Bleak Outlook for Film? Yet Another Prognostication

Not long ago one of the first-world governments was still backing up digital images on film. I don't know if htat is still so or not.
 
Harry Lime said:
I see the point of economies of scale and the effect on quality control.

But...

- Even by industry standards the quality control at Kodak was legendary. They were and still are run by a bunch of idiots, but the people actually making the sausage are brilliant.

- Ilford is much smaller than Kodak or Fuji and their QC is top notch.

- Adox was even smaller than Ilford and while their QC was not as good, it wasn't a total disaster either. My guess is that the QC at a firm like Adox was no worse than the average company in the 1930's - 1950's (Kodak excluded).
...
Click to expand...

As to QC (quality control):
It is really nice for a company to have proper QC in place and this should be the norm but ultimately the consumer has to decide if the value for money ratio is sufficient.
How much money am I willing to pay for what level of quality?
If a company builds a reputation over years for excellent quality it will stay in business if the margin is sufficient for them. On the other hand a company delivering a crappy or inconsistent product will not survive in the market in the first place unless there are still enough consumer accepting crap.

Going back to film survival:
I guess that those people still shooting film a generation from now, will have a specific reason and will demand a proper quality for all the inconvenience.
Therefore my guess is, only film manufacturers who are passionate about their product and their clientele will survive to that point of time and beyond.
 
Harry Lime said:
Kodak claims a 300 year lifespan for Estar based negatives. It's polyester based, so that's pretty believable.

Traditional black and white negatives should last a very, very long time. I don't think that 300 years is so far fetched.

Color negative is more unstable. The different layers shrink at different rates and the dyes are unstable. Some color slides won't last more than 20 years.

Kodachrome was the most stable of color films. Kodak predicted at least 100 years stability, if stored in the dark.

The most stable color process probably was 3 strip Technicolor, as it was captured on three strips of black and white film (filtered for red, green, blue), which is a lot more stable than color negative. The projected print is actually the result of a printing process utilizing the three matrix, not chemical voodoo.


Worldwide national archives use microfilm stored in stainless steel containers in climate controlled environments (salt mines etc). to ensure the long term preservation of their most important documents (hundreds of years).

Digital media (the best of which is DLT tape and maybe the new M-DISC), is dependent on constant migration.
Click to expand...

I've just learned something new, thank you. I'd always heard of film emulsions lasting a hundred years or so depending on storage but never of such extended life...and here's me looking at getting back into film. Excellent.:D

Photo_Smith said:
We have images in our archive that are over 100 years old, some are colour too.
Archivist's don't work using 'luck' they use tested materials, like Harry mentioned above some of the Kodak B&W are estimated to last over 300 years, some of the materials in our archive are supposed to be rated at 1000 years (obviously estimated) like FICA:
81764689.jpg


So I'd say pretty much the opposite of what you say is true, no medium is going to survive by luck, planning and proper archival treatment can and will ensure valuable images will outlive us and last many more years.
Click to expand...

My point regarding luck was made in a far more general manner, encompassing those points made since about people keeping or trashing what's been left behind, whether boxes of negatives are 'discovered' or stuffed in a damp attic etc. Also, including those artifacts, be they clay pipes, papyrus scrolls left in a cave or film, that have yet to be recognised as such or even discovered. I have no doubt that archivists have the skills, techniques and very high minimum standards to ensure maximising the life of a great many different materials that have been discovered, recognised and deigned worthy of keeping.

Admittedly, I should (as always) be a little more concise. Although as Harry has kindly informed me, only very gently, I was wrong anyway;)

If I'm lucky enough to keep living, I'll keep learning:D
 
In whatever media, you have to take care if you want your photos, recordings, or whatever to last.

For film, you have to safely store your negatives. Some of my Kodachromes got mould at one point. Family kept B&W negatives rolled up tightly; now cannot flatten to scan. It takes care. Just finding a negative... A catalog or index or a good storage scheme is a must.

