What is real impact of digital on photography profession?
SBrav
I'm curious about opinions on digital's real impact on photography as a
profession. Has it created new opportunities? (such as millions of web sites
in need of digital images) Or in the long term will it effectively kill
photography as a profession? (by putting easy image capture & manipulation in
the hands of everyone) Just wondering how folks expect this to play out over
the next 5-10 years.
Gracias!
S
Ron Andrews
Moderation might produce a more useful discussion so I'll take the plunge
with my opinions.
Digital intermediate is a huge advantage. This is true for enthusiasts
who want to manipulate their images in Photoshop and snapshooters who get
better than optical prints from Kodak Perfect Touch processing or Fuji
Frontier minilabs. Many amateur pictures suffer from red eye, back lighting,
flash in the face, underexposure, and other tone scale problems. All of
these can be improved with digital intervention.
Digital photos are made for websites and email sharing. In our mobile
culture, this helps to hold families together. I can easily share pictures
with relatives from Florida to Alaska.
Digital output at kiosks offers while-you-wait copies and enlargements.
Digital output at home is good for the occasional quick print, but a pain
for routine use. I prefer to get prints from an on-line service like Ofoto.
Digital capture is great for all of those occasions where we used to
use Polaroid (or Kodak Instant if you are old enough to remember). It is
quickly moving into the mainstream as current cameras produce very good
quality snapshots. Digital cameras that produce good enlargements are
becoming more affordable. More cameras are purchased. Many more images are
captured. Fewer prints are made.
In a generation, there will be a realization that we are missing a lot
of family photos. Only the images printed on good quality paper (thermal,
silver halide, and maybe some ink jet) will survive. Most digital image
files will not survive 20 years. Either the hard drive will crash or the
format will change.
Digital has largely replace film in journalism and much of advertising.
It is replacing film for many amateur uses. Film will continue in a reduced
role. Single use cameras will be around for some time. Some niche films will
be discontinued. Some already have.
--
Ron Andrews
David Dyer-Bennet
> I'm new to the group, apologies if this has been discussed ad
> nauseum here...
More over in rec.photo.digital.
> I'm curious about opinions on digital's real impact on photography
> as a profession. Has it created new opportunities? (such as
> millions of web sites in need of digital images) Or in the long term
> will it effectively kill photography as a profession? (by putting
> easy image capture & manipulation in the hands of everyone) Just
> wondering how folks expect this to play out over the next 5-10
> years.
It's purely wonderful. Even now, in the very early days, it's quickly
replacing film in many, many uses, because it's better, easier, and
cheaper.
It's going to kill off the dull, low-paid professional work --
low-quality catalog shots and such. People will do that themselves.
It won't have much impact on the higher-status, higher-paid, more
difficult jobs; people will still need years of practice and lots of
expensive equipment and a good vision to do those, and you don't
acquire all of those by luck or accident.
It may well kill consumer photo-finishing; people may well move to
online presentation, instead of prints, for their snapshots.
I think it's going to buy us a wonderful new generation of
photographers a generation down the road. The people who started
playing with their parents' cast-off 3 megapixel digital camera when
they were 10 years old. I was taking photos younger than that -- but
I was badly constrained by the cost of film and processing, and lots
of kids that age don't have the attention span to learn optimally from
something that takes a few days to get them feedback. Digital gives
them instant feedback. So there will be people with vision but who
wouldn't overcome the tech hurdels before, who will overcome them with
digital to help them along. And there will be people who've focused
their lives on photography from considerably earlier on.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Phil Stripling
> I'm curious about opinions on digital's real impact on photography as a
> profession. Has it created new opportunities? (such as millions of web
> sites in need of digital images) Or in the long term will it effectively
> kill photography as a profession? (by putting easy image capture &
> manipulation in the hands of everyone) Just wondering how folks expect
> this to play out over the next 5-10 years.
Hi, S.
Nobody knows. That's the easy answer. Amateurs seem to be using digital
because of immediate feedback on each shot and more or less immediate
gratification on the image. Professionals who need that same immediacy are
finding that digital is the only way to get it. Sports photographers and
journalists can email their photos almost immediately from the site.
I'm not sure that digital for the millions of Web sites will have much of
an effect -- most Web sites are amateur, few buy images.
As a profession, photography will continue whether on film or disk. I
expect during the next decade that the switch will be from film to
digital.
But who knows?
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.
Bob Monaghan
decline from 100,000+ in 1980 (wolfman report) to under 63,000 in 1999 (US
Dept Labor Stats). see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/semipro.html for stats
royalty free CDROMs is reducing demand for stock photos; moreover, two
major photo agencies (one owned in part by Mr. Bill Gates of Microsoft
fame) control nearly all the stock and photojournalism market I'm told; so
that means fewer photographers...
Many digital photo assignments should also be easily outsourced, with
delivery via internet, to places where labor costs are lower. On the other
hand, travel photographers may be less in demand, as locals at exotic
locations can now be hired more easily over the net and deliver from stock
or on assignment - but without the need to send a local pro overseas for
the shoot.
I have noted elsewhere that surprisingly few of the huge number of users
of digital cameras (many millions) have expanded into conventional
photography (e.g., medium format sales are off up to 50%).
The new 2 to 4+ Megapixel cellphone cameras now being tested in Japan
suggest that everybody will have a digital camera and make decent image
quality images. Probably some weddings have already been photographed by
cellphone cameras only ;-) And others have been done on disposable $8.95
cameras too ;-) again - another major pro market being lost?
In short, I wouldn't expect the number of pros to go up, given the
observed declines. Lots more people may end up doing digital photography
incidental to their work, but the number of full time pros seems to
continue to decline in the USA...
hth bobm
--
***********************************************************************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Fred A. Miller
I don't see it as anymore of a threat than 35mm SLRs have been over the
years. People buy a LOT of stuff that they never really learn how to
handle properly.
Fred
--
"...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows XP (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly)."
Paul Schmidt
I expect that photography will not change much, the medium will change
but the "art" will be unaffected. To know what is happening, you need
to look at media that has gone digital previously, and see how it
affected the process.
Audio is a good example, it went digital about 15 years ago, the process
of taking a song and making it available later on, hasn't changed much,
you still have song, artist, microphone, processing and finally
distribution. However the processing has changed in it's methodology,
and distribution has gone from shipping big plastic platters around, to
electronic methodologies.
Photography is somewhat similar, you have subject, artist, camera,
processing and distribution. With digital you still have a subject, you
still have an artist (the person operating the camera), you still have
processing and you still have distribution. Processing and distribution
are all that really change.
Instead of someone in a dark room swishing chemicals around, they load
the image into a computer, and then do the same stuff they did before, a
little dodging and burning in, a contrast change here and there, maybe a
little touchup to fix a blemish in the original image (like making the
cellulite on a model disappear). Then there is distribution, this can
have big changes, especially for newsies.
The old Beanfaart building downtown caught fire, send the photog, even
though the press run starts in 40 minutes, he/she goes, gets the photos,
dumps them from camera onto a laptop with cellular or microwave modem,
and email story and photos to the editor, they get inserted before the
press gets up to speed. This is different from before when the
photographer had to go, get the photos and story, then take the film
back, the paper had to get it processed and then manually insert the
photos into the press plate before the press could start.
IMNSHO a photographer that takes crappy photos with a film camera, will
probably take crappy photos with a digital camera, the digital ones, may
be technically perfect, but still crappy because the composition is off,
or the angles are wrong.
Paul
Lisa Horton
photography isn't a monolithic group, it's a collection of various
specialties, each of which is affected differently by digital.
What hasn't changed is that real quality photographs are most reliably
produced by people with knowledge and experience. Considering the
impact that software tools and workflow procedures can have on quality,
digital may give a greater edge to the knowledgeable professional than
film did. Consider how many hours the average hobbyist may want to
devote to learning photo manipulation, then consider how much more they
might be willing to invest if photography was their job.
Lisa
Lisa Horton
>
>
> I think it's going to buy us a wonderful new generation of
> photographers a generation down the road. The people who started
> playing with their parents' cast-off 3 megapixel digital camera when
> they were 10 years old. I was taking photos younger than that -- but
> I was badly constrained by the cost of film and processing, and lots
> of kids that age don't have the attention span to learn optimally from
> something that takes a few days to get them feedback. Digital gives
> them instant feedback. So there will be people with vision but who
> wouldn't overcome the tech hurdels before, who will overcome them with
> digital to help them along. And there will be people who've focused
> their lives on photography from considerably earlier on.
Good points. Fun to think about the kids as you mention :)
Lisa
<ENTER NAME>
minute you have taken it to check for poor exposure, focus, someone
blinking, poor pose etc. You can determine at the shoot exactly when you
have the shots you want, or your customer can. Even if they are on the other
side of the world. It's entirely possible to go from taking the shot, thru
post processing and have a high quality inkjet print in a matter of minutes,
which is simply astounding for a portrait studio.
I think the other effect will be that there are more professionals about
feeding the growing need for images from web sites and magazines. It will be
alot easier for an average photographer to make a living from photography.
The cream will still come to the top, as really good photographers images
will still stand out.
bob
news:E6z_b.83484$%72....@twister.nyroc.rr.com: [...]
> In a generation, there will be a realization that we are missing a
> lot
> of family photos. Only the images printed on good quality paper
> (thermal, silver halide, and maybe some ink jet) will survive. Most
> digital image files will not survive 20 years. Either the hard drive
> will crash or the format will change.
>
I used to think that way too, but I'm starting to change my opinion.
Even if my house gets hit with a tornado or a fire, some of my most
important images will survive, because they exist in other locations.
As for the files, obviously nothing is certain, but I'm pretty sure I'll
still have my Photoshop CDs in 20 years, or even 50 years. Same thing
for my Windows install disk. I can still install and run Windows 3.1 and
all the applications I bought nearly 15 years ago, and they mostly still
run. For that matter, I can run Apple II software on my PC in
emulation. It works just as good as it did 20 years ago.
Since DVD drives read CD too, I'm not worried about that either.
In 100 years there might be an issue, but I don't think there will be in
20.
Bob
--
remove the backwards "SPAM" to reply.
Don
years - or 50 or 100 years for that matter. I does take some care and
maintenance, of course.
I have digital files that were originally put onto cassette tape in 1977
before floppy drives were available for "home computers" (the term "PC" was
not yet coined). They were later moved to 8" floppies, then 5 1/4", then 3
1/2", and now to CDs and DVDs. In all cases there were multiple copies, on
different media when feasable. I see no reason why that cannot continue
indefinitely, but it will of course require moving the files to new media as
the old ones fade into obsolesence. Those weren't photo files, of course,
but spread sheet files. In those cases it was also necessary to transform
them from Visicalc (anyone remember that software?) to Multiplan, and now
Excel. I suspect that the common image file formats such as JPEG and TIFF
will be around for some time, as they are not proprietary like the spread
sheet formats.
I also have some old 35mm slides taken in the 60's and 70's (unfortunately
in Ectachrome) which have degraded so badly as to be useless as slides, and
probably beyond the point where they can be salvaged using darkroom
techniques. I have, however, in most cases been able to get useable, if not
perfect, prints from them by scanning the slides and processing them
digitally. So color film and prints aren't permanent either, and cannot be
"refreshed" like digital files without losing a little quality in each
cycle.
I think there will probably be a place for both digital and film,
particularly for the professional and perhaps the serious amateur, for the
forseeable future, although Kodak doesn't seem to share this view with much
conviction.
Don
"Ron Andrews" <rand...@rochesterDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:E6z_b.83484$%72....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
-xiray-
>Or in the long term will it effectively kill
>photography as a profession?
No more so than the Kodak Brownie, the SLR, the Polaroid, and
disposable cameras.
There's a lot more involved in taking a good picture than the type of
camera used -- particularly true of studio photography (amateurs
sometimes get luck in the out-of-doors, but how many good photos have
you see amateurs take of products used in advertising, as just one
example).
Ron Andrews
news:103mtnc...@corp.supernews.com...
> I don't agree with the premise that digital files will not survive 20
> years - or 50 or 100 years for that matter. I does take some care and
> maintenance, of course.
>
indefinitely. Since you are committed to maintain them, they will last you a
lifetime. Will your children and grand children be as committed? If my
grandfathers slides (40-50 years old) had been digital images, they might
have survived in our family. The photo of my great great grandfather shot in
1855 was neglected in a box for many decades. It would not still be here if
it was digital. Image archive experts recommend that for maximum life,
images should be in human readable form.
David Dyer-Bennet
A CD left in a box has non-trivial chances of still being around in
150 years (in the sense of the information being recoverable).
Furthermore, there could be many copies of that CD floating around (in
various branches of the family, say).
150 years from now, I figure I can put the CD in the atomic scanner,
point it at the Red Book spec (or whatever one defines CDs), and have
it figure out what the data means, even if I don't have a CD drive.
Jukka-Pekka Suominen
> As for the files, obviously nothing is certain, but I'm pretty sure I'll
> still have my Photoshop CDs in 20 years, or even 50 years. Same thing
> for my Windows install disk. I can still install and run Windows 3.1 and
> all the applications I bought nearly 15 years ago, and they mostly still
> run.
Might not be the case as we move to 64-bit processor architectures.
Although they have (atleast for now) 32-bit emulation, it might not be
enough for that 16-bit shell for an 8-bit OS.
Then again, it might work just fine, I haven't tried it.. :)
-JP
Roger Halstead
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>"Ron Andrews" <rand...@rochesterDOTrr.com> writes:
>
>> "Don" <nos...@please.org> wrote in message
>> news:103mtnc...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> I don't agree with the premise that digital files will not survive 20
>>> years - or 50 or 100 years for that matter. I does take some care and
>>> maintenance, of course.
>
>> Agreed. With care and maintenance, digital files will last
>> indefinitely. Since you are committed to maintain them, they will last you a
You have a far more optimistic outlook on this than does the industry.
We, and I used that advisedly as I recently retired from the computer
industry, figure a high quality CD can be reliably stored for about 10
years. Now that is figuring archival data integrity.
I think you would have to go a long way to find someone who actually
works in the industry that would trust data on a CD to be reliable
much beyond that. Yes, they may last far longer, but the material on
which the data is stored will deteriorate. Even CDs properly stored
in a temperature and humidity controlled room require periodic
replacement.
>> lifetime. Will your children and grand children be as committed? If my
>> grandfathers slides (40-50 years old) had been digital images, they might
I have lots of slides that are that old and in good shape. I have
others that are far newer that are not.
>> have survived in our family. The photo of my great great grandfather shot in
>> 1855 was neglected in a box for many decades. It would not still be here if
>> it was digital. Image archive experts recommend that for maximum life,
>> images should be in human readable form.
Most of those images have lasted far longer than the industry believes
their products will remain viable.
>
>A CD left in a box has non-trivial chances of still being around in
>150 years (in the sense of the information being recoverable).
Industry figures just do not substantiate that. Certainly there is a
"probability" that a particular CD will still be around in 150 years,
but they do deteriorate and I currently know of none that claim a
lifetime of any where near that. CDs are fragile and they definitely
are not robust when it comes to deteriorate.
>Furthermore, there could be many copies of that CD floating around (in
>various branches of the family, say).
IF there are many copies AND those copies have been updated often
enough, then yes. but given ten CDs that have a predicted useful life
of 20 years the likely hood of any of them exceeding the predicted
life by 7500% (7 1/2 times) is stretching things more than a little.
Some of the newer CDs *may* and I emphasize the "may" have much longer
lifetimes than they current batch, but we just don't have enough hard
data to prove it. We only have claims and claims have not proven to be
very reliable in the past.
>
>150 years from now, I figure I can put the CD in the atomic scanner,
>point it at the Red Book spec (or whatever one defines CDs), and have
>it figure out what the data means, even if I don't have a CD drive.
Again, there is nothing to indicate the computing industry would even
try to maintain that kind of backward compatibility. It goes against
the industry history and would require a complete change of
philosophy.
For one, the number of people wanting to read obsolete data file
formats would most likely be small, which would make it a niche market
at best. That means the specialized equipment would be expensive.
Very expensive. That is not to say there wouldn't be businesses that
specialized in "Ancient data recovery" as they already exist.
I recently purchased a Nikon LS 5000 slide and film scanner with the
automated slide feeder. My computers have close to a terabyte of
storage between them and several will soon be going to 800 Gig each.
I use high speed R/W drives for both CDs and DVDs.
Yes, I back up the data on CDs and DVDs with the expectation that one
or the other format will be useable in the future. Still with
hundreds of CDs and DVDs storage and organization of the archival data
becomes a non trivial problem.
OTOH I have no illusions that future generations will widely share my
desire to preserve all the family history. Those CDs and DVDs will
eventually end up in the equivalent of a shoe box stuck in some one's
attic or basement. Because there as so many they more than likely
will end up in some future dump.
To expect CDs to remain readable much beyond their expected lifetime
is, based on my experience, fantasizing.
Now I can Hope, and I do, that the technology will soon be available
that will make archiving large amounts of digital data inexpensive and
reliable for long periods. Just remember that no material is
impervious to decay in one form or another.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:01:07 -0800 (PST), David Dyer-Bennet
> <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>"Ron Andrews" <rand...@rochesterDOTrr.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Don" <nos...@please.org> wrote in message
>>> news:103mtnc...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> I don't agree with the premise that digital files will not survive 20
>>>> years - or 50 or 100 years for that matter. I does take some care and
>>>> maintenance, of course.
>>
>>> Agreed. With care and maintenance, digital files will last
>>> indefinitely. Since you are committed to maintain them, they will last you a
>
> You have a far more optimistic outlook on this than does the industry.
> We, and I used that advisedly as I recently retired from the computer
> industry, figure a high quality CD can be reliably stored for about 10
> years. Now that is figuring archival data integrity.
Kodak claims 120 years for their Gold Ultima line. Which are what I'm
using.
Of course that's based on accelerated testing results, and that's
black magic more than science, but still. I don't mean I take that
number as gospel, but I *do* give it as an example of somebody in the
industry being pretty confident about a number significantly greater
than 10 years.
Actually mentioning a lifetime in public is a *major* commitment by a
media manufacturer.
Ron Andrews
>
> Kodak claims 120 years for their Gold Ultima line. Which are what I'm
> using.
>
> Of course that's based on accelerated testing results, and that's
> black magic more than science, but still. I don't mean I take that
> number as gospel, but I *do* give it as an example of somebody in the
> industry being pretty confident about a number significantly greater
> than 10 years.
>
> Actually mentioning a lifetime in public is a *major* commitment by a
> media manufacturer.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
> Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots:
<www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
>
integrity. If you had a Beta video tape of your child's birth 25 years ago,
what are the chances of viewing that tape today? I know it is possible.
There are still beta machines around for professional use, but how many
people will take the time and effort and money to transfer that tape?
David Dyer-Bennet
> I'm still more concerned about hardware compatibility than media
> integrity. If you had a Beta video tape of your child's birth 25 years ago,
> what are the chances of viewing that tape today? I know it is possible.
> There are still beta machines around for professional use, but how many
> people will take the time and effort and money to transfer that tape?
Well, you picked the wrong example to scare me *too* badly; there are
two working beta VCRs in the house. No 8" floppy drives -- but I've
never owned one, so I have nothing in that format.
However, a 25-year-old helical-scan tape is relatively likely to be in
bad shape anyway.
Similarly, I've been taking the trouble to transfer considerable of my
old film work to digital format.
Fred A. Miller
[snip
> I'm still more concerned about hardware compatibility than media
> integrity. If you had a Beta video tape of your child's birth 25 years
> ago, what are the chances of viewing that tape today? I know it is
> possible. There are still beta machines around for professional use,
> but how many people will take the time and effort and money to
> transfer that tape?
Not that many, I suspect, till it's too late to do it.
bob
news:403ed85e$1...@newsflash.abo.fi:
Yesterday's software might not work on Microsoft's OS of tomorrow, but
people will find ways of making it run anyway.
Emulating the hardware itself is doable. In the distant future there
will be people who will write a P4 emulator. This P4 emulator will
emulate a state of the art 2004 PC, including graphics and sound. You
will be able to install your existing Windows CD and software onto this
emulated "virtual PC."
As long as you keep your original CDs, and keep working copies of your
photos, you will be able to access them. It will take a little work is
all.
Roger Halstead
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>Roger Halstead <Delete-Inva...@tm.net> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:01:07 -0800 (PST), David Dyer-Bennet
>> <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron Andrews" <rand...@rochesterDOTrr.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Don" <nos...@please.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:103mtnc...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> I don't agree with the premise that digital files will not survive 20
>>>>> years - or 50 or 100 years for that matter. I does take some care and
>>>>> maintenance, of course.
>>>
>>>> Agreed. With care and maintenance, digital files will last
>>>> indefinitely. Since you are committed to maintain them, they will last you a
>>
>> You have a far more optimistic outlook on this than does the industry.
>> We, and I used that advisedly as I recently retired from the computer
>> industry, figure a high quality CD can be reliably stored for about 10
>> years. Now that is figuring archival data integrity.
>
>Kodak claims 120 years for their Gold Ultima line. Which are what I'm
>using.
The Kodak Gold line were rated the best of any I've seen, but I've not
seen any in nearly a year. I didn't include them as some where I read
they were no longer available. They are also my choice when I can
find them. IF they are still being made, no one around here carries
them as they'd have to compete with CDs that are selling for on the
order of a quarter each.
All I've been able to find is the green and blue tint which I believe
are Aluminum and an aluminum alloy.
>
>Of course that's based on accelerated testing results, and that's
>black magic more than science, but still. I don't mean I take that
>number as gospel, but I *do* give it as an example of somebody in the
>industry being pretty confident about a number significantly greater
>than 10 years.
>
>Actually mentioning a lifetime in public is a *major* commitment by a
>media manufacturer.
Actually, finding a manufacturer who will even estimate the lifetime
is a major achievement.
I'm *Trying* to get set up on rolling backups for data, but as I've
added 16.7 Gig just in images this past week, data backup and
integrity becomes a relatively large issue here.
That data needs to be backed up this week end, then edited, cleaned
up, and what ever rescans are needed will be added back in.
The computer next to this one has over 50 Gig in over 17,000 images,
much of which need to be rescanned. Rescanning will bring the storage
requirement to near 400 Gig and that is at 2400 dpi rather than the
4000. The old scans just aren't that good and now I have the LS 5000
they are being redone. What I find amazing is each image is twice the
size of my first hard drive and the full size ones in native TIFF are
almost 7 times as large at near 70 megs.
Walter Bushell
"Ron Andrews" <rand...@rochesterDOTrr.com> wrote:
But the work involved in keeping them current becomes smaller as time
progresses. Several 5 1/4 flopies go on one 3 1/2" disk and _many_ 3.5"
on one CD, many CD's on the new blue DVDs etc. All of a person's family
snaps fit as an small adjunct to one movie.
Dave
articles.
Dave
Don
Don
"Ron Andrews" <rand...@rochesterDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:ssw%b.85712$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Ron Andrews
about the stability of optical disks:
http://www.clir.org/pubs/cpanews/cpanl58.html
Scroll down until you find the article entitled: "A Science-Standards Review
The Stability of Optical Disks".
--
Ron Andrews
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:09:56 -0800 (PST), David Dyer-Bennet
> <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>Kodak claims 120 years for their Gold Ultima line. Which are what I'm
>>using.
>
> The Kodak Gold line were rated the best of any I've seen, but I've not
> seen any in nearly a year. I didn't include them as some where I read
> they were no longer available. They are also my choice when I can
> find them. IF they are still being made, no one around here carries
> them as they'd have to compete with CDs that are selling for on the
> order of a quarter each.
>
> All I've been able to find is the green and blue tint which I believe
> are Aluminum and an aluminum alloy.
I've got about 2.2 spindles of them on the shelf (I happened to catch
the closeout sale at Kodak). I believe Mitsui also makes a real
gold-reflector CD.
>>Of course that's based on accelerated testing results, and that's
>>black magic more than science, but still. I don't mean I take that
>>number as gospel, but I *do* give it as an example of somebody in the
>>industry being pretty confident about a number significantly greater
>>than 10 years.
>>
>>Actually mentioning a lifetime in public is a *major* commitment by a
>>media manufacturer.
>
> Actually, finding a manufacturer who will even estimate the lifetime
> is a major achievement.
>
> I'm *Trying* to get set up on rolling backups for data, but as I've
> added 16.7 Gig just in images this past week, data backup and
> integrity becomes a relatively large issue here.
Ouch. Yes indeed. I'm not that active.
> That data needs to be backed up this week end, then edited, cleaned
> up, and what ever rescans are needed will be added back in.
For that kind of volume and approach, sounds like a candidate for
expensive tape drives to me.
> The computer next to this one has over 50 Gig in over 17,000 images,
> much of which need to be rescanned. Rescanning will bring the storage
> requirement to near 400 Gig and that is at 2400 dpi rather than the
> 4000. The old scans just aren't that good and now I have the LS 5000
> they are being redone. What I find amazing is each image is twice the
> size of my first hard drive and the full size ones in native TIFF are
> almost 7 times as large at near 70 megs.
No doubt I'll eventually end up rescanning some of my older scans,
when I upgrade the scanner (was just looking at the ls-5000 in fact,
I'm using an ls-2000 currently, but no money for that now).
bob
72.6...@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
> For the interested reader, here is a link to technical information
> about the stability of optical disks:
>
> http://www.clir.org/pubs/cpanews/cpanl58.html
>
That is interesting. It dovetails nicely with the TDK and Kodak
whitepapers on the subject (sorry, I don't have a link handy). The makers
seem to think that CDR can have very long life in the limited case where
the media is specifically designed for the writing unit, and the media is
stored at controlled room temperature and humidity, but only when the
writing unit is within specifications. Because the writers use analog
components that deteriorate with time (electrolytic capacitors), it is
know that the ability of the unit to write will be degraded over time.
They also acknowledge that there could easily be other factors involved
that were not accounted in their accelerated aging tests, and that these
unknown factors could cause the discs to age in a non linear fashion.
As a practical matter, I try to make multiple copies, and I keep all my
important photos on my harddrive all the time, in addition to the backup.
I also keep copies of CDs out in my shed in a waterproof steel box, which
protects me against a housefire.
Paul Schmidt
This is like saying that Ferrari can't compete in the car business,
because Hyundai sells a car for $12,000. Not all items compete on price....
>
> All I've been able to find is the green and blue tint which I believe
> are Aluminum and an aluminum alloy.
>
>
>>Of course that's based on accelerated testing results, and that's
>>black magic more than science, but still. I don't mean I take that
>>number as gospel, but I *do* give it as an example of somebody in the
>>industry being pretty confident about a number significantly greater
>>than 10 years.
>>
>>Actually mentioning a lifetime in public is a *major* commitment by a
>>media manufacturer.
>
>
> Actually, finding a manufacturer who will even estimate the lifetime
> is a major achievement.
>
> I'm *Trying* to get set up on rolling backups for data, but as I've
> added 16.7 Gig just in images this past week, data backup and
> integrity becomes a relatively large issue here.
>
> That data needs to be backed up this week end, then edited, cleaned
> up, and what ever rescans are needed will be added back in.
>
> The computer next to this one has over 50 Gig in over 17,000 images,
> much of which need to be rescanned. Rescanning will bring the storage
> requirement to near 400 Gig and that is at 2400 dpi rather than the
> 4000. The old scans just aren't that good and now I have the LS 5000
> they are being redone. What I find amazing is each image is twice the
> size of my first hard drive and the full size ones in native TIFF are
> almost 7 times as large at near 70 megs.
What happens with a lot of data, is that it goes through a set of
storage processes, these are divided into cold storage, lukewarm storage
and hot storage.
Cold storage, might be accessed at some point, but unlikely to be
accessed often, once in a blue moon is likely, it's okay if it's a pain
in the asp to get at.
Lukewarm storage, more likely to be needed then cold storage, but it's
okay if it needs another disk to be loaded to get at.
Hot storage, stuff your working on right now, needs immediate access.
Since your scanning, I would assume that images are on film. For cold
storage, I would scan a highly compressed jpeg, along with instructions
on where the negative or slide is, and simply scan them again when needed.
Lukewarm, these could be stored on DVD-R, but since your using them
semi-regularily, you simply copy the the disc once a year onto new
media. If the last access was to copy the disc, then maybe that disc
should be in cold storage.
Hot, store it on your HDD, keep regular backups on a second or even
third drive.
The idea is to not even try to keep all of the images scanned up to
date, you will simply end up spending all of your time scanning and
maintaining the archives, and never get time to take new pictures.
Don't forget in 5 years when your buying an LS-50000 your going to want
to rescan your stuff anyway.
Paul
Michael Scarpitti
> I'm new to the group, apologies if this has been discussed ad nauseum here...
>
> I'm curious about opinions on digital's real impact on photography as a
> profession. Has it created new opportunities? (such as millions of web sites
> in need of digital images) Or in the long term will it effectively kill
> photography as a profession? (by putting easy image capture & manipulation in
> the hands of everyone) Just wondering how folks expect this to play out over
> the next 5-10 years.
>
> Gracias!
> S
>
> https://www.geocities.com/bravardmedia
All it does is make taking lousy pictures faster....
Lisa Horton
Good to see you commenting on something you are knowledgeable about :)
Lisa
Roger Halstead
<wogs...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>Roger Halstead wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:09:56 -0800 (PST), David Dyer-Bennet
>> <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>>>Kodak claims 120 years for their Gold Ultima line. Which are what I'm
>>>using.
>>
>>
>> The Kodak Gold line were rated the best of any I've seen, but I've not
>> seen any in nearly a year. I didn't include them as some where I read
>> they were no longer available. They are also my choice when I can
>> find them. IF they are still being made, no one around here carries
>> them as they'd have to compete with CDs that are selling for on the
>> order of a quarter each.
>
>This is like saying that Ferrari can't compete in the car business,
Not at all.
>because Hyundai sells a car for $12,000. Not all items compete on price....
>
I'm afraid you missed the whole point.
The point being 99% plus users do purchase on price and a premium
product like the Kodak Gold disks could not stay viable in a market
like that. Hence I can no longer go out and readily find
them...readily? I haven't been able to find them at all.
>>
<snip>
>
>What happens with a lot of data, is that it goes through a set of
>storage processes, these are divided into cold storage, lukewarm storage
>and hot storage.
>
I've never heard those terms used, but I understand what you are
saying. We just used to use on line storage and Archival. When
anything was archived it was taken off site to two locations. (dual
rolling backups)
>Cold storage, might be accessed at some point, but unlikely to be
>accessed often, once in a blue moon is likely, it's okay if it's a pain
>in the asp to get at.
In the case of ... say family photographs it they are a pain to get at
you might just as well pitch them as no one is going to look at them.
>
>Lukewarm storage, more likely to be needed then cold storage, but it's
>okay if it needs another disk to be loaded to get at.
>
>Hot storage, stuff your working on right now, needs immediate access.
>
>Since your scanning, I would assume that images are on film. For cold
>storage, I would scan a highly compressed jpeg, along with instructions
>on where the negative or slide is, and simply scan them again when needed.
Ektachrome and even Kodachrome do not keep well for long periods.
Ektachrome fades with light and with age. Kodachrome fades with age
even in the dark. Half the work I'm doing is restoring the colors.
Some of these slides date from the late 50s. Some are already beyond
recovery. Some of the Ektachrome 15 years old already has a decided
color cast.
I approach this the opposite. For long term storage where the
originals are unlikely to be available I scan in at the full 4000 dpi.
Actually I scan everything at 4000 dpi and then resize as needed,
keeping the important ones at full resolution TIFF and compressing, or
at least reducing the lesser important ones to a smaller size.
This project will probably take at least a year if not two.
First is acquiring the data and then organizing it. The slides and
negatives have to be put in some kind of order where the digital
images can be traced back to a particular slide, negative, print, or
document. I use negative/film strip pages and slide holders that fit
in note books. Slides and film strips are numbered as are the digital
images.
With the CDs and DVDs I figure I can safely look at 10 years with
dual/redundant storage as long as it is kept in a current, widely used
format.
Once in digital format and organized the data needs to be
masaged...Images enhanced, colors restored, and even culled.
Then it needs to be put in final form on CDs and DVDs. with dual
storage, but as I will most likely end up using at least one set of
disks on a semi regular basis they will need to be refreshed on a more
regular basis than the backups that are not used.
At work we used a dust free and humidity controlled room with robots
to change CDs, and/or tapes.
This requires bit comparisons between the stored data and the on-line
data. In the case of archived data it will require bit comparisons on
a file by file basis between the backups. Programs are available that
will do this as doing a yearly manual comparisons of something like
30,000 to 40,000 images on three different mediums would be sheer
agony.
You've probably already guessed that this is not exactly the typical
backup of old family photos or the typical home computer system.
When prints are included the "old family photos go back to the turn of
the previous century in addition to all the photography I've done.
As for computers we probably have more on line storage than many
businesses.
Hopefully the only thing required of future generations would be to
copy the information to new medial well within the average lifetime
figured for the medium. the odds are that won't happen, but maybe
there will be a computer minded photographer in the next generation
who will keep up with the family history.
>
>Lukewarm, these could be stored on DVD-R, but since your using them
>semi-regularily, you simply copy the the disc once a year onto new
>media. If the last access was to copy the disc, then maybe that disc
>should be in cold storage.
>
I use a rolling backup so the disks are updated on a regular basis.
Depending on the amount of work done the images (and other work files)
are backed up across the network to one (or both) of two storage
servers) I try to keep the CDs and DVDs on a weekly basis.
The rolling backups typically require access on the order of once a
month or so.
>Hot, store it on your HDD, keep regular backups on a second or even
>third drive.
I do, but I've archived over 30 Gig in the last two weeks. That is a
tad above normal with the slide copying<:-)). Typically it's about 40
Gig per year but that includes a lot of documents in addition to the
images. I do not keep any of the work I do for others. It is put on
CD, or DVD and they have the responsibility of making a duplicate at
the office, or work.
I archive all freelance work, but the "for hire" stuff all goes to the
one who paid for it. I do not keep the digital files although I do
keep film unless they paid for it.
On some location jobs they provide everything except the cameras and
I've even found a couple that do that. There they own all the work.
I really need a server set up like we had where I used to work. One
big computer with two full size tower cases full of SCSI CD drives. I
think the total was 16 CD drives, plus the RAID 5.
>
>The idea is to not even try to keep all of the images scanned up to
>date, you will simply end up spending all of your time scanning and
Keeping all of the images scanned up-to-date is relatively easy with
the rolling backups. Backups are done on a time basis with the short
term backups only containing the newest data/images. Besides, most
of the backups can be automated and you just feed the computer disks
when it asks for another.
Backing up all the new images scanned in to DVDs for the last two
weeks would take about 8 DVDs at about 20 to 30 minutes each. Less
time with faster drives and a longggg time with the old 2X drives.
Now if I backed up all that on CDs we are looking at roughly 50 CDs
and that is a bunch even if they are cheap. Course they only take a
few minutes to copy with the high speed drives but you end up spending
an after noon feeding the hungry drives.
>maintaining the archives, and never get time to take new pictures.
>Don't forget in 5 years when your buying an LS-50000 your going to want
>to rescan your stuff anyway.
Not really. There is a practical limit as to what you can do with a
scanner. The current LS 5000 and the Minolta 5400 have pretty much
reached the limit for what you can pull out of a piece of film. So,
I seriously doubt ther'd be any practical, or legitimate reason for
wanting to rescan. For the bulk copy outfits and businesses there are
faster, but much more expensive scanners. I doubt they do any better
job than the one I'm using now, but they do it a lot faster.
I have done jobs that were more boring than scanning for hours, but no
many.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Paul
Roger Halstead
Let's see... I started using my own LS 5000 about a week and a half
back. It has an auto slide feeder and I've been running the thing
probably close to 8 hours a day.
I figure between slides, color photos (negatives) and two and a half
very large boxes of very old photos I will probably have 15 to 20 DVDs
and that is not saving them at high resolution.
The original effort to digitize them is by far the greatest,, as
updating the DVDs and hugh stack of CDs is minor, but certainly not
trivial.
I figure this "project" is going to take the better part of a year and
that is with good equipment. Admittedly our family photos go back so
far as we've had a number of professional photographers in each
generation. That also means the quantity and *maybe* quality are
quite high, so I probably do have quite a few more photos than most
families.
I wasn't willing to go digital until they reached 5 megapixels and
even saved as JPGs those amount to about 3 megs each. Mine, I cull,
but the "old stuff" gets saved in total.
When I finish the project, it will be interesting to see just how much
storage is required, but no matter how I look at it, ... it's a lot!
David Dyer-Bennet
That's why it's so important for photo education -- it helps you get
the lousy photos out of your system quicker.
But it doesn't *just* make taking lousy pictures faster, I don't
think. It also makes it easier. And it also makes taking *good*
photos faster and easier.
Grant Robertson
says...
> Might not be the case as we move to 64-bit processor architectures.
> Although they have (atleast for now) 32-bit emulation, it might not be
> enough for that 16-bit shell for an 8-bit OS.
I read an article yesterday about how Intel has gotten the clue that
people want backwards compatibility forever. They had tried to move the
world on the 64 bit computing via the Itanium CPU series which could not
run 32 bit code and found themselves locked into only the high end server
market. AMD came out with their 64 bit CPU's that could also run 32 bit
code and they started selling like hot-cakes.
So we may be able to run those old OS's for quite some time. Besides, as
new machines get faster and faster they are able to emulate the older
machines at their old performance levels pretty well.
Grant Robertson
says...
I was just about to say the same thing. However, after reflecting on how
e-mail has affected writing and spelling skills, I am starting to have
some doubts. When e-mail first started to become popular there were all
kinds of articles about how this would improve writing skills since
people would be writing more. But what has actually happened is that the
expectations of readers has dropped drastically. No one expects an e-mail
to be grammatically correct, be spelled correctly or even to not be chuck
full of terrible typo's.
When the web surged in popularity there was a huge demand for content. Do
you think they waited for an entire army of writers and graphic artists
to be trained properly before they started throwing up site after site of
supposedly compelling content. Not at all. They just grabbed whoever they
could and pressed them into service. The results were barely worth
reading, and sometimes were barely readable, but they are all out there
claiming to be the most important thing you will read all year. What's
worse, is that there are people devoting their lives to archiving all
this 'content' as if it were really important.
Anyway, I have seen the same thing when it comes to photography. While
there is still a demand for high quality photographers, more and more
people are doing themselves what they used to pay professionals to do. I
see this primarily in the boring field of photographing items for special
purpose catalogs. A manufacturer used to have to hire a professional
photographer to photograph all of their products. Now they just hand a
digital camera to their secretary and have them go at it. It ends up
looking like crap but people still buy the products. There are chapters
in books just about how to photograph products for display on eBay. I
even see photographs in brochures that are just abysmal. The buying and
viewing public just doesn't seem to care.
The general view seems to be if you do care about the quality of anything
other than a sports team then you are just a freak that is too negative.
The point of all this rambling is that making it easier for regular
people to do anything not only reduces the need for highly skilled
professionals but it also greatly reduces the expectations of the general
public. This constitutes a double-whammy which seriously affects the
ability of those who are highly skilled to continue to demand the
compensation they were getting before.
bob
news:MPG.1ab12655b...@news.sunflower.com:
> So we may be able to run those old OS's for quite some time. Besides,
> as new machines get faster and faster they are able to emulate the
> older machines at their old performance levels pretty well.
>
I'm not sure if you actually "got" what I was trying to say.
You will be able to run *any* OS for as long as you like because the
hardware is increasingly irrelevant.
I can run Macintosh System 7 software, even though I don't have a Mac
anymore, because I can download an emulator for the Quadra 6xx series
that runs under Windows. I can likewise run Amiga software, Nintendo
software, dedicated video game machine software.
If you use Linux, you can download Wine and run a lot of Windows
software on whatever Linux hardware you happen to have.
The quality of emulation will only continue to improve -- 20 years from
now, you will be able to download a PC emulator that will allow you to
run Windows 2000 on whatever sort of hardware you own.
So I'm not even worried about being able to open my RAW (.nef) images,
let alone .jpgs or .psd files.
I think the CD/DVD format will be with us for a very long time. I
predict their "demise" will strongly resemble the "demise" of vinyl and
VHS. Slow and noisy -- CDs have been in mass production 20 years, and
they still make LPs.
Ron Andrews
news:Xns94A37C9CDE6...@216.77.188.18...
media that is still intact. If I had a video in Beta format showing the
Jimmy Hoffa murder (*) I know where I can find a device that will play it
back. Images that are highly valued will be saved. What we will loose is
many family images. It will be possible to retrieve them, but it will be too
much trouble for most families. In 2050, many families will find that they
have more family images from the 70's, 80's, and 90's that the 00's and
10's.
* -- purely hypothetical, there is no need to investigate.
Fred A. Miller
> Grant Robertson <BO...@BOGUS.INVALID> wrote in
> news:MPG.1ab12655b...@news.sunflower.com:
>
>> So we may be able to run those old OS's for quite some time. Besides,
>> as new machines get faster and faster they are able to emulate the
>> older machines at their old performance levels pretty well.
>>
>
> I'm not sure if you actually "got" what I was trying to say.
>
> You will be able to run *any* OS for as long as you like because the
> hardware is increasingly irrelevant.
>
> I can run Macintosh System 7 software, even though I don't have a Mac
> anymore, because I can download an emulator for the Quadra 6xx series
> that runs under Windows. I can likewise run Amiga software, Nintendo
> software, dedicated video game machine software.
>
> If you use Linux, you can download Wine and run a lot of Windows
> software on whatever Linux hardware you happen to have.
Well, SOME of it works SOME of the time.
> The quality of emulation will only continue to improve -- 20 years
> from now, you will be able to download a PC emulator that will allow
> you to run Windows 2000 on whatever sort of hardware you own.
Maybe. The way it's going to MickySoft, a 20 yr. prediction isn't a safe
thing to do.
> So I'm not even worried about being able to open my RAW (.nef) images,
> let alone .jpgs or .psd files.
With that I'd agree.
> I think the CD/DVD format will be with us for a very long time. I
> predict their "demise" will strongly resemble the "demise" of vinyl
> and VHS. Slow and noisy -- CDs have been in mass production 20 years,
> and they still make LPs.
NEW CD and DVD standards will probably be changed and "in stone" before
the end of this year.
Roger Halstead
<BO...@BOGUS.INVALID> wrote:
>In article <403ed85e$1...@newsflash.abo.fi>, firstname...@abo.fi
>says...
>> Might not be the case as we move to 64-bit processor architectures.
>> Although they have (atleast for now) 32-bit emulation, it might not be
>> enough for that 16-bit shell for an 8-bit OS.
>
>I read an article yesterday about how Intel has gotten the clue that
>people want backwards compatibility forever. They had tried to move the
>world on the 64 bit computing via the Itanium CPU series which could not
>run 32 bit code and found themselves locked into only the high end server
They wouldn't have found that, they knew it ahead of time. The hopes
were that software vendors would jump on the band wagon and write, or
recompile their applications to run on 64 bit processors. For the
vast majority of applications there is nothing to be gained by going
to 64 bit processing.
>market. AMD came out with their 64 bit CPU's that could also run 32 bit
>code and they started selling like hot-cakes.
There are very few applications available that will, or can take
advantage of the 64 bit processor, but the 16 and 32 bit will run on
it.
The AMDs only advantage at present is the one meg on board cache.
That in itself should speed things up.
>
>So we may be able to run those old OS's for quite some time. Besides, as
>new machines get faster and faster they are able to emulate the older
>machines at their old performance levels pretty well.
Some where, some one is going to have to make a break with backward
compatibility for legacy applications or we'll be stuck with hugh
Operating systems that have to be made even larger.
OTOH Windows has already orphaned a *lot* of software by not
maintaining backward compatibility with XP which is based on NT and
not the old win9X kernel. Some of those programs can be run in
emulation mode, but not all.
I think it's only a matter of time before they pitch the old
architecture for something new and more elegant. They may have to use
a transition period, where systems will run both, but it can be done
with enough computing horsepower.
bob
news:fVb2c.115187$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
[...]
>> The quality of emulation will only continue to improve -- 20 years
>> from now, you will be able to download a PC emulator that will allow
>> you to run Windows 2000 on whatever sort of hardware you own.
>
> Maybe. The way it's going to MickySoft, a 20 yr. prediction isn't a
> safe thing to do.
The emulation doesn't have anything to do with software companies. It's
all done by networks of individuals with open source compilers.
[...]
>> I think the CD/DVD format will be with us for a very long time. I
>> predict their "demise" will strongly resemble the "demise" of vinyl
>> and VHS. Slow and noisy -- CDs have been in mass production 20 years,
>> and they still make LPs.
>
> NEW CD and DVD standards will probably be changed and "in stone"
> before the end of this year.
I hadn't heard of that. Will they be fully backwards compatible the way
they have so far, or will they orphan some of the older formats? What is
the reason for the change?
HRosita
In my opinion, photography has developed because of the point and shoot demand,
just like the Model T has made the car affordable to the masses.
The professionals have embraced digital for the ease of viewing the results,
the economy of the electronic storage, the capability to fix small problems,
and the ease of printing. I know two pros here in Sarasota that went digital
years ago when setting up a digital shop cost $100,000.
Another pro that has embraced digital is George Lepp (known for his magazine
articles).
Rosita
Alex Timaios
One interesting impact of the new digital age is in my opinion the Price a
given photo can achieve on the market.
Considering the traditional photography with film, the film developing and
scannnig led to a significant final price of the photo.
The scanning process limited also significantly the number of photographies
a medium talented photograph could create during a date. So the number of
phtographies produced were limited due to the process it self. According to
the laws of the market, if the supply is lower, the prices go up.
So we are entering now a new age, where the number of pictures which can be
produced per day is dramatically higher. Thus, the price per image will
decrease, following the law of the markets. This trend can be obvserved
already in some photoagencies, compare the prices of new photoagencies
working exclusively digital
with the traditional Photoagencies. The
photographers are earning less, but on the other side the number of
photographies is significantly higher. This mean a medium talented
photograph need to send much more pictures to get some income.
On the other side, a limited factor is the quality. It is very easy to shoot
an amazing number of pics using digital cameras, however how many pics are
REALLY great ? The talent will not increase or decrease in dependency of the
technique used.
It is true that the demand for images is getting higher, but this increase
in the demand is in my opinion lower then the increase of available
pictures. The typical prices paid for photos (10-15 EUR) of the mentioned
photoagencies confirm this assumption.
Alex Timaios www.alex-images.de
"SBrav" <sb...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20040223075814...@mb-m04.aol.com...