Digital Dark Ages have Arrived

I really think it boils down to that one line in Joni Mitchell's "Big Yellow Taxi:" you don't know what you've got till it's gone.

If they really had been conscious of the value of those images, they might've found a way to get those images out of the camera, even if that simply meant removing the card and putting it in at least a marginally safer place.

It's not about the medium here; it's about mindfulness, and that's too often in short supply, in a world where images, and the things that make them, are seemingly in endless supply.


- Barrett
 
amateriat said:
I really think it boils down to that one line in Joni Mitchell's "Big Yellow Taxi:" you don't know what you've got till it's gone.

If they really had been conscious of the value of those images, they might've found a way to get those images out of the camera, even if that simply meant removing the card and putting it in at least a marginally safer place.

It's not about the medium here; it's about mindfulness, and that's too often in short supply, in a world where images, and the things that make them, are seemingly in endless supply.


- Barrett
Click to expand...
That seems to sum it up. With more images at stake you need to take more care . I often shoot more film than I do digital because I am not good at the back up procedures that digital requires and have lost stuff as a result. But as Mr Mattocks has correctly pointed out in previous threads that is my fault . I cannot blame it on digital.
In fact I seem to be able to enjoy both film and digital and equally .
 
jky said:
There's notbody to blame. Not everyone is familiar with the need to download and backup, storage protocols and raid arrays...
Click to expand...

Bulls**t. I'm 32. I remember being told to "save often" since at least second grade. If these people are young enough to have a young child, they're young enough to have been in school when computers were first introduced. I remember being told to save as often as I was told to have neater handwriting. I learned to save off frequently before I learned CURSIVE.

"Storage protocols and raid arrays" is a extreme exaggeration. All it takes is burning a CD. Hell, all it really takes is buying a new memory card every few hundred pictures. Memory cards are so cheap these days that, counting the cost of processing film, it's economical to buy lots and lots of them as you keep shooting.

If it's important enough to keep, it's important enough to back up. If you can't get that through your thick skull in 200-flippin-9, then you frankly deserve what you get.
 
All but a few seconds of the D-Day landing footage went in the drink, it was all in one bag. I think there's an old saying about this...


Oh and BTW, Flim forever!
 
russianRF said:
Bulls**t. I'm 32. I remember being told to "save often" since at least second grade. If these people are young enough to have a young child, they're young enough to have been in school when computers were first introduced. I remember being told to save as often as I was told to have neater handwriting. I learned to save off frequently before I learned CURSIVE.

"Storage protocols and raid arrays" is a extreme exaggeration. All it takes is burning a CD. Hell, all it really takes is buying a new memory card every few hundred pictures. Memory cards are so cheap these days that, counting the cost of processing film, it's economical to buy lots and lots of them as you keep shooting.

If it's important enough to keep, it's important enough to back up. If you can't get that through your thick skull in 200-flippin-9, then you frankly deserve what you get.
Click to expand...

...absolutely right it's 2009... and there are still people around who, at our tender age of 32, don't own a computer....
...hard to believe?
 
Melvin said:
All but a few seconds of the D-Day landing footage went in the drink, it was all in one bag. I think there's an old saying about this...


Oh and BTW, Flim forever!
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the Capa negs, which you might not be, I believe the story goes that they were almost destroyed in one of Life magazines English affiliates offices due to the film drier temp being a bit too high (or in too long) thus making the emulsion run. Only about 13 (give or take) images survived total destruction.

Aren't I nit picky today? Sorry...
 
jky said:
...absolutely right it's 2009... and there are still people around who, at our tender age of 32, don't own a computer....
...hard to believe?
Click to expand...

They own a digital camera but not a computer?

Yes, that IS hard to believe.

Edit: The couple DID have a computer. According to the article:
Staying in Edmonton meant the couple didn't have a computer for storing the photos.
Click to expand...

So, they have a computer (at home), have likely been exposed to the importance of backing up since grade school, and -- in spite of the value of the pictures -- made no attempts to back them up at an internet cafe, a friend's laptop, etc. Nor did they buy extra memory cards to minimize the loss should something exactly like this happen.

Why are you defending them again?

More to the original point of the thread; if they weren't prepared to backup the data, as their computer was at home, they likely would have lost the bag full of undeveloped rolls of film had they been shooting film, as they probably would have waited until they got home to develop the film. Maybe not? Well, getting digital prints "in about an hour" is just as easy as getting film ones...
 
Last edited:
russianRF said:
They own a digital camera but not a computer?

