up till about 1990. The machines worked as well as they ever did
( smiley here) but the problem was the old tape; it was beginning to
disintegrate. 2" helical scan machines were the first to be used for
broadcast purposes, beginning about 1951. Not many of those old tapes
can still be played. A lot of old NBC shows exist now in the form of
kinescope recordings (movies of a TV screen) made for legal purposes
even though they were recorded on tape for broadcast use.
Sometimes the tapes were wiped and re-used, but those which exist
play only with difficulty or not at all.
A similar problem exists with old 1" tapes.
In fact, old audio tapes often have problems and many havent
survived.
The problem is not so much with digital encoding as with the media
used for recording digital data. Up to now none of it has a very long
expected life, even if means of playing it back are maintained.
To keep archival records on such medial means constant transferring
to new media, even if the digital format is the same.
Eventually, this problem will be solved, but digital storage
technology is in a very early stage of development, despite the
popular notion that it is very advanced high tech.
The constant transfer to new media is expensive and takes a lot of
time. When it is relalized that an ever increasing amount of new
material must be added at the same time the disadvantage of a medium
which requires constant renewal becomes evident.
In some formats digital data can be recovered without loss and
transferred flawlessly. One must differentiate between the data itself
and the coding is represents. For instance, a lossy JPEG can be
transferred in the form of the digital data itself straight across to
some other media without further loss. I think most of the time the
digital data can be moved around without having to decode and recode
the original signals.
The point is that while digitally encoded data has many advantages
it is still recorded on the same old unreliable media as analogue
data.
Photographic material offers the advantage for the kind of data it
is capable of storing of being pretty rugged and reliable and being
easy to duplicate.
Perhaps the best medium for digital would be holomorphic patterns on
very high resolution photographic material. Holomorphs are very rugged
since loss of part of the holomorph only raises the noise level.
Modern digital recording formats are quite rugged, they have to be
to make the non rugged media even usable. The method used for CD
records and digital tape recording (Reed-Solomon code) records
everything four times and has very elaborate error detection,
correction, and concealment mechanisms. Otherwise, you CD records and
CD ROMs wouldn't survive one playing.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
gordito
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> [...]
> Photographic material offers the advantage for the kind of data it
> is capable of storing of being pretty rugged and reliable and being
> easy to duplicate.
For more on how rugged and reliable film stock is, check out:
Dan Smith, Photographer
"anything you can do in a darkroom you can do in photoshop."
Take an 8 inch needle & extract Rodinal from a 30 year old bottle using
Photoshop.
Make a contact print using NO electricity.
Niether photoshop nor the traditional darkroom will do everything, but some
fools will try to shoehorn both into that catagory.
dan smith
Reasoned Parker
Knoppow) wrote:
> The constant transfer to new media is expensive and takes a lot of
>time. When it is relalized that an ever increasing amount of new
>material must be added at the same time the disadvantage of a medium
>which requires constant renewal becomes evident.
And for that reason, a lot of material never gets saved.
What many folks fail to appreciate is that you not only must save the
material, but maintain a means of playing it back.
The beauty of film is that you can always view the images (though
perhaps only frame by frame) as long as the film itself remains in
decent shape.
John
You're so right Dan. But I do have to say that image
manipulation by masters like W.E.Smith and J.Uelsmann prove
the potential for darkroom techniques.
Richard Knoppow
I am very familiar with the problems of old film both motion picture
and still film. There are substantial difficulties with decomposing
film of both nitrate and acetate types.
However, there is plenty of film which has survived for more than
one hundred years. The fact that this page can even talk about
restoration of old motion pictures is a tribute to the ruggedness of
the film, much of which was stored in far from ideal conditions.
In fact, even cellulose nitrate base film has almost unlimited life
if frozen. Acetate, or safety base, once thought to be more stable,
has turned out to have quite variable stability (nitrate is highly
variable too), some of it being quite pristene after many decades,
some decomposing rapidly after only about thirty years.
The problem is that the mechanical base for all digital media has
just about the same sort of problems, plus some others.
I am quite certain that very rugged digital storage media will be
developed, perhaps very soon, but as of the moment it just doesn't
exist.
My mention of video tape was to demonstrate that magnetic media can
have very serious problems.
While most fifty year old motion picture and still film is in
resonable condition, most old quadroplex video tape from even thirty
years ago, is unplayable even though machines to play them exist.
Early computer discs are another matter. No one knows how well they
stood up because there are simply no machines to reproduce them.
BTW, its getting hard to find computers with 5.25" inch floppies. I
have one on my ancient machine and get asked to transfer discs
occasionally. When I replace this machine it will be gone.
Dick
archiving is not an issue...
"Richard Knoppow" <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3b53c830...@news.mindspring.com...
gordito
"Dan Smith, Photographer" wrote:
> Gordito wrote:
>
> "anything you can do in a darkroom you can do in photoshop."
>
> Take an 8 inch needle & extract Rodinal from a 30 year old bottle using
> Photoshop.
>
> Make a contact print using NO electricity.
What is it with you and this "no electricity" idea? Are you
talking about a time when there is no electricity ever again?
One afternoon? A week? A month?
The appropriate response to your statements is "so what?"
I thought that we were taking about creating images here,
not geeking-out over one process or another.
> Niether photoshop nor the traditional darkroom will do everything, but some
> fools will try to shoehorn both into that catagory.
In terms of image manipulation, you can do everything and
more in Photoshop. I would be very interested to hear of
some for image manipulation you can't do with Photoshop
but can do in a darkroom.
gordito
John wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:01:53 -0600, "Dan Smith,
> Photographer" <sho...@brigham.net> wrote:
>
> >Gordito wrote:
> >
> >"anything you can do in a darkroom you can do in photoshop."
> >
> >Take an 8 inch needle & extract Rodinal from a 30 year old bottle using
> >Photoshop.
> >
> >Make a contact print using NO electricity.
> >
> >Niether photoshop nor the traditional darkroom will do everything, but some
> >fools will try to shoehorn both into that catagory.
> >
> >dan smith
>
> You're so right Dan. But I do have to say that image
> manipulation by masters like W.E.Smith and J.Uelsmann prove
> the potential for darkroom techniques.
Of course there are people who have done amazing things in
the darkroom. That wasn't the point.
bbb_bbb
>Kodak gold cds have a rated lifespan of over 100 years... storage and
>archiving is not an issue...
>
unreadable in most cd drives.
I used to work for a service bureau that did a lot of publishing on CD-R's
(short batches, runs in the 100's), and while it may be true that an
individual CD could last 100 years if handled and stored properly, it is
definitely not true that most CD's will last that long if they are anywhere
near to human beings. You had better hope that the person handling your CD
in 100 years (or 100 days) is well aware of just how fragile they are.
This topic has been worked over repeatedly in many news groups, so let's not
revisit it (that's what google is for). I will just state that no matter
what medium you use, storage and archiving IS an issue. I don't even believe
that Kodak claims (as you do) that storage and archiving is not an issue, so
you are probably on your own here.
Bernard