With digital, so far, storage has been progressing fast enough I can keep all my work on a hard disk and transfer it every two years to the next larger generation of storage. Things on a floppy, CD, DVD, eight-track, or even a USB device will rot quickly. We are exposed to file-format changes. Try to read a Photo-CD today (you can, but most software won't). What will read your Lightroom, Aperture, or iPhoto catalog in 20 years? If serious, you'll keep precious images in multiple file formats (jpg, tiff, as well as the original RAW with sidecar files).
 
Gumby said:
Not long ago one of the first-world governments was still backing up digital images on film. I don't know if htat is still so or not.
Click to expand...

Microfilming account data still is a massive growth business - banks as well as registry offices, tax authorities and many other boards have to be able to prove each transaction (and implicitly, change of ownership) for decades, sometimes even centuries, Nowadays, they go directly from computer to film and skip the paper hardcopy - but their entire archives still are microfilmed, as that still is the only human readable storage that meets their longevity criteria at reasonable cost and storage space requirements.
 
Film ? Digital ? Photography ?

Film ? Digital ? Photography ?

Film AND digital still photography will survive, but both only as an art form.

Still photography will be superseded by a world predominately movie orientated.

Each younger generation becomes more and more enamoured of things that move - preferably constantly. Their attention span for a still picture is about 2 seconds - max. So you can spend a year on some cool idea, fuss about your films, your lighting and exposures, and then stand back and watch as everyone parades past your pictures in 2 minutes. Or alternately scans your stuff on the Internet in even less time, on the way to a cool film on Youtube :bang:

Hell, none of my friends under 18 even read a book anymore; it is too boring for them, too slow.

The problem runs deeper than any discussion about film or digital.
But I think we are safe in our niche for the next 20 years or so.

And since everything is a spiral, maybe some young'uns will rediscover the fun of film once again down the road...
 
Indeed - film is long gone in the 3rd world, which is ALL digital now.
Click to expand...

Yes and I was so very wrong about it. Just a few years ago the majority of amateur photos worldwide were being taken with disposable one-time use film cameras. I thought that would continue for a long time because digital cameras: a) cost a lot in third-world income terms, and b) required even more expensive personal computer infrastructure. What I didn't count on was the global rise of the mobile phone across all social classes. There are villages in India and other countries with 3/4G smartphone service but no running water. Human priorities have been radically altered by mobile technology...and digital image capture just went along for the ride.
 
I have this friend who is anal retentive about everything being archival. When we do our B&H orders he goes on non stop about inkjet ink, papers, sleeves, binders, such and such must meet some achival standard so they don't yellow or fade in 99 years. I got fed up and asked him to show me one photo he took that is worthy of being kept around for 99 days let alone 99 years. That shut him up :)
 
Pioneer said:
...
'Robinson Crusoe', which was originally printed a little less then 300 years ago, is still read today by many people, not because we still share the original books, but because several someones over the years thought it was worth preserving and reprinted it time and time again.

The same will be required of photographs. And it won't matter whether they are digital or analogue photographs. Unless you are supremely lucky (ie; your print, inkjet or otherwise, lies wrapped and undisturbed in a dark, dry, cool location), it will have to be re-printed by many people, many times, over the next 300 years in order for it to survive in any meaningful way.

In my humble opinion, there is very little difference between saving/renewing, or reprinting, a digital image several times over the next 300 years to preserve it, than there is in resaving/renewing, or reprinting an analogue image several times over the next 300 years in order to preserve it. Either way actions must be taken to preserve it.
...
Click to expand...
You would also be fine, if the original of the Mona Lisa is gone and you have only a copy to look at?
 
Rayt said:
Is the one at the Louvre right now the original? Who knows?
Click to expand...
Most likely the curator... :p

Edit:
Logically the content is the most important thing in a picture.
But if the original is gone other information is lost, e.g. how was it done, later changes, between steps... not interesting for everyone, but for some...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom