A very interesting commentary on using film

[Gaspar]

I think if people really value their photos they will get them printed. So it does not really matter wether they are shot in digital or not.
The issue with digital is not permanence, it is the fact people don't bother to print them. My father is so stingy that he says "why should I pay for prints when I can look at the photos on the computer?"

 

[Migracer]

We are the Stuarts of our History.

We are the Stuarts of our History.

Before photography we created our illustrations with sticks, charcoal, rocks, and evolved as we got smarter. Some how examples of much of our visual history has survived time, most of it by chance some of it through the tenacity of individuals who believed that the future needed to know. Some of what we (the collective we) have now will survive time, most of it will not. We are fortunate for what we do have and cannot lament and cripple our selfs the loss of the Library at Alexandria. We are the Stuarts of our history fate will decide what survives. (secretly I hope is not the soup can)

Hers is my small contribution, it is not the oldest picture I have, though most were lost in a political revolution. It is me holding my Grandmas hand my sister behind me uncles, aunts and cousins. Shot by my mother Carmen Caparros Montero Havana Cuba 1956 Speed Graphic Press Camera.

 

[oscroft]

There were literally billions of photos made during the film based 20th century. I would be surprised if more than 10 or 20 percent have survived. I suspect about the same percentage of digital images will make it into the 22nd Century.

I suspect a much smaller percentage of digital images will survive, but the vastly greater number of them might well compensate for that.

If not, it will be because we just don't value photos as much as in the past.

I suspect you're right that people now don't value photos as much, and that that will continue in the future - the more plentiful and cheaper something becomes, the less it is valued.

But, I still think there is a qualitative difference - unvalued film photos often do survive neglected for quite a long time, giving people in the future the chance to value them again. But unvalued digital photos cease to exist (because they don't get converted from obsolete media/formats), denying any future people that possibility.

 

[oscroft]

My father is so stingy that he says "why should I pay for prints when I can look at the photos on the computer?"

It's not just the cost. Photos generally look much better on a large computer monitor than on the average 7x5 lab print. And on a computer they take up much less space than as prints.

 

[antiquark]

The problem of storing digital images is exactly what websites like the Kodak Gallery

I didn't purchase prints from Kodak Gallery for 6 months, so they deleted my pictures. I had them backed up elsewhere of course, but I would argue that Kodak Gallery is the antithesis of archival storage.

 

[Roma]

Great stuff

Great stuff

Yes, I also love holding the evidence that light passed through film!

On Tri-X please!