Yes, that IS hard to believe.

Edit: The couple DID have a computer. According to the article:


So, they have a computer (at home), have likely been exposed to the importance of backing up since grade school, and -- in spite of the value of the pictures -- made no attempts to back them up at an internet cafe, a friend's laptop, etc. Nor did they buy extra memory cards to minimize the loss should something exactly like this happen.

Why are you defending them again?

More to the original point of the thread; if they weren't prepared to backup the data, as their computer was at home, they likely would have lost the bag full of undeveloped rolls of film had they been shooting film, as they probably would have waited until they got home to develop the film. Maybe not? Well, getting digital prints "in about an hour" is just as easy as getting film ones...
Click to expand...

What I meant was that in this day and age, there are still people that are technologically inept.
And no, I'm not defending anybody. I have absolutely no idea why they didn't download their photos.
Btw, chill there buddy...
 
There seems to be a perception of a worldwide tussle between film and digital here at RFF (well some quarters) ... really! To my mind the tussle was over years ago and the winner was .........

......... but the fighting in the ranks goes on! 😛
 
jky said:
What I meant was that in this day and age, there are still people that are technologically inept.
And no, I'm not defending anybody. I have absolutely no idea why they didn't download their photos.
Btw, chill there buddy...
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

If anything, I apologize for contributing to a thread that tangentally touches on a worthless debate (film vs. digital).
 
It's folly to think any of our images will last forever, or that anyone will want to see them again.

Keith said:
There seems to be a perception of a worldwide tussle between film and digital here at RFF (well some quarters) ... really! To my mind the tussle was over years ago and the winner was .........

......... but the fighting in the ranks goes on! 😛
Click to expand...
People should know when they're conquered. 😛
 
Morca007 said:
It's folly to think any of our images will last forever, or that anyone will want to see them again.

People should know when they're conquered. 😛
Click to expand...
Well, heck, it's folly to think that anything lasts forever...

(Okay...at least I didn't bring this up on a Friday night...)


- Barrett
 
The film era was constantly filled with stories of lost or damaged film. Once I was loading film from a boxing match when a naive co-worker stepping in and switched on the lights to see if I was there.

The couple in the story is young and had taken a digital camera on a short notice trip for emergency care for their infant son. The couple's priority was their child, not archiving. Then grandma came to visit with the 3-year-old, and they got distracted at the mall (stories of 3-year-olds distracting their parents pre-date the digital-film debate).

In the film world, this would be equivalent to losing a camera bag that includes all the undeveloped rolls during the end of an important shoot. And I've done plenty off assignments where you're pretty much traveling with a backpack and camera bag, and it's completely possible to lose one or both.
 
Last edited:
benlees said:
If you are referring to the Capa negs, which you might not be, I believe the story goes that they were almost destroyed in one of Life magazines English affiliates offices due to the film drier temp being a bit too high (or in too long) thus making the emulsion run. Only about 13 (give or take) images survived total destruction.

Aren't I nit picky today? Sorry...
Click to expand...

No, I was referring to movie footage. It's in the documentary "Shooting War", about WWII cameramen. They filmed the whole landing, but all you ever see are those few seconds, which, granted, convey the misery of the situation pretty effectively.
 
The more I think about it, the more I realize that the title/first-post of the thread are no better than trolling. It's not just being a little sensational or exaggerating a bit to spark lively conversation; rather it's grossly distorting and misinterpreting something to spark a classic (and over-fought) debate. We couldn't have been more riled up if it had been an actual troll.

I, for one, am ashamed at my contribution to the arguing.
 
russianRF said:
The more I think about it, the more I realize that the title/first-post of the thread are no better than trolling. It's not just being a little sensational or exaggerating a bit to spark lively conversation; rather it's grossly distorting and misinterpreting something to spark a classic (and over-fought) debate. We couldn't have been more riled up if it had been an actual troll.

I, for one, am ashamed at my contribution to the arguing.
Click to expand...


I agree totally ... I think the title of this thread instantly labled it as a potential war zone. Perhaps trolling is a little harsh in describing it but it was far more provocative than necessary IMO.
 
Gradskater said:
My wife woke me up this morning with "do you know how many pictures you developed last week? how much does that cost!?"

I showed her this story a little later, and made the point that I don't accumulate 100's of valuable pictures on an easy to lose camera, and she actually said "well, I guess its good you use film so they don't stay on the camera forever".
Click to expand...

You sure snookered her! 😀

/T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom