Kodak on digital and film future
Michael Scarpitti
Norman Worth
has been a culture change involving computers. Ordinary people use them
routinely for communications and other purposes. This has changed the way
we live and do things. It is not entirely clear how computer use will
finally affect imaging and photography, but the change will be great an will
affect many aspects of the craft. Industry is going through a thrashing out
process to discover how the markets really work, how things _can_ be done,
what is useful, and what people will accept. I don't expect it to calm down
for at least 10 years. A secondary message is that silver photography is
expected to remain viable for the foreseeable future. Although it is
certainly a mature field, the author seems to expect significant (though
unspecified) advances.
The paper mentions people beginnng to share images by e-mail. This has been
even more of a boon in industry, where you can now instantly give someone
anywhere an image of whatever you're discussing - a very powerful service
tool, marketing tool, and decision making tool. The speed of digital
photography is important here. The image goes from camera to recipient
directly. No processing, no fuss, little bother. The biggest victim may be
Polaroid. Kodak seems intent on making this easier and more versatile
still, with some emphasis on easy print making from digital images. They
also seem to feel that digital printing of traditional photographic images
is a way of the future. It may be, but there are certainly still a lot of
problems to solve. In any case, making the priniting process versatile and
available to the ordinary consumer should be viewed as a plus.
(An interesting aside: my local camera shop has a one-hour lab that uses
ordinary chemical processing to produce a negative, then scans the negative
and prints it (using lasers) on more-or-less ordinary chromogenic paper,
which is processed chemically. The quality is good and the cost is
reasonable.)
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03122...@posting.google.com...
>
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressCenter/presentations/020926photokina.shtml
Nicholas O. Lindan
> (An interesting aside: my local camera shop has a one-hour lab that uses
> ordinary chemical processing to produce a negative, then scans the negative
> and prints it (using lasers) on more-or-less ordinary chromogenic paper,
> which is processed chemically. The quality is good and the cost is
> reasonable.)
The next step is to take your digital camera to the drugstore and have
the store hand you back a strip of negatives -- for archival storage,
of course.
Pro shops could hand back a strip of real b&w (silver) negative
r-g-b separations for even better archiving.
The future of digital photography is film!
See:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
for full-color archival photos from turn of the century Russia --
they would never have survived if they weren't B&W!
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
David Nebenzahl
> (An interesting aside: my local camera shop has a one-hour lab that uses
> ordinary chemical processing to produce a negative, then scans the negative
> and prints it (using lasers) on more-or-less ordinary chromogenic paper,
> which is processed chemically. The quality is good and the cost is
> reasonable.)
This is the way it's done where I have my color processing done (the
drugstore, in this case, Longs Drugs). They use a Fuji Frontier to scan and
print negatives. I suspect this is the canonical way its done all over nowadays.
Yes, quality is good: but lately, I've been paying more attention to the
prints I've been getting, and while they look very good, I'm a little bothered
by the digital artifacts you can see if you look closely; especially areas of
fine, regular detail (e.g., screens, grilles, etc.) or areas of solid color.
I wonder if I can even get "regular" (i.e., projected from the negative)
prints made anymore for comparison.
--
Focus: A very overrated feature.
- From Marcy Merrill's lexicon at Junk Store Cameras
(http://merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm)
Jazztptman
prints made anymore for comparison.>
Yes, you just have to find one of the shrinking number of minilabs who hasn't
updated their equipment to digital printing. The Fuji Frontier and Noritsu
27-31 series digital printers are becoming very common.
It may be interesting to have the same image printed at competing labs using
Fuji and Noritsu equipment to see if you find one brand does a better job of
scanning the negative and making the print with fewer artifacts.
Bernie
Dana Myers
> "Norman Worth" <nwo...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>
>>(An interesting aside: my local camera shop has a one-hour lab that uses
>>ordinary chemical processing to produce a negative, then scans the negative
>>and prints it (using lasers) on more-or-less ordinary chromogenic paper,
>>which is processed chemically. The quality is good and the cost is
>>reasonable.)
>
>
> The next step is to take your digital camera to the drugstore and have
> the store hand you back a strip of negatives -- for archival storage,
> of course.
Do you really think so? It's highly questionable to me
that even modern color emulsions are truly more stable
than modern CD-R media. In fact, most of the concern I
see over digital archival isn't based on stability of
media, it's based on obsolescence of media, and the 9-track
data tape as well as 8-track audio tape are cited as
examples of the danger. However, let us not forget the
ordinary audio cassette tape is as old as 8-track,
and, in a slightly different context, broadcast television
signals are based on standards developed in the 1940s.
I might argue that 35mm film and facilities to handle it
are in more danger of becoming obsolete than ISO9660-format
CD-Rs. So why would a strip of negs be a good archival
choice?
> Pro shops could hand back a strip of real b&w (silver) negative
> r-g-b separations for even better archiving.
I suppose that's true, but it still doesn't avoid the
inherent issues with the accuracy of the color separations
and putting the separation back together again later on.
> The future of digital photography is film!
I really doubt it film is the future of digital,
though I really suspect the maturity and proliferation
of photographic *output* will maintain it as a standard
for high-quality output.
> See:
>
> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
>
> for full-color archival photos from turn of the century Russia --
> they would never have survived if they weren't B&W!
Of course, technology has advanced considerably since then,
wouldn't you say?
Dana
Michael A. Covington
> than modern CD-R media. In fact, most of the concern I
> see over digital archival isn't based on stability of
> media, it's based on obsolescence of media, and the 9-track
> data tape as well as 8-track audio tape are cited as
> examples of the danger. However, let us not forget the
> ordinary audio cassette tape is as old as 8-track,
> and, in a slightly different context, broadcast television
> signals are based on standards developed in the 1940s.
>
> I might argue that 35mm film and facilities to handle it
> are in more danger of becoming obsolete than ISO9660-format
> CD-Rs. So why would a strip of negs be a good archival
> choice?
Very good point. *Some* old formats become obsolete; others don't. CD-R is
so widely used that it will never die out entirely.
8-track died a painless death because nothing irreplaceable was recorded on
it in the first place! People didn't do home recording; 8-track cartridges
were copies of record albums. Cassettes survive because lots of relatively
irreplaceable material is recorded on them.
Many kinds of computer tapes are obsolescent because there was never a
widespread agreement to use a particular format. That is, it was hard to
find equipment to read them even in their heyday.
CD-Rs may have a limited lifetime (this seems to be a matter of debate) but
color negatives aren't permanent either.
And there is a strong possibility that a technology will be developed to
read deteriorating CD-Rs that have become out-of-spec. Since it's digital,
it's entirely recoverable even if they dyes fade, so long as they don't
become totally undetectable.
Modern CD drives are already more tolerant than early ones.
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:
>
> "Dana Myers" <k6...@arrl.net> wrote in message news:3fef9b91$1@wobble...
>
> > than modern CD-R media. In fact, most of the concern I
> > see over digital archival isn't based on stability of
> > media, it's based on obsolescence of media, and the 9-track
> > data tape as well as 8-track audio tape are cited as
> > examples of the danger. However, let us not forget the
> > ordinary audio cassette tape is as old as 8-track,
> > and, in a slightly different context, broadcast television
> > signals are based on standards developed in the 1940s.
> >
> > I might argue that 35mm film and facilities to handle it
> > are in more danger of becoming obsolete than ISO9660-format
> > CD-Rs. So why would a strip of negs be a good archival
> > choice?
Because film is 10,000 times more preservable than flash in the pan
technology, that's why. Film *is* an image. An image on CD-R is 100%
dependent on the technology that produced it being around in 200 years
to also extract it. Not going to happen even if current CD-R media could
last that long, which it can't.
> Very good point. *Some* old formats become obsolete; others don't. CD-R is
> so widely used that it will never die out entirely.
And you think an industry driven by economics cares about that? As soon
as they find something to replace it that will make more money, they
will. Vis-a-vis, the format doesn't have to become obsolete, just the technology.
> 8-track died a painless death because nothing irreplaceable was recorded on
> it in the first place! People didn't do home recording; 8-track cartridges
> were copies of record albums. Cassettes survive because lots of relatively
> irreplaceable material is recorded on them.
>
> Many kinds of computer tapes are obsolescent because there was never a
> widespread agreement to use a particular format. That is, it was hard to
> find equipment to read them even in their heyday.
>
> CD-Rs may have a limited lifetime (this seems to be a matter of debate) but
> color negatives aren't permanent either.
That CD-Rs have a limited life span isn't a matter of debate at all. Go
ask the manufacturers (if they're honest.) Last time I queried,
companies like 3M and Verbatim gave their media an honest maximum life
of about 30 years. That's when the stamped CD-R layers iterally may
start to come apart, if their dyes don't fade first.
Color film, negative or transparency, can be *permanantly* preserved and
the layers don't come apart. That's a fact.
>
> Since it's digital,
> it's entirely recoverable even if they dyes fade, so long as they don't
> become totally undetectable.
Nonsense and speculation. Obviously you've been fortunate (extremely, I
would say) to have never suffered a data loss on digital media.
Speculation and wishful thinking aside, the reality is most people I
know -- including myself -- haven't been so lucky. Digital media data
loss is as common as spit on a sidewalk. And once gone it's mostly
unrecoverable and what is recoverable is only usually recoverable at
large expense.
> Modern CD drives are already more tolerant than early ones.
I have a burner I paid some $600 for just a few years ago. It won't read
or write the current crop of new CD-Rs. The whole point of a profit
driven industry is to get you to buy and invest in "new and improved"
products through continual upgrades and advancing technology.
Michael A. Covington
"Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3FEFC725...@aol.com...
> > > I might argue that 35mm film and facilities to handle it
> > > are in more danger of becoming obsolete than ISO9660-format
> > > CD-Rs. So why would a strip of negs be a good archival
> > > choice?
>
> Because film is 10,000 times more preservable than flash in the pan
> technology, that's why. Film *is* an image. An image on CD-R is 100%
> dependent on the technology that produced it being around in 200 years
> to also extract it. Not going to happen even if current CD-R media could
> last that long, which it can't.
Black-and-white film is archival. Somehow I thought what was being proposed
was color negatives.
> > Very good point. *Some* old formats become obsolete; others don't.
CD-R is
> > so widely used that it will never die out entirely.
>
> And you think an industry driven by economics cares about that? As soon
> as they find something to replace it that will make more money, they
> will. Vis-a-vis, the format doesn't have to become obsolete, just the
technology.
There are people who still play Edison phonograph cylinders -- and they
sound better now than in Edison's time.
Regarding digital data, remember that it can be preserved *perfectly* by
copying. Film can't.
John
<lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote:
>Very good point. *Some* old formats become obsolete; others don't. CD-R is
>so widely used that it will never die out entirely.
Many thought the same thing about the venerable floppy
diskette. I'm putting my money on mini-DVD's.
Also, I hope the manufacturers get some kind of stability
rating. The current crop of CD's degenerate as fast as stabilization
prints. We just experienced a hard drive failure and found that 2 of
the name-brand CD's of digital images I had created as a backup would
not read. That really complicated my life for a few days. It's safe to
say that _all_ future events in our family will be shot on film.
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email
Dana Myers
>>"Dana Myers" <k6...@arrl.net> wrote in message news:3fef9b91$1@wobble...
>>>I might argue that 35mm film and facilities to handle it
>>>are in more danger of becoming obsolete than ISO9660-format
>>>CD-Rs. So why would a strip of negs be a good archival
>>>choice?
>
>
> Because film is 10,000 times more preservable than flash in the pan
> technology, that's why.
What makes you think think film isn't a flash-in-the-pan
technology?
> Film *is* an image. An image on CD-R is 100%
> dependent on the technology that produced it being around in 200 years
> to also extract it. Not going to happen even if current CD-R media could
> last that long, which it can't.
It's quite probable that fewer than 1% of all color negatives and
fewer than 10% of all color transparencies will even be remotely
usable in 200 years. Believe it or not, as popular as it has been,
color film is most likely a "flash-in-the-pan" technology. I'll bet
more CD-Rs last longer than color negs when our descendents in 2
centuries look back.
[...]
> That CD-Rs have a limited life span isn't a matter of debate at all. Go
> ask the manufacturers (if they're honest.) Last time I queried,
> companies like 3M and Verbatim gave their media an honest maximum life
> of about 30 years. That's when the stamped CD-R layers iterally may
> start to come apart, if their dyes don't fade first.
So, talk to me about your 30-year-old color negatives...
> Color film, negative or transparency, can be *permanantly* preserved and
> the layers don't come apart. That's a fact.
See above. Kodak certainly doesn't claim "*permanent*"
preservation of color negs.
[...]
> I have a burner I paid some $600 for just a few years ago. It won't read
> or write the current crop of new CD-Rs.
Wow. How many roll-film formats were obsoleted in the first 2 decades
of consumer film camera use?
I'm film-bigot, BTW, but at least I'm not in denial.
Dana
Dana Myers
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:24:30 -0500, "Michael A. Covington"
> <lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote:
>
>
>>Very good point. *Some* old formats become obsolete; others don't. CD-R is
>>so widely used that it will never die out entirely.
>
>
> Many thought the same thing about the venerable floppy
> diskette. I'm putting my money on mini-DVD's.
Are we talking about 5.25" or, the still ubiquitous 3.5" ?
Or perhaps you're talking about the truly floppy 8" disks?
:-)
People *still* buy new cassette recorders today.
> Also, I hope the manufacturers get some kind of stability
> rating. The current crop of CD's degenerate as fast as stabilization
> prints.
That's not my experience.
> We just experienced a hard drive failure and found that 2 of
> the name-brand CD's of digital images I had created as a backup would
> not read.
I had the same problem a few years back, turns out the CD-Recorder
*drive* I'd written them with was flakey. Media from the same package
written with a different drive - one that didn't fail a short time later -
is still perfectly readable.
Make sure you're blaming the correct weak link.
Dana
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >>"Dana Myers" <k6...@arrl.net> wrote in message news:3fef9b91$1@wobble...
>
> >>>I might argue that 35mm film and facilities to handle it
> >>>are in more danger of becoming obsolete than ISO9660-format
> >>>CD-Rs. So why would a strip of negs be a good archival
> >>>choice?
> >
> >
> > Because film is 10,000 times more preservable than flash in the pan
> > technology, that's why.
>
> What makes you think think film isn't a flash-in-the-pan
> technology?
You're joking, right? 120 years and counting...
> > Film *is* an image. An image on CD-R is 100%
> > dependent on the technology that produced it being around in 200 years
> > to also extract it. Not going to happen even if current CD-R media could
> > last that long, which it can't.
>
> It's quite probable that fewer than 1% of all color negatives and
> fewer than 10% of all color transparencies will even be remotely
> usable in 200 years.
An unqualified and unsubstantiated assertion. While some methods of
color film dye incorporation produce more stable permanance under
average conditions than others, proper storage perserves all color film
dyes equally permanently.
> Believe it or not, as popular as it has been,
> color film is most likely a "flash-in-the-pan" technology. I'll bet
> more CD-Rs last longer than color negs when our descendents in 2
> centuries look back.
Color film has been around and in steady use for many, many decades. It
has a proven track record. The basic method of color image making hasn't
changed significantly in 100 years. Autochromes are 100 years old and
counting. Modern color dye technology is improving every few years.
Color film technology is not "flash in the pan" by any definition.
> > That CD-Rs have a limited life span isn't a matter of debate at all. Go
> > ask the manufacturers (if they're honest.) Last time I queried,
> > companies like 3M and Verbatim gave their media an honest maximum life
> > of about 30 years. That's when the stamped CD-R layers iterally may
> > start to come apart, if their dyes don't fade first.
>
> So, talk to me about your 30-year-old color negatives...
They're in the refrigerator. I have older film than that....
> > Color film, negative or transparency, can be *permanantly* preserved and
> > the layers don't come apart. That's a fact.
>
> See above. Kodak certainly doesn't claim "*permanent*"
> preservation of color negs.
Kodak has long recommended proper storage for long term dye stability of
it's color films, based on the Arrhenius model.
> > I have a burner I paid some $600 for just a few years ago. It won't read
> > or write the current crop of new CD-Rs.
>
> Wow. How many roll-film formats were obsoleted in the first 2 decades
> of consumer film camera use?
I don't follow this at all. Your basic roll film formats (120 and 35mm)
have remained unchanged for decades.
> I'm film-bigot, BTW, but at least I'm not in denial.
But you appear misled. Digital storage is not more permanant than than
film. It's less permanant.
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:
>
> "Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3FEFC725...@aol.com...
>
> > > > I might argue that 35mm film and facilities to handle it
> > > > are in more danger of becoming obsolete than ISO9660-format
> > > > CD-Rs. So why would a strip of negs be a good archival
> > > > choice?
> >
> > Because film is 10,000 times more preservable than flash in the pan
> > technology, that's why. Film *is* an image. An image on CD-R is 100%
> > dependent on the technology that produced it being around in 200 years
> > to also extract it. Not going to happen even if current CD-R media could
> > last that long, which it can't.
>
> Black-and-white film is archival. Somehow I thought what was being proposed
> was color negatives.
With color film the issue is dye stability. Dark cold storage
permanantly preserves color dyes. If properly stored, color film is just
as archival. You should in fact always store any film under cool, dark conditions.
> > > Very good point. *Some* old formats become obsolete; others don't.
> CD-R is
> > > so widely used that it will never die out entirely.
> >
> > And you think an industry driven by economics cares about that? As soon
> > as they find something to replace it that will make more money, they
> > will. Vis-a-vis, the format doesn't have to become obsolete, just the
> technology.
>
> There are people who still play Edison phonograph cylinders -- and they
> sound better now than in Edison's time.
>
> Regarding digital data, remember that it can be preserved *perfectly* by
> copying. Film can't.
A fallacy. Redundancy is, in fact, *required* so you don't lose data.
Anyone who's ever lost data on a hard drive (guilty...) knows this. But
the fact that you back up doesn't ensure data preservation, since the
media itself -- while relatively stable in the short term -- is not
archival in any sense of the word. Film can not only be permanantly
preserved through proper storage conditions, but it's also easy to make
a back up copy. I always make at least two exposures when photographing,
since if I send one out for reproduction or other use I then have a
"back up."
The good thing about digital technology is it does allow one to send out
a temporary copy for most anticipated usages, ensuring the original
remains well preserved. A friend of mine is a writer. Since today's
publishing industry requires all manuscripts be submitted on digital
media, he uses a word processor. But he *always* makes a tangible hard
copy to ensure his manuscripts are truly backed up.
John
>John wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:24:30 -0500, "Michael A. Covington"
>> <lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Very good point. *Some* old formats become obsolete; others don't. CD-R is
>>>so widely used that it will never die out entirely.
>>
>>
>> Many thought the same thing about the venerable floppy
>> diskette. I'm putting my money on mini-DVD's.
>
>Are we talking about 5.25" or, the still ubiquitous 3.5" ?
>Or perhaps you're talking about the truly floppy 8" disks?
>
>:-)
The current 3.5 variety. With the advent of cheap USB memory
keys, FDD's are going the way of the dodo pretty quickly. Most OEM's
now have the drives available as options.
>People *still* buy new cassette recorders today.
Sure. We're creatures of habit after all.
>> Also, I hope the manufacturers get some kind of stability
>> rating. The current crop of CD's degenerate as fast as stabilization
>> prints.
>
>That's not my experience.
This might catch your interest.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/32593.html
"PC Active tested data disks from 30 manufacturers that were
recorded 20 months ago. Several data CDs developed serious errors, or
became virtually unreadable. "
>> We just experienced a hard drive failure and found that 2 of
>> the name-brand CD's of digital images I had created as a backup would
>> not read.
>
>I had the same problem a few years back, turns out the CD-Recorder
>*drive* I'd written them with was flakey. Media from the same package
>written with a different drive - one that didn't fail a short time later -
>is still perfectly readable.
>
>Make sure you're blaming the correct weak link.
Yep. Probably like yourself I believe in the
"Belt-&-Suspenders" approach to computers. Backups on my backups on my
backups. My primary drive's a Plextor 40/12/40A which is to say it's
less than a year old and has no problems reading nearly any scratched
up media I've had to throw at it. Plextor's good that way. Best ECC on
the market for the common user. Of course I also have a Pacific
Digital CD/RW in the same system which also will not read the disks.
John
>So, talk to me about your 30-year-old color negatives...
I have some CN-2 negs that are printable. Not perfect but then
they were stored in a suitcase in the basement of my FIL's house for
over 20 years.
BTW, found a roll of C-41 in a chair that was exposed but not
developed for 8 years. Took it to the lab fully expecting pink, low
contrast images. Surprised but the entire roll prints fine.
John
wrote:
>You should in fact always store any film under cool, dark conditions.
And dry.
Tom Phillips
John wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:09:50 -0700, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You should in fact always store any film under cool, dark conditions.
>
> And dry.
The experts say you don't want it too dry, as in 0% humidity. Course few
of us live in the Sahara, so I assume you mean more or less damp, wet
conditions. Moisture barriers are a geneally good idea in storage. If
controlled humidity is possible, 20 to 40 percent relative is generally
recommended. Where I live it's usually drier than that most of the time.
Dennis O'Connor
Digest version here: There are only two data storage media that have been
proven to last for centuries...
Baked clay tablets with cuneiform writing - good for thousands of years...
And, oil paint on either wood (a thousand years) or linen canvas (~400
years)...
There are a few examples of organic pigments on granite (caves) that have
lasted up to 5,000 years, but the amount of encoded data has been hoplessly
sparse and the container rather large...
Denny
"Dana Myers" <k6...@arrl.net> wrote in message news:3fefd38d$1@wobble...
Gregory W Blank
John <use...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:24:30 -0500, "Michael A. Covington"
> <lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote:
>
> >Very good point. *Some* old formats become obsolete; others don't. CD-R is
> >so widely used that it will never die out entirely.
> Many thought the same thing about the venerable floppy
> diskette. I'm putting my money on mini-DVD's.
Looking into the future, it might be wiser to go
with man made quartz based crystals that automatically link to
the centralized processing continum in Gamma quadrant V.
Thereby enabling you down load or upload eletromagnetically pulsed files at will.
No buttons to push just "think" and the image appears a holographic preview
mode which upon voice activated selection displays at desired size projected in 3d.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Peter Irwin
>
>
> Wow. How many roll-film formats were obsoleted in the first 2 decades
> of consumer film camera use?
>
Kodak was making 29 different types, but they didn't start dissapearing
from the catalogues until after 1924.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Daylight loading rollfilm dates from 1895, by 1915
Marketing, gotta love 'em.
A. Dent:
"We crash landed on this planet eons ago and we
haven't even re-invented fire yet!"
Marketing consultant:
"All right then, Mr. Know-it-all, why don't _you_
tell us what color it should be."
A. Dent:
"Oh, go stick it up your nose."
Marketing consultant:
"See. Maybe people want fire to be nasally
implantable."
-- Douglas Adams, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"
Dana Myers
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:09:50 -0700, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>You should in fact always store any film under cool, dark conditions.
>
>
> And dry.
Of course, I suspect CD-Rs stored under these same conditions
are as stable as color negatives.
Dana
Harry Liston
to the drugstore and have
> the store hand you back a strip of negatives -- for archival storage,
> of course.
>
> Pro shops could hand back a strip of real b&w (silver) negative
> r-g-b separations for even better archiving.
>
> The future of digital photography is film!
I really doubt if this will become the norm. And
I really doubt that film and digital can
peacefully co-exist over the next five years, much
less ten.
What will probably happen is this: As digital
takes hold and supplants 35mm as the de facto
standard, the cost for processing film will start
to climb. Prices for chemistries and processing
equipment will also become exorbitant, resulting
in a quick and merciful end to traditional
photography for 90% of the population.
The argument of archival stability does not have a
compelling aspect about it. If you look at the
history of amateur photography, longevity never
was much of an influence in what caught on and
what didn't. Look how popular color print film
became in the 1960's despite very poor archival
characteristics! Even back in the chrome wars of
the 1980's, Ektachrome and Fujichrome outsold
Kodachrome 10 to 1, mainly because of the
convenience of getting the results back faster.
You may think that pro photography will be
excluded from the squeeze, but I doubt very much
if this will be the case. There is no difference
between pro and amateur once the added
inconvenience and costs become too much of a barrier.
I believe the end is much nearer than you
estimate, despite my feelings to the contrary.
Harry Liston
Dana Myers
>
> Dana Myers wrote:
>>Tom Phillips wrote:
[...]
>>>Because film is 10,000 times more preservable than flash in the pan
>>>technology, that's why.
>>
>>What makes you think think film isn't a flash-in-the-pan
>>technology?
>
> You're joking, right? 120 years and counting...
My point is, in 100 years, will film as we know it
today still be in common use? I suppose it helps
to define "common use" - I mean, average ordinary
consumers taking snapshots. Will it be on film?
>>>Film *is* an image. An image on CD-R is 100%
>>>dependent on the technology that produced it being around in 200 years
>>>to also extract it. Not going to happen even if current CD-R media could
>>>last that long, which it can't.
>>
>>It's quite probable that fewer than 1% of all color negatives and
>>fewer than 10% of all color transparencies will even be remotely
>>usable in 200 years.
>
>
> An unqualified and unsubstantiated assertion. While some methods of
> color film dye incorporation produce more stable permanance under
> average conditions than others, proper storage perserves all color film
> dyes equally permanently.
OK, let's think about the average color film user over the last
40 years, people who don't archive their film properly. People who
store old negs, slides and prints in boxes in the attic, in the
basement, in the garage. Average Joes who aren't savvy to film
preservation. Once again, my unsubstantiated (but not unqualified)
opinion is that very few of all of the images captured on film will
be usable in 200 years.
>>Believe it or not, as popular as it has been,
>>color film is most likely a "flash-in-the-pan" technology. I'll bet
>>more CD-Rs last longer than color negs when our descendents in 2
>>centuries look back.
>
>
> Color film has been around and in steady use for many, many decades. It
> has a proven track record. The basic method of color image making hasn't
> changed significantly in 100 years. Autochromes are 100 years old and
> counting. Modern color dye technology is improving every few years.
>
> Color film technology is not "flash in the pan" by any definition.
Fine, let's not quibble over semantics. My point is that color film
technology is likely to be replaced in the vast majority of applications
and suffer a rapid descent into niche use. It's already happening.
>>>That CD-Rs have a limited life span isn't a matter of debate at all. Go
>>>ask the manufacturers (if they're honest.) Last time I queried,
>>>companies like 3M and Verbatim gave their media an honest maximum life
>>>of about 30 years. That's when the stamped CD-R layers iterally may
>>>start to come apart, if their dyes don't fade first.
>>
>>So, talk to me about your 30-year-old color negatives...
>
> They're in the refrigerator. I have older film than that....
Do you keep CD-Rs in the refrigerator?
TDK claims longevity of 70+ years of CD-Rs stored
in an office environment (30C, 86F, 80% humidity).
Kodak claims CD-R longevity of 100+ years stored in
an office or home environment, though their research
indicates this number is more like 217 years.
3M suggest a lifetime of over 100 years in similar conditions.
Frankly, you might need to revisit whether my opinions
are unsubstantiated.
Keep in mind, part of an archival process is to periodically
make copies of the archive, especially since there's no undetectable
degradation in the process of copying a data CD. I suspect that
the archival options in 20 years will be superior to those we have
today.
>>>Color film, negative or transparency, can be *permanantly* preserved and
>>>the layers don't come apart. That's a fact.
>>
>>See above. Kodak certainly doesn't claim "*permanent*"
>>preservation of color negs.
>
>
> Kodak has long recommended proper storage for long term dye stability of
> it's color films, based on the Arrhenius model.
Of course, just like CD-Rs.
Would you like to cite Kodak's claim of "permanent" preservation of
color materials? Certainly in their 2003 Professional Products catalog,
they claim lifetimes of 100 and 200 years for prints stored in home display
and in the dark, respectively. It's about the same as their CD-Rs.
>>>I have a burner I paid some $600 for just a few years ago. It won't read
>>>or write the current crop of new CD-Rs.
>>
>>Wow. How many roll-film formats were obsoleted in the first 2 decades
>>of consumer film camera use?
>
>
> I don't follow this at all. Your basic roll film formats (120 and 35mm)
> have remained unchanged for decades.
My point is that we're still very early in the life-cycle of CD-R technology.
If you look at the first 30 or 40 years of photographic products, Kodak
had something like 30 difference roll-film formats, of which only two
exist today.
>>I'm film-bigot, BTW, but at least I'm not in denial.
>
>
> But you appear misled. Digital storage is not more permanant than than
> film. It's less permanant.
Actually, you'll need to better substantiate this claim. Just like film
permanence starts with proper processing, CD-R permanence starts with
proper recording. Just like film permanence requires proper storage,
so does CD-R. According to Kodak, their CD-Rs and their film have
similar life-span expectations today.
Dana
John
wrote:
Obviously you do not live in Tennessee where the average
humidity is 69%. Of course the peaks and valleys are amazing in their
range.
John
<gbl...@despamit.net> wrote:
>> Many thought the same thing about the venerable floppy
>> diskette. I'm putting my money on mini-DVD's.
>
>Looking into the future, it might be wiser to go
>with man made quartz based crystals that automatically link to
>the centralized processing continum in Gamma quadrant V.
>Thereby enabling you down load or upload eletromagnetically pulsed files at will.
>No buttons to push just "think" and the image appears a holographic preview
>mode which upon voice activated selection displays at desired size projected in 3d.
Sounds like government issue ;>)
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> > Dana Myers wrote:
> >>Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>Because film is 10,000 times more preservable than flash in the pan
> >>>technology, that's why.
> >>
> >>What makes you think think film isn't a flash-in-the-pan
> >>technology?
> >
> > You're joking, right? 120 years and counting...
>
> My point is, in 100 years, will film as we know it
> today still be in common use? I suppose it helps
> to define "common use" - I mean, average ordinary
> consumers taking snapshots. Will it be on film?
Now you trending toward abstraction and maybe even philosophical
pondering. Will *anything* be here in 100 years? For all anyone knows a
bio-plauge will wipe us all out, or an asteroid, or...
O.K., I'll play :) First, photography isn't technology. It's a science.
it was discovered, not invented. People were creating images on silver
long before there was film and they didn't need computer software to do
it. Those images are both tangible and still with us. Digital, OTOH, is
completely technologically based and dependent. Take away the technology
and digital imaging falls flat on it's face. Now I ask you, when the
lights go out, where will all those images be if not on film or some
similar photochemically and *materially* based substance?
Nowhere, since 1's and 0's don't really exist.
> >>>Film *is* an image. An image on CD-R is 100%
> >>>dependent on the technology that produced it being around in 200 years
> >>>to also extract it. Not going to happen even if current CD-R media could
> >>>last that long, which it can't.
> >>
> >>It's quite probable that fewer than 1% of all color negatives and
> >>fewer than 10% of all color transparencies will even be remotely
> >>usable in 200 years.
> >
> >
> > An unqualified and unsubstantiated assertion. While some methods of
> > color film dye incorporation produce more stable permanance under
> > average conditions than others, proper storage perserves all color film
> > dyes equally permanently.
>
> OK, let's think about the average color film user over the last
> 40 years, people who don't archive their film properly. People who
> store old negs, slides and prints in boxes in the attic, in the
> basement, in the garage.
Except that a lot of those old films and prints stuck away in boxes do
more often than not seem to survive despite their ignorant treatment.
> Average Joes who aren't savvy to film
> preservation. Once again, my unsubstantiated (but not unqualified)
> opinion is that very few of all of the images captured on film will
> be usable in 200 years.
Fewer will likely remain on CDs and hard drives...
> >>Believe it or not, as popular as it has been,
> >>color film is most likely a "flash-in-the-pan" technology. I'll bet
> >>more CD-Rs last longer than color negs when our descendents in 2
> >>centuries look back.
> >
> >
> > Color film has been around and in steady use for many, many decades. It
> > has a proven track record. The basic method of color image making hasn't
> > changed significantly in 100 years. Autochromes are 100 years old and
> > counting. Modern color dye technology is improving every few years.
> >
> > Color film technology is not "flash in the pan" by any definition.
>
> Fine, let's not quibble over semantics. My point is that color film
> technology is likely to be replaced in the vast majority of applications
> and suffer a rapid descent into niche use. It's already happening.
Fine! We'll see when we get there.
> >>>That CD-Rs have a limited life span isn't a matter of debate at all. Go
> >>>ask the manufacturers (if they're honest.) Last time I queried,
> >>>companies like 3M and Verbatim gave their media an honest maximum life
> >>>of about 30 years. That's when the stamped CD-R layers iterally may
> >>>start to come apart, if their dyes don't fade first.
> >>
> >>So, talk to me about your 30-year-old color negatives...
> >
> > They're in the refrigerator. I have older film than that....
>
> Do you keep CD-Rs in the refrigerator?
I was going to ask you that same question...
> TDK claims longevity of 70+ years of CD-Rs stored
> in an office environment (30C, 86F, 80% humidity).
uh huh. Get back to me in 70 years, then. In that environment, your
computer isn't going to last all that long and neither will the office
workers. Meaning it's easy to make such a claim since no one actually
works in hot steamy offices.
> Kodak claims CD-R longevity of 100+ years stored in
> an office or home environment, though their research
> indicates this number is more like 217 years.
>
> 3M suggest a lifetime of over 100 years in similar conditions.
>
> Frankly, you might need to revisit whether my opinions
> are unsubstantiated.
Actually, more than one manufacturer including 3M has told me about 30
years. Likely they actually don't know -- but have good reason to
"reassure" consumers even if it isn't so. I guess we'll find out in 30
years. One thing that is known, film can be preserved indefinitely if
not left to deteriorate in a hot, harsh environment.
> Keep in mind, part of an archival process is to periodically
> make copies of the archive, especially since there's no undetectable
> degradation in the process of copying a data CD. I suspect that
> the archival options in 20 years will be superior to those we have
> today.
Keep in mind if CD-Rs were really that archival, they wouldn't need
endless redundancy. So far, storage is the weakest link in digital
anything, while the industry has not yet produced a single storage
medium that is stable and permanant enough in both the marketplace and
in longevity to warrant any sense of future data security. Film is just
the opposite. Even if there is some degradation, film will produce a
still usable image. Corrupted data will not be recoverable in most
instances (not in my experience.) And as I've said, the redundancy
merely protects against short term data loss. It doesn't ensure long
term archivability of that data.
Film can be archived and 100% preserved indefinitely. Those are the
present facts as we have them.
> >>>Color film, negative or transparency, can be *permanantly* preserved and
> >>>the layers don't come apart. That's a fact.
> >>
> >>See above. Kodak certainly doesn't claim "*permanent*"
> >>preservation of color negs.
> >
> >
> > Kodak has long recommended proper storage for long term dye stability of
> > it's color films, based on the Arrhenius model.
>
> Of course, just like CD-Rs.
Oh, Kodak recommends dark cold storage for their CD-Rs? And how is that
going to prevent the stamped layers from eventually comming apart?
Something every manufacturer has said will eventually happen?
> Would you like to cite Kodak's claim of "permanent" preservation of
> color materials? Certainly in their 2003 Professional Products catalog,
> they claim lifetimes of 100 and 200 years for prints stored in home display
> and in the dark, respectively. It's about the same as their CD-Rs.
Actually, those photographic claims and recommendations are based on
environment-dye stability tests. I *have* color prints that are decades
old hanging on my wall. When I have a CD-R that has endured for that
long and not suffered any data or physical corruption -- just like my
prints -- I'll give some credence to the claim of CD longevity.
> >>>I have a burner I paid some $600 for just a few years ago. It won't read
> >>>or write the current crop of new CD-Rs.
> >>
> >>Wow. How many roll-film formats were obsoleted in the first 2 decades
> >>of consumer film camera use?
> >
> >
> > I don't follow this at all. Your basic roll film formats (120 and 35mm)
> > have remained unchanged for decades.
>
> My point is that we're still very early in the life-cycle of CD-R technology.
> If you look at the first 30 or 40 years of photographic products, Kodak
> had something like 30 difference roll-film formats, of which only two
> exist today.
Sorry, I don't see the point. Unless you're suggesting CD-Rs will solve
their present deficiencies by being made available in different sizes.
So some roll film formats may have come and gone. That didn't changed
the basic substance of what film is. The problem with CD-R's isn't the
format, it's the technology.
> >>I'm film-bigot, BTW, but at least I'm not in denial.
> >
> >
> > But you appear misled. Digital storage is not more permanant than than
> > film. It's less permanant.
>
> Actually, you'll need to better substantiate this claim. Just like film
> permanence starts with proper processing, CD-R permanence starts with
> proper recording. Just like film permanence requires proper storage,
> so does CD-R. According to Kodak, their CD-Rs and their film have
> similar life-span expectations today.
I don't think I need to substatiate it at all. Film and images on film
have a proven longevity track record. CD-Rs do not. It's just that
simple. It is known film can be made to last virtually forever if
properly cared for, and lot's of images on film have survived in attics
and closets despite the lack of proper care and storage. When your CD-Rs
have been shown to do that for several decades, we'll debate again. The
likelihood is CD-Rs will simply fall by the wayside in favor of some
newer digital storage medium, as the short history of computer
technology demonstrates. Either that, or you won't be able to read the
ones you make today with the technology of tomorrow, something also
already amply demonstrated by a short term profit-oriented computer industry.
Tom Phillips
John wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:27:20 -0700, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >John wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:09:50 -0700, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You should in fact always store any film under cool, dark conditions.
> >>
> >> And dry.
> >
> >The experts say you don't want it too dry, as in 0% humidity. Course few
> >of us live in the Sahara, so I assume you mean more or less damp, wet
> >conditions. Moisture barriers are a geneally good idea in storage. If
> >controlled humidity is possible, 20 to 40 percent relative is generally
> >recommended. Where I live it's usually drier than that most of the time.
>
> Obviously you do not live in Tennessee where the average
> humidity is 69%. Of course the peaks and valleys are amazing in their
> range.
No. I'm semi arid, though not quite flaming hot, most of the time, like
my wit and conversation.
Course there are a few mountains about where the precip and humidity
rise with the elevation. Lots of snow, you know...
Gregory W Blank
> My point is, in 100 years, will film as we know it
> today still be in common use? I suppose it helps
> to define "common use" - I mean, average ordinary
> consumers taking snapshots. Will it be on film?
> Dana
Here's a question why do digital"camera" companies
need to call it photography to justify or sell product?
Whats wrong with Image Captury ? Why associate
oil & watercolor through the common term of painting?
Why speculate one has to kill the other to be valid?
Dana Myers
>
> Dana Myers wrote:
>>OK, let's think about the average color film user over the last
>>40 years, people who don't archive their film properly. People who
>>store old negs, slides and prints in boxes in the attic, in the
>>basement, in the garage.
>
>
> Except that a lot of those old films and prints stuck away in boxes do
> more often than not seem to survive despite their ignorant treatment.
>
>
>>Average Joes who aren't savvy to film
>>preservation. Once again, my unsubstantiated (but not unqualified)
>>opinion is that very few of all of the images captured on film will
>>be usable in 200 years.
>
>
> Fewer will likely remain on CDs and hard drives...
Wait a minute. Already old, poorly stored film will survive
but newer CD-Rs won't? I don't think that this is any more
conclusive than my opinion to the contrary :-).
>>TDK claims longevity of 70+ years of CD-Rs stored
>>in an office environment (30C, 86F, 80% humidity).
>
>
> uh huh. Get back to me in 70 years, then. In that environment, your
> computer isn't going to last all that long and neither will the office
> workers. Meaning it's easy to make such a claim since no one actually
> works in hot steamy offices.
That's rather specious, Tom. Accelerated age testing is done
by elevating the temperature, and there's a well-understood
relationship between storage temperature and permanence of
media. It's used for film and it's used for CD-Rs and it's
quite credibly believed to be accurate in both cases.
Making a claim about storing at a somewhat elevated temperature
is a erroring on the side of worst-case. The expected lifetime
is longer at lower temperatures. Further, while it's specious
in this context to observe the computers won't last, that doesn't
matter anyway, you can replace them as long as your archives are
good :-).
>>Kodak claims CD-R longevity of 100+ years stored in
>>an office or home environment, though their research
>>indicates this number is more like 217 years.
>>
>>3M suggest a lifetime of over 100 years in similar conditions.
>>
>>Frankly, you might need to revisit whether my opinions
>>are unsubstantiated.
>
>
> Actually, more than one manufacturer including 3M has told me about 30
> years. Likely they actually don't know -- but have good reason to
> "reassure" consumers even if it isn't so. I guess we'll find out in 30
> years. One thing that is known, film can be preserved indefinitely if
> not left to deteriorate in a hot, harsh environment.
The same kind of protocol is used to test longevity of CDs and film,
and similar numbers are being found. Which manufacturer has claimed
that film can be preserved indefinitely?
[...]
> And as I've said, the redundancy
> merely protects against short term data loss. It doesn't ensure long
> term archivability of that data.
I believe you're mistaken. An archival protocol that not only
initially makes redundant copies, but periodically makes new
redundant copies can preserve data indefinitely, and also has
the benefit of permitting the archived data to be moved to
more permanent storage as it is available.
> Film can be archived and 100% preserved indefinitely. Those are the
> present facts as we have them.
100% preserved indefinitely? Which manufacturer claims that?
Just as film has evolved to become more permanent, data storage
media is evolving to become more permanent, and, according to Kodak,
has already achieved parity with film. In any case, proper preservation
doesn't consist of simply making a few copies and storing them in a
salt mine, it includes a schedule of making fresh copies of the aging
digital media. Unlike film, this can be done without *any* deterioration
of the content.
Dana
Dana Myers
> Here's a question why do digital"camera" companies
> need to call it photography to justify or sell product?
> Whats wrong with Image Captury ? Why associate
> oil & watercolor through the common term of painting?
>
> Why speculate one has to kill the other to be valid?
To an average consumer, photography == "Still image capture".
Digital and film are alternatives to capturing still images,
with conventional photochemical prints being indistinguishable
between the two technologies to most users. That's why
they are seen to compete. When more images are captured
digitally, less film will be required.
Dana
John
>Unlike film, this can be done without *any* deterioration
>of the content.
Wanna bet your images on it ?
Of course I happen to have a few hundred negs from the 20's
Cars with spoked wheels. What a hoot !. And a dozen or so prints from
1880~1890. Not a single CD that is more than 10 years old. Of course
there is that Winders '95 A upgrade disk that's getting close ;>)
John
>When more images are captured
>digitally, less film will be required.
And larger landfills will be mandatory.
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> > Dana Myers wrote:
>
> >>OK, let's think about the average color film user over the last
> >>40 years, people who don't archive their film properly. People who
> >>store old negs, slides and prints in boxes in the attic, in the
> >>basement, in the garage.
> >
> >
> > Except that a lot of those old films and prints stuck away in boxes do
> > more often than not seem to survive despite their ignorant treatment.
> >
> >
> >>Average Joes who aren't savvy to film
> >>preservation. Once again, my unsubstantiated (but not unqualified)
> >>opinion is that very few of all of the images captured on film will
> >>be usable in 200 years.
> >
> >
> > Fewer will likely remain on CDs and hard drives...
>
> Wait a minute. Already old, poorly stored film will survive
> but newer CD-Rs won't? I don't think that this is any more
> conclusive than my opinion to the contrary :-).
Yes. Because all you have to do is properly store it and it stops any
further degradation. You still have useable data. You can't say that
about any digital media. Once the data is corrupted, it's gone for good.
> >>TDK claims longevity of 70+ years of CD-Rs stored
> >>in an office environment (30C, 86F, 80% humidity).
> >
> >
> > uh huh. Get back to me in 70 years, then. In that environment, your
> > computer isn't going to last all that long and neither will the office
> > workers. Meaning it's easy to make such a claim since no one actually
> > works in hot steamy offices.
>
> That's rather specious, Tom. Accelerated age testing is done
> by elevating the temperature, and there's a well-understood
> relationship between storage temperature and permanence of
> media. It's used for film and it's used for CD-Rs and it's
> quite credibly believed to be accurate in both cases.
>
> Making a claim about storing at a somewhat elevated temperature
> is a erroring on the side of worst-case. The expected lifetime
> is longer at lower temperatures. Further, while it's specious
> in this context to observe the computers won't last, that doesn't
> matter anyway, you can replace them as long as your archives are
> good :-).
I don't think it's specious at all. Grandstanding is what it appears to
be to me. Accelerated film testing is done for typical storage
conditions. I've never read where a hot humid office was the "norm"
tested for. That's like taking new tires out on a pot-holed road and
saying they "survived." It's the long term "normal" conditions that
count. The relationship between temp/humidity/environment is used to
test how well film can be *preserved*, not how fast it can be destroyed
by abnormal adverse conditions, since that has far less relevance.
That's my reading of the info on film preservation. Show me a model used
for CD-Rs where the conditions chosen predict stoppage of dye fading and
data corruption and encourage long term preservation. My information
isn't that CD-Rs fail under adverse conditions, but fail and come apart
under normal conditions...
> >>Kodak claims CD-R longevity of 100+ years stored in
> >>an office or home environment, though their research
> >>indicates this number is more like 217 years.
> >>
> >>3M suggest a lifetime of over 100 years in similar conditions.
> >>
> >>Frankly, you might need to revisit whether my opinions
> >>are unsubstantiated.
> >
> >
> > Actually, more than one manufacturer including 3M has told me about 30
> > years. Likely they actually don't know -- but have good reason to
> > "reassure" consumers even if it isn't so. I guess we'll find out in 30
> > years. One thing that is known, film can be preserved indefinitely if
> > not left to deteriorate in a hot, harsh environment.
>
> The same kind of protocol is used to test longevity of CDs and film,
> and similar numbers are being found. Which manufacturer has claimed
> that film can be preserved indefinitely?
None. It's rather been stated by Dr. James Reilly of the *independent*
and not for profit Image Permanance Institute. Indefinite preservation
is not an absolute, but is possible depending on the use and storage of
the film.
> > And as I've said, the redundancy
> > merely protects against short term data loss. It doesn't ensure long
> > term archivability of that data.
>
> I believe you're mistaken. An archival protocol that not only
> initially makes redundant copies, but periodically makes new
> redundant copies can preserve data indefinitely, and also has
> the benefit of permitting the archived data to be moved to
> more permanent storage as it is available.
>
> > Film can be archived and 100% preserved indefinitely. Those are the
> > present facts as we have them.
>
> 100% preserved indefinitely? Which manufacturer claims that?
Ibid.
> Just as film has evolved to become more permanent,
That reveals a complete lack of historical context and understanding,
Dana. In fact, many early photographs and photographic processes were
more permanant than those of today. And they've been around long enough
to prove it. Most 19th century photographers were in fact very
preservation and archival minded. They took pains to ensure their
processes and images would endure. Film has not "evolved" except in a
technological, manufacturing sense -- usually related to the market.
Today's films are not only not more archival than 19th century emulsions
and substrates (usually on glass or metal...) they're *less*. Which is
perhaps why additional care in storage is needed.
The one exception seems to be modern emulsion layers on a polyester
base, which Reilly says is about the most durable film base available
today and will likely last hundreds of years at room temperatures.
> data storage
> media is evolving to become more permanent, and, according to Kodak,
> has already achieved parity with film.
Yeah, Kodak is doing everything it can to make itself competitive in the
digital marketplace while discontinuing film product after film product
to make up for the numerous poor management desicions it's made over the
years that reduced it's profitability. They have good motive to make
such claims...>
> In any case, proper preservation
> doesn't consist of simply making a few copies and storing them in a
> salt mine, it includes a schedule of making fresh copies of the aging
> digital media. Unlike film, this can be done without *any* deterioration
> of the content.
That's also what gives an image on film it's value -- the fact that it
*IS* a one of a kind copy no one else can forge or pirate. Digital
simply has no such value, since innumerable *exact* copies can be made
and then output -- and output and output. If someone copies your work,
you can't prove it's a copy.
In addition, film is low maintenance. Store it properly once and you're
done. And you can easily make extra originals at the time of exposure;
they'll still outlast any digital media or copy :)
Dana Myers
>
> Dana Myers wrote:
>>Just as film has evolved to become more permanent,
>
>
> That reveals a complete lack of historical context and understanding,
> Dana.
OK, Tom. You have a choice. You can either assume I'm woefully
ignorant and set out to correct me, or you can assume that I at
least have a clue and am speaking of *color* film here.
> In fact, many early photographs and photographic processes were
> more permanant than those of today. And they've been around long enough
> to prove it. Most 19th century photographers were in fact very
> preservation and archival minded. They took pains to ensure their
> processes and images would endure. Film has not "evolved" except in a
> technological, manufacturing sense -- usually related to the market.
> Today's films are not only not more archival than 19th century emulsions
> and substrates (usually on glass or metal...) they're *less*. Which is
> perhaps why additional care in storage is needed.
Well, I'm trying to assume you're not intent patronizing me at the
expense of common sense, so please help me. Which color emulsions
of the 19th century are you referring to? I'm certainly not
questioning the permanence of silver-based images.
> The one exception seems to be modern emulsion layers on a polyester
> base, which Reilly says is about the most durable film base available
> today and will likely last hundreds of years at room temperatures.
Is polyester more stable (not durable) than glass?
Anyway, I'm not really thinking about the stability of the film
base, though I know it was once an issue long before color film was
a consumer item.
Dana
Dana Myers
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:46:23 -0800, Dana Myers <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
>>When more images are captured
>>digitally, less film will be required.
> And larger landfills will be mandatory.
To contain what, John?
Dana
jjs
> Anyway, I'm not really thinking about the stability of the film
> base, though I know it was once an issue long before color film was
> a consumer item.
Before the modern film bases there was nitro-cellulose. It was a very
popular material because it was flexible and strong. Nitro-cellulose is
also known as "smokeless gunpowder". :) Archival? I think not. But
actually, I'm not sure when they used it. Long before my young life began.
Gregory W Blank
> Well, I'm trying to assume you're not intent patronizing me at the
> expense of common sense, so please help me. Which color emulsions
> of the 19th century are you referring to? I'm certainly not
> questioning the permanence of silver-based images.
Ever hear of an autochrome? To my knowledge some examples
still exist, was the first color emulsion, in the late 1800's
early 1900's. Anybody else know more?
Gregory W Blank
jo...@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote:
I think into the early 1940's. Nitrocellulose aka -guncotton, akin to Collodian
akin to dyanmite. Gives new meaning to I wanna blowup some old pictures :-)
From what I hear old archived films are stored in very cold conditions to keep the
film stable, and from exploding,....maybe "Richard K"- knows?
jjs
<gbl...@despamit.net> wrote:
> In article <3ff2327c$1@wobble>, Dana Myers <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
> Ever hear of an autochrome? To my knowledge some examples
> still exist, was the first color emulsion, in the late 1800's
> early 1900's. Anybody else know more?
Autochrome - a very interesting process. Turn of the centry, maybe 1910
(as I recall :)). It actually used particles of RGB over pan film,
processed or copied to a reverse, and had to be viewed using a special
filter.
Michael A. Covington
"Gregory W Blank" <gbl...@despamit.net> wrote in message
news:QarIb.3289$nK2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> In article <3ff2327c$1@wobble>, Dana Myers <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
>
> > Well, I'm trying to assume you're not intent patronizing me at the
> > expense of common sense, so please help me. Which color emulsions
> > of the 19th century are you referring to? I'm certainly not
> > questioning the permanence of silver-based images.
>
> Ever hear of an autochrome? To my knowledge some examples
> still exist, was the first color emulsion, in the late 1800's
> early 1900's. Anybody else know more?
It is not a color emulsion. It is a black-and-white emulsion with a filter
layer made of alternating red, green, and blue globules of dyed starch,
rather in the manner of a color TV screen.
It produces remarkably true color because the same dyes are used for
producing the picture and for viewing it.
I have no idea how stable the dyes are.
Dana Myers
> In article <3ff2327c$1@wobble>, Dana Myers <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I'm trying to assume you're not intent patronizing me at the
>>expense of common sense, so please help me. Which color emulsions
>>of the 19th century are you referring to? I'm certainly not
>>questioning the permanence of silver-based images.
>
>
> Ever hear of an autochrome? To my knowledge some examples
> still exist, was the first color emulsion, in the late 1800's
> early 1900's. Anybody else know more?
Yeah, I'd heard of Autochrome. It's not a modern
color emulsion, hasn't been made since the 1930s,
and I really don't know how stable the starch globules
+ dyes are. But it's not really relevant to the
mainstream discussion of film vs. digital, since
autochrome has not seen consumer use since the
1930s. One might equate it to the Exatron
stringy floppy or Kansas City standard data
cassettes...
Dana K6JQ
John
Botched up inkjet prints, inkjet cartridges, printers and
computers. Oh, and we shouldn't forget about the digicams which needs
to be replaced about every 2~3 years.
John
<gbl...@despamit.net> wrote:
>I think into the early 1940's. Nitrocellulose aka -guncotton, akin to Collodian
>akin to dyanmite. Gives new meaning to I wanna blowup some old pictures :-)
ROTFLMAO !
That's good !
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> > Dana Myers wrote:
>
> >>Just as film has evolved to become more permanent,
> >
> >
> > That reveals a complete lack of historical context and understanding,
> > Dana.
>
> OK, Tom. You have a choice. You can either assume I'm woefully
> ignorant and set out to correct me, or you can assume that I at
> least have a clue and am speaking of *color* film here.
I can only read what you write. Sorry, reading between the lines and
making assumptions about what you write is extra :)
But given you restate to mean color only, I have one word: Kodachrome,
1933. At room temperture Arrhenius model shows excellent stability over
a 100 year period. It's the most stable color dye film ever produced,
and I think it was the first. Color film has in fact de-evolved from
there in stability, though again with proper storage there is no dye
fading or dye fading is stopped in all color films. But of course
Kodachrom is a unique process where the film itself contains no color
couplers, but is more inconvenient to process.
> > The one exception seems to be modern emulsion layers on a polyester
> > base, which Reilly says is about the most durable film base available
> > today and will likely last hundreds of years at room temperatures.
>
> Is polyester more stable (not durable) than glass?
Well it doesn't break of course, but I'm not aware of any comparisons
with glass. The advantage of polyester over acetate is it's chemical
stability. But I think it's safe to say nothing is more chemically inert
than glass.
> Anyway, I'm not really thinking about the stability of the film
> base, though I know it was once an issue long before color film was
> a consumer item.
it's still an issue to a degree, but with color film dye fading is the
major issue but is easily prevented.
John
wrote:
>But I think it's safe to say nothing is more chemically inert
>than glass.
Sure there is ! Scarpitti's brain !
Tom Phillips
Gregory W Blank wrote:
>
> In article <john-30120...@ip-0-251.sprint-rev.hbci.com>,
> jo...@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote:
>
> > In article <3ff2327c$1@wobble>, Dana Myers <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, I'm not really thinking about the stability of the film
> > > base, though I know it was once an issue long before color film was
> > > a consumer item.
> >
> > Before the modern film bases there was nitro-cellulose. It was a very
> > popular material because it was flexible and strong. Nitro-cellulose is
> > also known as "smokeless gunpowder". :) Archival? I think not. But
> > actually, I'm not sure when they used it. Long before my young life began.
>
> I think into the early 1940's. Nitrocellulose aka -guncotton, akin to Collodian
> akin to dyanmite. Gives new meaning to I wanna blowup some old pictures :-)
Actually I think it was used to some extent into the 1950s. As to it's
being archival, it's just as archival as any other film as _long_ as
it's properly stored. Not being chemically inert, it was the storage in
tightly sealed, hot, dank canisters and vaults a profit-conscious movie
industry tossed the reels into that caused spontaneous decomposition
(burst into flames.)
Tom Phillips
It's relevant. Just because the "cheaper, faster, not-so-better" crowd
at Kodak or other companies discontinue a better, more stable, archival
product or method (like dye transfer or Kodachrome or even Autochrome)
doesn't lessen it's relevance. It's what *can* be achieved, not what's
mass produced for the sake of profit.
Such mass production for the sake of profit is likely one reason digital
storage media is so poor. Manufacturers are more concerned with
maximizing short term profits and marketing new technology than in
providing consumers with the best possible product. That's the history
of most color films as well. And that is relevant to issues of archvial media.
Autochromes, BTW, are by all estimates extremely stable since they've
been in existence for 100 years yet their color subtlties are still well
preserved. Iford put out an Autochrome calendar for 2003. Quite beautiful.
Dana Myers
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:30:51 -0800, Dana Myers <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:46:23 -0800, Dana Myers <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>When more images are captured
>>>>digitally, less film will be required.
>>
>>> And larger landfills will be mandatory.
>>
>>To contain what, John?
>
>
> Botched up inkjet prints, inkjet cartridges, printers and
> computers.
What makes you think that the mainstream future of digital
is entirely tied up in consumer-produced inkjet prints?
What makes you think there's one iota of difference between
a consumer-produced inkjet print and a consumer-produced
B&W print?
What makes you think that home darkroom printing waste
isn't 1000x more toxic than home inkjet printing waste?
The surprisingly rapid deployment of Frontier and Noritsu
digital printing machines is making it much more cost-effective
to get prints done at a lab, whether they're from color negs
or digital files.
> Oh, and we shouldn't forget about the digicams which needs
> to be replaced about every 2~3 years.
Why? I have a digicam pushing 6 years old that is
still in frequent use. It's not much different than
a 35mm point-and-shoot, really.
Dana
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers wrote:
>
> John wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:30:51 -0800, Dana Myers <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:46:23 -0800, Dana Myers <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>When more images are captured
> >>>>digitally, less film will be required.
> >>
> >>> And larger landfills will be mandatory.
> >>
> >>To contain what, John?
> >
> >
> > Botched up inkjet prints, inkjet cartridges, printers and
> > computers.
>
> What makes you think that the mainstream future of digital
> is entirely tied up in consumer-produced inkjet prints?
profit margin.
> What makes you think there's one iota of difference between
> a consumer-produced inkjet print and a consumer-produced
> B&W print?
A recent thread here on "archival inksets."
> What makes you think that home darkroom printing waste
> isn't 1000x more toxic than home inkjet printing waste?
it's not.
> The surprisingly rapid deployment of Frontier and Noritsu
> digital printing machines is making it much more cost-effective
> to get prints done at a lab, whether they're from color negs
> or digital files.
Cost effective for the lab, not the consumer. Frontiers are not
C-print's equal. Light Jets maybe, but they're more expensive than c prints.
> > Oh, and we shouldn't forget about the digicams which needs
> > to be replaced about every 2~3 years.
>
> Why? I have a digicam pushing 6 years old that is
> still in frequent use. It's not much different than
> a 35mm point-and-shoot, really.
That's what I do to ensure permanant images. point and shoot.
Dana Myers
> But given you restate to mean color only, I have one word: Kodachrome,
> 1933. At room temperture Arrhenius model shows excellent stability over
> a 100 year period. It's the most stable color dye film ever produced,
> and I think it was the first.
I believe Kodachrome reversal and Agfa color-negative film were
both developed around 1935-1936, I'm not really certain which
one was invented and/or commercially realized first. It is clear
that Agfa's color-negative technology was a World War II spoil
given to Kodak.
The original Kodachromes were not terribly permanent, it took
some development to achieve this, I believe it wasn't until
after WW II that Kodachrome had become as good.
> Color film has in fact de-evolved from
> there in stability, though again with proper storage there is no dye
> fading or dye fading is stopped in all color films. But of course
> Kodachrom is a unique process where the film itself contains no color
> couplers, but is more inconvenient to process.
Color negative film did not regress, it's progressed, too. Kodachrome,
of course, does not incorporate color dyes, they're introduced during
processing. Color negative film was the beginning of chromogenic
emulsions, those which contain their own dyes, and this technology
has also been applied to reversal films. But it's important to
remember that Kodachrome and color negative films are quite different
and were originally developed in parallel.
Imagine, in 1948, having a debate about the permanence of Kodachrome.
It's not that different than today debating the permanence of recordable
digital media. The problem was solved with film, it'll be solved with
digital media.
Dana
Dana Myers
> Such mass production for the sake of profit is likely one reason digital
> storage media is so poor. Manufacturers are more concerned with
> maximizing short term profits and marketing new technology than in
> providing consumers with the best possible product. That's the history
> of most color films as well. And that is relevant to issues of archvial media.
But, you've been telling me that color films, negative and reversal,
are essentially permanent, so I'm not quite sure what to make of
this statement. Despite being profit-motivated, manufacturers
still managed to make decent products. It's easy to carp about
Kodachrome's disappearance, but to do so is to ignore the reality.
It turned into a niche product that didn't sell well enough.
It would go bad, past expiration date, on the retailers shelves.
No one could make money selling it.
That's reality, for better or worse.
At the same time, to open another can of worms, manufacturers,
driven by profit motive, developed alternative reversal films
that better suited what consumers wanted, and now we have a
series of excellent chrome films, that you repeatedly insist
are essentially permanent. So what's been lost? Nothing.
So, it's not faith on my part that compells me to believe
that those greedy, short-sighted manufacturers will also
develop similarly permanent means to store images on digital
media. If the market wants it and will pay for it, it will
be developed. The technologies just aren't that different -
dyes, chemicals, emulsions, layers, process control, you name
it. The technology to make CD-Rs is not that far from the
technology to make film. The technology to make integrated
circuits isn't that far afield, either.
While you've tried to differentiate digital as an "invented"
technology and silver halide photography as a "discovered"
technology, this distinction does not exist in reality. In
both cases, digital and silver halide are grounded in the
laws of physics. In both cases, modern realization of
these technologies doesn't just happen by accident. No
one just discovered Kodachrome - it was invented all the same
as digital, just on a lower order of sophistication. It's
easy to ridicule digital as being based on "imaginary"
1s and 0s, but electrons really aren't different that photons
in this case.
I love film, I love working with film, but film does
not make an image. Film is a way to capture an image,
the same way digital technology is a way to capture
an image. Fixation on the artifact of the capture
(the film itself) is fixation on the means rather than
the end.
Dana
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> > But given you restate to mean color only, I have one word: Kodachrome,
> > 1933. At room temperture Arrhenius model shows excellent stability over
> > a 100 year period. It's the most stable color dye film ever produced,
> > and I think it was the first.
>
> I believe Kodachrome reversal and Agfa color-negative film were
> both developed around 1935-1936,
yes.
> I'm not really certain which
> one was invented and/or commercially realized first. It is clear
> that Agfa's color-negative technology was a World War II spoil
> given to Kodak.
>
> The original Kodachromes were not terribly permanent, it took
> some development to achieve this, I believe it wasn't until
> after WW II that Kodachrome had become as good.
>
> > Color film has in fact de-evolved from
> > there in stability, though again with proper storage there is no dye
> > fading or dye fading is stopped in all color films. But of course
> > Kodachrom is a unique process where the film itself contains no color
> > couplers, but is more inconvenient to process.
>
> Color negative film did not regress, it's progressed, too. Kodachrome,
> of course, does not incorporate color dyes, they're introduced during
> processing. Color negative film was the beginning of chromogenic
> emulsions, those which contain their own dyes, and this technology
> has also been applied to reversal films. But it's important to
> remember that Kodachrome and color negative films are quite different
> and were originally developed in parallel.
>
> Imagine, in 1948, having a debate about the permanence of Kodachrome.
> It's not that different than today debating the permanence of recordable
> digital media. The problem was solved with film, it'll be solved with
> digital media.
maybe, maybe not. if you measure the advancement of digital media by the
advancement of film, it'll be quite a while...
Dana Myers
> maybe, maybe not. if you measure the advancement of digital media by the
> advancement of film, it'll be quite a while...
I do not believe it even remotely makes sense to measure the
two in similar terms. CD-R was first commercially produced in
1989; that would put us in approximately 1915 in terms of
photographic history. Digital storage media is advancing at
a considerably greater rate, which makes sense given that
the basic technologies and processes are relatively
similar. Given the importance of making sure that the
reflective layer doesn't fall off of a CD-R, it's a certainty
we'll figure out how to achieve it.
Dana
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> > Such mass production for the sake of profit is likely one reason digital
> > storage media is so poor. Manufacturers are more concerned with
> > maximizing short term profits and marketing new technology than in
> > providing consumers with the best possible product. That's the history
> > of most color films as well. And that is relevant to issues of archvial media.
>
> But, you've been telling me that color films, negative and reversal,
> are essentially permanent,
No. That proper storage preserves them permanantly.
> so I'm not quite sure what to make of
> this statement. Despite being profit-motivated, manufacturers
> still managed to make decent products. It's easy to carp about
> Kodachrome's disappearance, but to do so is to ignore the reality.
> It turned into a niche product that didn't sell well enough.
> It would go bad, past expiration date, on the retailers shelves.
> No one could make money selling it.
I shoot professionally, and because of that I have to shoot ektachrome.
If Kodak had offered kodachrome in 4x5, I'd have shot it. Just as I did
thousands and thousands of rolls of it in 35mm.
> That's reality, for better or worse.
Kodak doesn't seem to discontinue products based on niche markets, but
based on either favoring the introduction of new products or cutting
less profitable products out to save red ink caused by overall bad
management decisions. And Kodak has made some bad business decisions.
But film is Kodak's bread and butter even today.
> At the same time, to open another can of worms, manufacturers,
> driven by profit motive, developed alternative reversal films
> that better suited what consumers wanted, and now we have a
> series of excellent chrome films, that you repeatedly insist
> are essentially permanent. So what's been lost? Nothing.
A more stable color film. The point is they introduce and market
products they think they will make the most money on, not those that are "better."
> So, it's not faith on my part that compells me to believe
> that those greedy, short-sighted manufacturers will also
> develop similarly permanent means to store images on digital
> media. If the market wants it and will pay for it, it will
> be developed. The technologies just aren't that different -
> dyes, chemicals, emulsions, layers, process control, you name
> it. The technology to make CD-Rs is not that far from the
> technology to make film. The technology to make integrated
> circuits isn't that far afield, either.
Yeah and we could all be driving cars that run on water or electricity
and require virtually no parts and service! So why aren't we?
> While you've tried to differentiate digital as an "invented"
> technology and silver halide photography as a "discovered"
> technology, this distinction does not exist in reality.
Sure it does. Digital is 100% dependent on technology and sophisticated
industrial manufacturing. OTOH, one can make a photograph with just some
basic chemistry, some paper or other substrate, and a light tight box
with a pinhole. And if digital takes over the world, and Kodak
shortsightedly discontinues all film products, that's what I'll be doing
:) -- espeically when the lights go out and hard drives fail and a
zillion computers are sitting in trash dumps leaking mercury into the environment.
> In
> both cases, digital and silver halide are grounded in the
> laws of physics.
Sure, one is photochemical and one is photoelectric. But the difference
is silicon requires extensive industrial processing and doping to even
be sensitive enough to light to capture the photons necessary to
generate a voltage representing an image. If they were both the same and
the same physics applied, we'd have had digital 180 years ago instead of
photochemical photography.
Digital is a child of late 20th century technological manufacturing --
semi-conductors. Photography is a child of 18th century chemistry. You
don't need a power grid and refined technology to make a photograph. But
you do to digitize. Big difference.
> In both cases, modern realization of
> these technologies doesn't just happen by accident. No
> one just discovered Kodachrome - it was invented all the same
> as digital, just on a lower order of sophistication. It's
> easy to ridicule digital as being based on "imaginary"
> 1s and 0s, but electrons really aren't different that photons
> in this case.
Again, digital is a completely different medium. What you get is a
voltage that's converted to digital signals that's stored as binary
code. That's not an image, it's an electronic representation of the
image formed by the lens. Even the ISO says so. A digital image is a
representational image, at least until output in some tangible form --
onto a negative or print. That's not ridicule, it the fact. It only
becomes ridicule when digital geeks try to pass it off as being the same
as real photography
With silver halide imaging, photons are literally transcribed into
silver through photolysis-- a permanant physical image through chemical
decomposition on the film. That's literally what the word photography
means, "phos-graphos" or writing with light. That's what scientists and
researchers in the 19th century coined the term to mean. It doesn't mean
"photoelectric." Digital doesn't write with light, it regenerates
signals through a purely technological process. It's an imaging process,
but it's not photography.
> I love film, I love working with film, but film does
> not make an image. Film is a way to capture an image,
> the same way digital technology is a way to capture
> an image. Fixation on the artifact of the capture
> (the film itself) is fixation on the means rather than
> the end.
technically, the optical image is formed by the lens. But film
transcribes that optical image into a latent image. Film does create an
image, not just pass along a signal for further regeneration and output.
Film is an end product, and especially in the case of transparencies the
final product. The same optical image is formed with digital camera
lenses, but rather than creating a mirror optical image, silicon creates
a voltage -- the electronic conversion of photon energy. No actual image
is created until that voltage is converted, digitally processed, and
then output to a printer of some kind. That's the difference.
Digital produces no image. Film is an image and end product.
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> > maybe, maybe not. if you measure the advancement of digital media by the
> > advancement of film, it'll be quite a while...
>
> I do not believe it even remotely makes sense to measure the
> two in similar terms.
I believe you're the one who chose those terms...
> CD-R was first commercially produced in
> 1989; that would put us in approximately 1915 in terms of
> photographic history. Digital storage media is advancing at
> a considerably greater rate, which makes sense given that
> the basic technologies and processes are relatively
> similar. Given the importance of making sure that the
> reflective layer doesn't fall off of a CD-R, it's a certainty
> we'll figure out how to achieve it.
maybe, maybe not.
Dana Myers
>
> Dana Myers wrote:
[...]
>>While you've tried to differentiate digital as an "invented"
>>technology and silver halide photography as a "discovered"
>>technology, this distinction does not exist in reality.
>
>
> Sure it does. Digital is 100% dependent on technology and sophisticated
> industrial manufacturing. OTOH, one can make a photograph with just some
> basic chemistry, some paper or other substrate, and a light tight box
> with a pinhole.
Tom, it's been an interesting discussion, but if you really believe
that the above comparison is even remotely valid, there's no
point in further exchange on this topic. You seem to be purposely
looking past the *fact* that any modern color film today is 100%
dependent on technology, sophisticated industrial manufacturing
and strict process control. The layers in a chrome film
might as well be 1s and 0s for all you can see.
I can take a handful of LEDs and photo-resistors and
create a digital image of a small number of pixels in that
same pinhole camera. While you might cry "foul!" that I'm
using sophisticated technology, you're overlooking the fact
that the "basic chemistry" you speak of is the result of,
you guessed it, sophisticated industrial manufacturing.
Even those century-old Autochromes are the result of what
was quite sophisticated manufacturing for the day.
In any practical sense, digital and film are both 100%
dependent on technology, sophisticated industrial
manufacturing and precise process control. Any
statement to the contrary is patently false at
worst, or quaintly romantic at best.
Dana
Paul Repacholi
Maybe not. I have some negs taken in 1948, and they are nitro :(
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
John
>> Botched up inkjet prints, inkjet cartridges, printers and
>> computers.
>
>What makes you think that the mainstream future of digital
>is entirely tied up in consumer-produced inkjet prints?
Entirely ? Nope. But the marketing stratagem for the companies
making these materials is aimed at the home user. Which would you
rather sell ;
150,000 photographers X $100 annual profit = $15,000,000
25,000,000 home users X $10 = $250,000,000
Do the math.
>What makes you think there's one iota of difference between
>a consumer-produced inkjet print and a consumer-produced
>B&W print?
? I was speaking about the ease of which the average Joe will
be able to make fast-fading, off color screwups. The average Joe is
not buying an enlarger and making B&W prints. The commonality is $$$.
The manufacturers are robbing the profits from film to invest in the
future of digital. Not a good idea as film still has a lot of life
left in it.
>What makes you think that home darkroom printing waste
>isn't 1000x more toxic than home inkjet printing waste?
Please. You know what it takes to build computers, components
and peripherals.
Also the toxicity of darkroom chemistry is for the most part
grossly over-stated.
>The surprisingly rapid deployment of Frontier and Noritsu
>digital printing machines is making it much more cost-effective
>to get prints done at a lab, whether they're from color negs
>or digital files.
Yep. And I love the fact that now a monkey can operate one !
>> Oh, and we shouldn't forget about the digicams which needs
>> to be replaced about every 2~3 years.
>
>Why? I have a digicam pushing 6 years old that is
>still in frequent use. It's not much different than
>a 35mm point-and-shoot, really.
You mean you don't have the latest 6 MP digi-whiz-bang
thing-a-ma-jig ? I see there's hope for you yet ;>) Quick get out an
RB67 or better yet a 5X7 view camera and make a real photograph !
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Despite being profit-motivated, manufacturers
> still managed to make decent products.
The two are not mutually exclusive. All established
profitable firms make decent products: one can only fool
customers for so long.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Michael A. Covington
"Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3FF2971E...@aol.com...
> > At the same time, to open another can of worms, manufacturers,
> > driven by profit motive, developed alternative reversal films
> > that better suited what consumers wanted, and now we have a
> > series of excellent chrome films, that you repeatedly insist
> > are essentially permanent. So what's been lost? Nothing.
>
> A more stable color film. The point is they introduce and market
> products they think they will make the most money on, not those that are
"better."
You are assuming that potential customers don't want "better" products.
That is a strange assumption. Any evidence for it?
Michael A. Covington
> John wrote:
> >>> And larger landfills will be mandatory.
> >>
> >>To contain what, John?
> >
> > Botched up inkjet prints, inkjet cartridges, printers and
> > computers.
...
>
> > Oh, and we shouldn't forget about the digicams which needs
> > to be replaced about every 2~3 years.
>
> Why? I have a digicam pushing 6 years old that is
> still in frequent use. It's not much different than
> a 35mm point-and-shoot, really.
>
Right.
We need to distinguish some things. For the past 2 decades, computers have
been going into landfills because of rapid, genuine *improvements* leading
people to buy new ones. This will eventually level off, or take a form that
does not produce as much waste, simply because when it does, it will become
cheaper for consumers.
The same is true of digital cameras. *Improvements* are what lead people to
get new ones frequently. I expect them to level off at maybe 10 or 15
megapixels and then we'll be in a "Nikon F era" -- the same cameras will
remain in extensive use for a long time.
If someone is insinuating that manufacturers are deliberately making bad
products so they can sell us new ones sooner, I don't buy it.
Michael A. Covington
> Imagine, in 1948, having a debate about the permanence of Kodachrome.
> It's not that different than today debating the permanence of recordable
> digital media. The problem was solved with film, it'll be solved with
> digital media.
Well said!
VY 73
N4TMI
--
Clear skies,
Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope
Michael A. Covington
> > Imagine, in 1948, having a debate about the permanence of Kodachrome.
> > It's not that different than today debating the permanence of recordable
> > digital media. The problem was solved with film, it'll be solved with
> > digital media.
>
> maybe, maybe not. if you measure the advancement of digital media by the
> advancement of film, it'll be quite a while...
Digital technology is advancing at perhaps 100 times the speed at which film
technology advanced in its first decades.
Besides, we know how to make permanent digital media already. We just need
to settle on one. Because anything that can record ones and zeroes can be a
digital medium, the field is wide open.
Michael A. Covington
And even if we don't, we can do what scientific data archives do -- make
*perfect* copies digitally every few years. Photographs can't be copied
perfectly over and over like this.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Besides, we know how to make permanent digital media already.
Yes, but do you really want your digicam to start spewing
80-column punched cards?
6 MPix = 54 Mbyte
= 675,000 cards
= 4,560 inches
= a 380 foot stack of cards
= several thousand pounds
Nicholas O. Lindan
> we can do what scientific data archives do -- make
> *perfect* copies digitally every few years.
But that depends on human activity - a very
weak link in the chain.
The repeated handling of the media (it is, after
all, the _media_ that needs to be replaced) will
result in damage and the subsequent loss of all
those *perfect* (and virtual) 1's and 0's.
The stuff that survives for hundreds and thousands
of years is the stuff that hasn't been touched by
people: photos in the attic; clay tablets buried in
the sand; ochre painted on a cave wall...
Even if a CD survives for a few millennia (and some
probably will), what is going to be around to read it?
If it is human readable now it will be human readable
as long as there are humans.
Dennis O'Connor
cooled)... Used em with the Schrodinger equation to calculate energy levels
of electron shells... The fun part was to slip one card out of someones
stack and randomly reinsert it somewhere else...
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <noli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9KCIb.17072>
Dana Myers
> "Dana Myers" <k6...@arrl.net> wrote
>
>
>>Despite being profit-motivated, manufacturers
>>still managed to make decent products.
>
>
> The two are not mutually exclusive. All established
> profitable firms make decent products: one can only fool
> customers for so long.
This is *exactly* my point, I suppose my sarcasm was a little
too subtle to detect :-)
Dana
Dana Myers
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:17:34 -0800, Dana Myers <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Botched up inkjet prints, inkjet cartridges, printers and
>>>computers.
>>
>>What makes you think that the mainstream future of digital
>>is entirely tied up in consumer-produced inkjet prints?
>
>
> Entirely ? Nope. But the marketing stratagem for the companies
> making these materials is aimed at the home user. Which would you
> rather sell ;
>
> 150,000 photographers X $100 annual profit = $15,000,000
>
> 25,000,000 home users X $10 = $250,000,000
>
> Do the math.
>
>
>>What makes you think there's one iota of difference between
>>a consumer-produced inkjet print and a consumer-produced
>>B&W print?
>
>
> ? I was speaking about the ease of which the average Joe will
> be able to make fast-fading, off color screwups. The average Joe is
> not buying an enlarger and making B&W prints. The commonality is $$$.
> The manufacturers are robbing the profits from film to invest in the
> future of digital. Not a good idea as film still has a lot of life
> left in it.
My point is that people making digital prints at home aren't
really different than people with darkrooms at home. They
both produce waste, except the inkjet waste is far less toxic.
>>What makes you think that home darkroom printing waste
>>isn't 1000x more toxic than home inkjet printing waste?
>
>
> Please. You know what it takes to build computers, components
> and peripherals.
Of course I do. How is this relevant? You know what it takes to
manufacture film, paper, chemicals and cameras? I call it even,
and in both cases, it's usually done in a well-controlled factory
that doesn't pour used fixer down the drain. The issue are the
people that aren't properly disposing of the waste products, like
botched prints, test strips, silver-laden fixer, so on.
> Also the toxicity of darkroom chemistry is for the most part
> grossly over-stated.
I don't really want used fixer in my drinking water...
Maybe y'all in North Carolia have different standards :-)
[...]
>>Why? I have a digicam pushing 6 years old that is
>>still in frequent use. It's not much different than
>>a 35mm point-and-shoot, really.
>
>
> You mean you don't have the latest 6 MP digi-whiz-bang
> thing-a-ma-jig ? I see there's hope for you yet ;>) Quick get out an
> RB67 or better yet a 5X7 view camera and make a real photograph !
Heh. My MF kit is a very cherry Yashica MAT-124G from the late
1980s, one of the last ones built, and an older Minolta Autocord.
Dana
Nicholas O. Lindan
> I suppose my sarcasm was a little
> too subtle to detect :-)
Sorry. With all the Political Correctness floating around (and
my sisters visiting from Mill Valley, California) I seem to
have become a knee-jerk Republican.
Gregory W Blank
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
wrote:
> If someone is insinuating that manufacturers are deliberately making bad
> products so they can sell us new ones sooner, I don't buy it.
Yes but all the gulliable shmoes will. :-) Actually I think its
a case of supplanting a technology that has proven itself
more than adequate "Film" with one that realistically,.... just don't
cut the cheese yet "digital capture".
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
jjs
> My point is that people making digital prints at home aren't
> really different than people with darkrooms at home. They
> both produce waste, except the inkjet waste is far less toxic.
Ah now, be the Complete Entropist! None of this impressionistic "it smell
yickie so it's got to be toxic." You might be surprised by how very little
of the B&W darkroom is truly toxic. But would you be surprised to find that
the manufacture of digital components (chips, plastic, monitors, chemicals,
burnwaste) is rife with deathly toxin? And how many of the toxic products
makers are in parts of the world with less concern for pollution. You buy,
you pollute the earth. No way around it.
Where I live the trash people will remove some things right out of your
trash and put 'em onto your lawn if you try to toss 'em. For example, to get
rid of a CRT (monitor) you have to arrange with the hazardous waste disposal
department or pay extra to have the garbagemen do it for you. 'course, the
farmers get away with worse, but they are somehow politically entiteld.
Gregory W Blank
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
wrote:
> You are assuming that potential customers don't want "better" products.
> That is a strange assumption. Any evidence for it?
Tonal scale in favor of resolution? Tmax/Delta verses HP5?
Or Contact printing papers verses Enlarging papers. Its all about how
or who perceives the better product as being what.
Dana Myers
> "Dana Myers" <k6...@arrl.net> wrote in message news:3ff31771$1@wobble...
>
>
>>My point is that people making digital prints at home aren't
>>really different than people with darkrooms at home. They
>>both produce waste, except the inkjet waste is far less toxic.
>
>
> Ah now, be the Complete Entropist! None of this impressionistic "it smell
> yickie so it's got to be toxic." You might be surprised by how very little
> of the B&W darkroom is truly toxic.
Spent fixer is the bad stuff in a B&W darkroom. Selenium and gold toners
are nasty, too.
> But would you be surprised to find that
> the manufacture of digital components (chips, plastic, monitors, chemicals,
> burnwaste) is rife with deathly toxin?
Nope, not surprised at all. Of course, these manufacturers are
generally quite good about capturing the toxic wastes of manufacturing.
They're not quite as incented to simply pour it down the drain,
as is the case with home darkroom users.
> And how many of the toxic products
> makers are in parts of the world with less concern for pollution. You buy,
> you pollute the earth. No way around it.
That's not a given, not even in the slightest.
Dana
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
> >
> > Dana Myers wrote:
>
> >>While you've tried to differentiate digital as an "invented"
> >>technology and silver halide photography as a "discovered"
> >>technology, this distinction does not exist in reality.
> >
> > Sure it does. Digital is 100% dependent on technology and sophisticated
> > industrial manufacturing. OTOH, one can make a photograph with just some
> > basic chemistry, some paper or other substrate, and a light tight box
> > with a pinhole.
>
> Tom, it's been an interesting discussion, but if you really believe
> that the above comparison is even remotely valid, there's no
> point in further exchange on this topic. You seem to be purposely
> looking past the *fact* that any modern color film today is 100%
> dependent on technology, sophisticated industrial manufacturing
> and strict process control. The layers in a chrome film
> might as well be 1s and 0s for all you can see.
But they're not ones and zeros. Fundamentally they're silver halide
based, regardless of how sophisticated and industrially engineered
modern films have become. But that's not the point. If you claim there
is no pragmatic difference -- let alone a fundamental physical
difference, you're really just fooling yourself. Your error is in
insisting modern chromogenic methods of dye incorporation (or kodachrome
dye injection) are the only viable color methods. They're not. As early
as the 1860s pigmented carbon prints were being produced in color
(exceptionally stable), and early foreunners of color separation
photography (separation negatives and dye transfer printing) were being
experiemnted with and produced. These are in fact *better* and more
permanant methods of producing color images photochemically. They only
reason they're not widely used anymore is the shortsighted business
practices of companies like Kodak, who are only interested in making
money. That's why chromogenic processes were invented, to be more
conveniently mass produced. But they are inferior. That's the nature of
profit-oriented manufacturing and the same "profit before archival
quality" decisions will be (and in fact are being) made by the digital industry.
So, if you want to insist on irrelevant distinctions between photography
in color and photography in black and white, you can. Color does not
require a modern chromogenic process. And the fact remains, take away
all the technology digital is 100% dependent on, and you can still make
photographs -- color, black and white, makes no difference. You simply
can't say that about digital. The difference between the mediums and
processes is like night and day. I won't even get into the limited
device color space digital is infamous for which can never match the
richness and depth of color produced by additive or subtractive
photographic color dyes. The physics of photochemical photography --
color or black and white -- are not dependent on the semi conductor
industry and Thomas Edison's legacy of electrical power grids. Either
can be produced in the absense of sophisticated technology.
> I can take a handful of LEDs and photo-resistors and
> create a digital image of a small number of pixels in that
> same pinhole camera. While you might cry "foul!" that I'm
> using sophisticated technology, you're overlooking the fact
> that the "basic chemistry" you speak of is the result of,
> you guessed it, sophisticated industrial manufacturing.
> Even those century-old Autochromes are the result of what
> was quite sophisticated manufacturing for the day.
>
> In any practical sense, digital and film are both 100%
> dependent on technology,
You don't need film as manufactured by Kodak in 2003 to make photographs
-- either color or black and white. If that transparent fallacy were
true, photography in 19th century never happened and you'd better
rewrite history.
Dana Myers
Yikes, are you serious? For the vast majority of snapshot work,
digital cameras have long equalled or surpassed the image quality
requirements of 4x6 prints. The only reason I don't give my 9-year
old a digital camera to take snapshots on the last day of school is
the replacement cost of the camera itself compared to a single-use
camera loaded with film. I'd rather she loses an $8 camera than a
$100 camera. But my 9th-grader is perfectly happy with a 3.2MP
digital camera (once we put a 256MB SD/MMC in it).
Digital SLRs under $1000 are now providing 6MP images with outstanding
quality with quicker-than-Polaroid turn-around time to review images
during a shoot. It's *exactly* what professionals have wanted for
decades - immediate review of the image during the shoot while you
can still do something to fix a problem. No more shooting Polaroids
to evaluate the lighting.
With high-quality digital printing to photo paper, there's simply
nothing missing in the chain. Using film means consuming film,
chemicals and energy to simply create image captures. Using digital
means consuming small amounts of energy to create image captures.
We can complain that cameras are evolving too quickly, but that's
like living in Napa Valley and complaining about too much good
Cabernet Sauvignon.
We can complain that digital storage media isn't archival, but Kodak
already is claiming comparable lifetime for their CD-Rs as their film.
Of course, it's enjoyable to work in the darkroom, but that's our
own hobby. It's like sending Morse code in ham radio - there are
many superior ways to communicate, but some folks like doing it the
hard way with Morse code. Not ironically, Morse enthusiasts spend
a lot of energy attempting to prove that the alternatives to Morse
code are inferior, and it just makes them look like quaint Luddites.
I don't need to think that film is superior to digital to enjoy
working in a darkroom.
Dana
Tom Phillips
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:
>
> "Dana Myers" <k6...@arrl.net> wrote
>
> > Despite being profit-motivated, manufacturers
> > still managed to make decent products.
>
> The two are not mutually exclusive. All established
> profitable firms make decent products: one can only fool
> customers for so long.
Yeah but they're only decent enough to profitably mass market to a
targeted general population that is typically satisfied with "good enough."
It's like when color T.V.s came out in a big way in the 60's. They were
a big hit even though the color was horrible. But it was color and so
"good enough." And thus Kodak markets RA-4 and kills off dye transfer. A
print whose dyes last maybe 100 years is "good enough" for your average
snapshooter. Similarly, the movie industry abandoned the more
pernamantly archival technicolor process to make "cheaper-faster-but not
better" chromogenic-based color films many of which simply faded
immediately because the same cheapo movie industry didn't want the
expense of either producing technicolor or preserving cheaper-faster
fade-prone chromogenic films.
Decent products has nothing to do with it. It's all about profitability
vs. good enough.
Tom Phillips
The discontinuance of Kodachrome 25. Discontinuance of Dye Transfer.
Discontinuance of Panatomic X. Discontinuance of Kodak interneg film
(digital internegs are not as sharp and much more expensive...) See my
other post to Nicholas :)
Tom Phillips
Not bad products. But mediocrity generally rules, i.e., "good enough"
for profitability.
Tom Phillips
A good thing, too.
Dana Myers
> You don't need film as manufactured by Kodak in 2003 to make photographs
> -- either color or black and white. If that transparent fallacy were
> true, photography in 19th century never happened and you'd better
> rewrite history.
So clearly you're discussing some kind of abstract concept and
I'm discussing the reality today and into the near-future. What
kind of technology are you using in your photographic profession?
Autochromes? Technicolor? Or current production film?
Happy New Year, Tom!
Dana
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:
>
> "Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3FF28648...@aol.com...
>
> > > Imagine, in 1948, having a debate about the permanence of Kodachrome.
> > > It's not that different than today debating the permanence of recordable
> > > digital media. The problem was solved with film, it'll be solved with
> > > digital media.
> >
> > maybe, maybe not. if you measure the advancement of digital media by the
> > advancement of film, it'll be quite a while...
>
> Digital technology is advancing at perhaps 100 times the speed at which film
> technology advanced in its first decades.
Digital media is not. That's the problem. Ask anyone in the industry.
It's the least
> Besides, we know how to make permanent digital media already.
Nonsense Michael. No digital media is permanant. CD-Rs are the best they
come up with so far, and they last maybe a few decades. The hardware
needed to read and write digital media changes so fast the media you
write on today is obsolete tomorrow (I know, I have examples sitting
next to me on my desk as I speak -- obsolete disks and obsolete
recorders.) Theoretically, the only way digital media can be made
"permanant" is to incessantly back up and copy, and recopy, and recopy,
redundantly forever.
Put an image on film and it's there once and for all *forever* as long
as it's properly stored. And copies are easily made at the time of
exposure for most images. James Reilly at the Image Permanance Institute
says the longevity of such properly stored film is hundreds, if not
thousands, of years.
Film is a sure thing. Digital media isn't.
Michael A. Covington
"Dana Myers" <k6...@arrl.net> wrote in message news:3ff331f4$1@wobble...
> We can complain that cameras are evolving too quickly, but that's
> like living in Napa Valley and complaining about too much good
> Cabernet Sauvignon.
And I think that's the gist of the complaint being made here!
> Of course, it's enjoyable to work in the darkroom, but that's our
> own hobby. It's like sending Morse code in ham radio - there are
> many superior ways to communicate, but some folks like doing it the
> hard way with Morse code. Not ironically, Morse enthusiasts spend
> a lot of energy attempting to prove that the alternatives to Morse
> code are inferior, and it just makes them look like quaint Luddites.
>
> I don't need to think that film is superior to digital to enjoy
> working in a darkroom.
Well said! I had noticed the same phenomenon in ham radio. People spend
too much time saying "Morse is superior" when all they really mean is,
"Morse is my hobby."
Michael A. Covington
> > If someone is insinuating that manufacturers are deliberately making bad
> > products so they can sell us new ones sooner, I don't buy it.
>
> Not bad products. But mediocrity generally rules, i.e., "good enough"
> for profitability.
Can you explain and give examples? I would think that if there is a market
for a better product, manufacturers will cater for that market. It may be a
narrow niche market, but if people want to buy them and can pay enough,
products will be made.
Michael A. Covington
> > Besides, we know how to make permanent digital media already.
>
> Nonsense Michael. No digital media is permanant. CD-Rs are the best they
> come up with so far, and they last maybe a few decades.
How about punched plastic tape? (Bulky, but permanent.) Or even pressed
CDs? I didn't say CD-Rs were permanent. I said we _know how_ to make
permanent digital media. Because anything that can record ones and zeroes
can be a digital medium, there is an enormous range of possibilities.
Photochemistry is not involved and does not constrain you.
> The hardware
> needed to read and write digital media changes so fast the media you
> write on today is obsolete tomorrow (I know, I have examples sitting
> next to me on my desk as I speak -- obsolete disks and obsolete
> recorders.) Theoretically, the only way digital media can be made
> "permanant" is to incessantly back up and copy, and recopy, and recopy,
> redundantly forever.
But the copies are perfect.
> Put an image on film and it's there once and for all *forever* as long
> as it's properly stored. And copies are easily made at the time of
> exposure for most images. James Reilly at the Image Permanance Institute
> says the longevity of such properly stored film is hundreds, if not
> thousands, of years.
That's not "forever." Besides, perfect copying of film is impossible.
Every copying operation loses something.
Dana Myers
> Not bad products. But mediocrity generally rules, i.e., "good enough"
> for profitability.
"good enough" means suitable for a stated purpose. Nothing mediocre
about it.
Dana
Michael A. Covington
> > And even if we don't, we can do what scientific data archives do -- make
> > *perfect* copies digitally every few years. Photographs can't be copied
> > perfectly over and over like this.
>
> A good thing, too.
Why?
Just because "art" has to resemble cave-man artifacts in order to be... what
exactly?
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> > You don't need film as manufactured by Kodak in 2003 to make photographs
> > -- either color or black and white. If that transparent fallacy were
> > true, photography in 19th century never happened and you'd better
> > rewrite history.
>
> So clearly you're discussing some kind of abstract concept
Hardly. Lots of photographers use simplified, retro, or alternative
processes. Pinhole, Collodian, maybe carbon and yes still dye transfer.
You appear to think only in terms of mediocrity and mass market
generalization. O.K., I'll give a little: mass market snapshooters who
stick their fingers oin front of the lens will always be satisfied with
mediocre photographic crap -- nothing need be of better quality than to
achieve a 4x6 or 8x10 cheesy Frontier digital output. Your litle digicam
will do that.
A non-abstract concept: Real photographers think a bit more deeply about
their art than that...
Tom Phillips
Like I say, Kodak has recently discontinued several outstanding
products. They don't cater to "niche markets" as far as I can tell. It's
all mass market or not at all.
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:
>
> "Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3FF33D22...@aol.com...
>
> > > Besides, we know how to make permanent digital media already.
> >
> > Nonsense Michael. No digital media is permanant. CD-Rs are the best they
> > come up with so far, and they last maybe a few decades.
>
> How about punched plastic tape? (Bulky, but permanent.) Or even pressed
> CDs?
If you can afford to store your data anmd images on commercially pressed
CDs, I think I should ask you for a loan :)
> I didn't say CD-Rs were permanent. I said we _know how_ to make
> permanent digital media. Because anything that can record ones and zeroes
> can be a digital medium, there is an enormous range of possibilities.
> Photochemistry is not involved and does not constrain you.
But the industry only commits itslef to mass market and short term
profitability. That's how manufactureing works, unfortunately. That's
why we have CD-Rs as the major choice for storage instead of some more
"permanant" digital storage form, if one exists.
> > The hardware
> > needed to read and write digital media changes so fast the media you
> > write on today is obsolete tomorrow (I know, I have examples sitting
> > next to me on my desk as I speak -- obsolete disks and obsolete
> > recorders.) Theoretically, the only way digital media can be made
> > "permanant" is to incessantly back up and copy, and recopy, and recopy,
> > redundantly forever.
>
> But the copies are perfect.
Not always. Data can in fact be lost during copying. In fact, a certain
amount of data is lost, if I remember.
> > Put an image on film and it's there once and for all *forever* as long
> > as it's properly stored. And copies are easily made at the time of
> > exposure for most images. James Reilly at the Image Permanance Institute
> > says the longevity of such properly stored film is hundreds, if not
> > thousands, of years.
>
> That's not "forever." Besides, perfect copying of film is impossible.
> Every copying operation loses something.
read my lips: The fact that you cannot make exact duplicates of an
extant photograph is a GOOD THING. Secondly, I routinely made exact
duplicates at the time of exposure, and I think most photographers also
do this.
Tom Phillips
Mediocrity is inherent, as is conformity.
Tom Phillips
Because what gives a work of art it's value is it's uniqueness and
originality. If you had umpteen exact duplicates of the Mona Lisa
instead of just one by the original artist it would have little value.
Digital copies have no value; one copy is the same as the next and there
are unlimited copies possible. Forgeries cannot be detected.
Ansel Adams made the comment that no two of his prints from the same
(one and only original) negative) were alike.
The fact that you have one original negative makes that negative
infinitely valuable. Adams Moonrise, Hernandez, for example. The fact
that it's difficult to make a prints that are exactly alike makes them
valuable. Digital may be art, but it's a valueless art in my estimation.
Gregory W Blank
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
wrote:
>
> exactly?
To be of any worth, uniqueness. Otherwise ya may as well sell printed
paper towels.
Gregory W Blank
Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Decent products has nothing to do with it. It's all about profitability
> vs. good enough.
Ya, got that for sure.
Gregory W Blank
> Nope, not surprised at all. Of course, these manufacturers are
> generally quite good about capturing the toxic wastes of manufacturing.
> They're not quite as incented to simply pour it down the drain,
> as is the case with home darkroom users.
Did't see that article on 60 minutes about M**santo and the poor
community in SC where people had not been informed
of the PCB's in the local stream. Seems like they had been eating
fish from that stream since God knows when and Mon*anto had
never told them the PCBs were their since 1941. Highest incidence
of cancers in the Country.
Ask the good people of Bopal India how good industry is about catching
toxic wastes.
Dana Myers
> But the industry only commits itslef to mass market and short term
> profitability. That's how manufactureing works, unfortunately. That's
> why we have CD-Rs as the major choice for storage instead of some more
> "permanant" digital storage form, if one exists.
That's also why we have cars today that last 150k+ miles with little more
than regular oil changes... oh wait... that's not mediocre.
You're carping about one extreme, Tom, which is not representative
of the industry in general. Kodak discontinued a bunch of products,
I'm surprised you didn't mention Royal Gold 25, and they were interesting
niche products. But people simply weren't buying them in sufficient
quantity to justify making them.
>>But the copies are perfect.
>
>
> Not always. Data can in fact be lost during copying. In fact, a certain
> amount of data is lost, if I remember.
It depends on the kind of copy you make. At the bit-level, you absolutely
can make a bit-for-bit identical reproduction with absolutely no deterioration.
Don't be confused by audio CDs which are intentionally designed to tolerate
errors; data CDs either read perfectly or yield an error. You either have
a perfect copy or know that an error occurred. Typically, deteriorating
media will start showing recoverable errors - re-reading the data enough
times will get the *exact* bits, and you have a perfect copy - you also
know that the copy is deteriorating and to no longer trust it.
It's really not that complicated.
[...]
> read my lips: The fact that you cannot make exact duplicates of an
> extant photograph is a GOOD THING. Secondly, I routinely made exact
> duplicates at the time of exposure, and I think most photographers also
> do this.
I know you like the idea of a single physical artifact being a "photograph",
but that's your own opinion. I rather like the idea of being able to
indefinitely preserve an image without deterioration regardless of the
medium on which it is stored. Afterall, it's the image that I care about.
Dana
Gregory W Blank
> Gregory W Blank wrote:
>
> > In article <NMydnR02Ad0...@speedfactory.net>,
> > "Michael A. Covington" <lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If someone is insinuating that manufacturers are deliberately making bad
> >>products so they can sell us new ones sooner, I don't buy it.
> >
> > Yes but all the gulliable shmoes will. :-) Actually I think its
> > a case of supplanting a technology that has proven itself
> > more than adequate "Film" with one that realistically,.... just don't
> > cut the cheese yet "digital capture".
>
> Yikes, are you serious? For the vast majority of snapshot work,
> digital cameras have long equalled or surpassed the image quality
> requirements of 4x6 prints. The only reason I don't give my 9-year
> old a digital camera to take snapshots on the last day of school is
> the replacement cost of the camera itself compared to a single-use
> camera loaded with film. I'd rather she loses an $8 camera than a
> $100 camera. But my 9th-grader is perfectly happy with a 3.2MP
> digital camera (once we put a 256MB SD/MMC in it).
Yes I am, unless I spend 5, 8, 14K it ain't doing near what I can do with a
6x6 negative or even a transparency. And I have 3k tied up in film based MF cameras.
I have been doing this for 22 years now so I probably have a little more money invested
in this "hobby" than you sir.
I typically shoot interior photography, just last week I was making 4 minute exposures
without any light other than available......does your digi camera do that ? Using additional
lights became problematic. When you give the work for publication, how does the
client reference proper coloration for the output?, Its fine if they supply you the profile
but guaranteed most would shrug thier shoulders if you ask them for it.
Why should I invest in equipment that does not match what my
4x5, 8x10 or 6x6 cameras can do.
> Digital SLRs under $1000 are now providing 6MP images with outstanding
> quality with quicker-than-Polaroid turn-around time to review images
> during a shoot. It's *exactly* what professionals have wanted for
> decades - immediate review of the image during the shoot while you
> can still do something to fix a problem. No more shooting Polaroids
> to evaluate the lighting.
Perspective adjustments? Not unless you spend alot of bucks
for a hybrid system to mount that digi cam. My 4x5 has them already
its paid for it did not cost me 14K plus the " digital camera".
> With high-quality digital printing to photo paper, there's simply
> nothing missing in the chain. Using film means consuming film,
> chemicals and energy to simply create image captures. Using digital
> means consuming small amounts of energy to create image captures.
Really not a rec darkroom discussion is it.
> We can complain that cameras are evolving too quickly, but that's
> like living in Napa Valley and complaining about too much good
> Cabernet Sauvignon.
Wine makes you puke if you drink too much.
> We can complain that digital storage media isn't archival, but Kodak
> already is claiming comparable lifetime for their CD-Rs as their film.
I really don't need long term digital storage as I have all my stuff on film
any digital stuff I need for I scan.
> Of course, it's enjoyable to work in the darkroom, but that's our
> own hobby. It's like sending Morse code in ham radio - there are
> many superior ways to communicate, but some folks like doing it the
> hard way with Morse code. Not ironically, Morse enthusiasts spend
> a lot of energy attempting to prove that the alternatives to Morse
> code are inferior, and it just makes them look like quaint Luddites.
>
I'd like to see the bar graph comparison of those that own digi cams and are
doing work for publication verses those of us that use film and are
working for publications.
> I don't need to think that film is superior to digital to enjoy
> working in a darkroom.
> Dana
I think digital should be used for what its worth, for me
only as a promotional media, to send out. But its really not
a rec darkroom discussion.
Dana Myers
> Because what gives a work of art it's value is it's uniqueness and
> originality. If you had umpteen exact duplicates of the Mona Lisa
> instead of just one by the original artist it would have little value.
> Digital copies have no value; one copy is the same as the next and there
> are unlimited copies possible. Forgeries cannot be detected.
Actually, forgeries can be detected. There's a whole range of
"Digital Rights Management" technology to deal with exactly
this class of issue.
But, you're right, a digitally captured image is just an
image and not a collectible. Why is that a problem?
> Ansel Adams made the comment that no two of his prints from the same
> (one and only original) negative) were alike.
Did he *prefer* that? Or was it just an artifact of the looser
process control inherent in manual darkroom work? Now you're sounding
like Cain or other wineries that get a Brett's infection and
start claiming it's a desired flavor component, or like J. Lo
turning her rear-end into a trademark ass-et instead of a liability.
> The fact that you have one original negative makes that negative
> infinitely valuable. Adams Moonrise, Hernandez, for example. The fact
> that it's difficult to make a prints that are exactly alike makes them
> valuable. Digital may be art, but it's a valueless art in my estimation.
Well, that *used* to be what made a negative infinitely valuable.
But, frankly, you're really missing the point. If you capture an
image digitally, and preserve it indefinitely, and keep the digital
form of the image under lock and key, it's no different than a
negative. You have the option of making and selling prints
only when you desire to, and can tweak the print to your heart's
content each time.
Dana