Too bad they don't all speak the same one
That's the fun part of it. Pick up the Instruction set manual, read it, start programming in a new dialect. If only i could pick up a foreign language dictionary and learn the language in the same fashion. They just are not as concise and logical as assembly.
dshfoto
Well-known
Anybody remember what a "Morrow Computer" was? Anybody remember what OS it used? (Hint CPM)
The camera manufacturers are not thinking about the issue of archival photographs when they design cameras. They just keep adding "features" to get your bucks. They get more bucks by making older versions of the camera obsolete.
Best example was when my wife bought a new I-touch from Apple on Friday -- The first day they came out. (She already had the old version, so this was just an "upgrade".) She took it home, plugged it into her laptop, because that was the only way to initialize it. The message on the screen -- upgrade the OS if you please. Another $190 buck to Apple to solve that problem. The quick upgrade install did not work. I had to wipe out all of the hard disk, and reinstall a new OS. Who knows where all the Photoshop, and hundreds of dollars worth of other Adobe programs went, or if I will ever get them all working on that laptop again. The music files trashed, photo files trashed, all the document files trashed.
Thanks to my Linux home server system, I will not loose data. However, I now suspect that I am on an upgrade path for Photoshop and all of the other Adobe software, if I want it to work on that computer.
My conclusion over the last couple of years (if you are a "serious" photographer) -- shoot film as long as they continue to make it, and scan the negatives with the best scanner you can afford. Put money into a scanner, not new cameras every 1-1/2 to 2 years.
The camera manufacturers are not thinking about the issue of archival photographs when they design cameras. They just keep adding "features" to get your bucks. They get more bucks by making older versions of the camera obsolete.
Best example was when my wife bought a new I-touch from Apple on Friday -- The first day they came out. (She already had the old version, so this was just an "upgrade".) She took it home, plugged it into her laptop, because that was the only way to initialize it. The message on the screen -- upgrade the OS if you please. Another $190 buck to Apple to solve that problem. The quick upgrade install did not work. I had to wipe out all of the hard disk, and reinstall a new OS. Who knows where all the Photoshop, and hundreds of dollars worth of other Adobe programs went, or if I will ever get them all working on that laptop again. The music files trashed, photo files trashed, all the document files trashed.
Thanks to my Linux home server system, I will not loose data. However, I now suspect that I am on an upgrade path for Photoshop and all of the other Adobe software, if I want it to work on that computer.
My conclusion over the last couple of years (if you are a "serious" photographer) -- shoot film as long as they continue to make it, and scan the negatives with the best scanner you can afford. Put money into a scanner, not new cameras every 1-1/2 to 2 years.
Sparrow
Veteran
well I think my negs will last longest ... if only for the fact that when I'm dead and gone it will take the kids ages to drag all those boxes of to the tip ... the digital files just need dragging across the desktop to the trash-can
sig
Well-known
Camera manufactures have never been thinking about archival of photos when they design cameras, and they do not have to film manufactures and digital storage manufactures can do that.
If you are serious about keeping your photographs you archive them properly.... it does not matter if it is film or digital files (my conclusion).
If you are serious about keeping your photographs you archive them properly.... it does not matter if it is film or digital files (my conclusion).
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^------ What sig said. One of the reasons I like the film-to-scan workflow is that I get both types of archive.
wgerrard
Veteran
In any case, dshfoto, your wife's old iPod still works just like it always did. I don't call that obsolete. I would call it obsolete if/when Apple changes the way apps are developed so new ones won't work on it and stops providing OS updates for it.
I have a faint memory of Morrow computers. CP/M computers vanished because the software, as it existed 30 or more years ago, wasn't keeping up with advancements in hardware capabilities. DOS, in many ways a CP/M derivative, caught that ride. No incentive existed to continue CP/M development. So the OS is well and truly obsolete, but the machines will still work.
I have a faint memory of Morrow computers. CP/M computers vanished because the software, as it existed 30 or more years ago, wasn't keeping up with advancements in hardware capabilities. DOS, in many ways a CP/M derivative, caught that ride. No incentive existed to continue CP/M development. So the OS is well and truly obsolete, but the machines will still work.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Uh. How I hate such language elements, but Fortran is a quite efficient computer language.
At the university I "ported" an old Fortran program to a nice new c++ object oriented program with a windows gui (one of the first Microsoft windows versions). Porting here means finding and extracting the essential calculation logic and programming the rest new. I hated Fortran after that.
ndnik
Established
While this subject is relevant and the discussion interesting and informative, I find myself making the decision to shoot film (or digital) on a purely aesthetic basis every time. Every other consideration is secondary. I'll deal with the problems of either technology down the road. But first, I want my image the way I want and like it.
Nice thing about FORTRAN- it produces synchronous code. I use it mostly for embedded applications, and have to do a lot of low-level debugging. There is a fairly direct relationship between FORTRAN source and the machine code that gets generated.Makes it easy to look at a raw disassembly and finding errors. I just cannot deal with C++ in an embedded environment. I've seen it used, but some of the constructs can get you into trouble.
with this thread- I mistook the OP as wanting assistance with opening files from an old Digital camera. That is something that I, and a lot of other people know how to do. I simply do not worry about being able to open a Digital image file 25 years from now, if I'm still alive. No matter what format it is in, if documentation for the format exists then I will be able to open it. If documentation does not exist, figuring it out will be a little more difficult, but will not be the first time.
This is more of a digital vs film rant thread. I use both, and have for a very long time. I understand both, and am comfortable with both. I do not understand why so many people object to one or the other. If people just want to rant about one or the other, we have a forum for that.
with this thread- I mistook the OP as wanting assistance with opening files from an old Digital camera. That is something that I, and a lot of other people know how to do. I simply do not worry about being able to open a Digital image file 25 years from now, if I'm still alive. No matter what format it is in, if documentation for the format exists then I will be able to open it. If documentation does not exist, figuring it out will be a little more difficult, but will not be the first time.
This is more of a digital vs film rant thread. I use both, and have for a very long time. I understand both, and am comfortable with both. I do not understand why so many people object to one or the other. If people just want to rant about one or the other, we have a forum for that.
Last edited:
PKR
Veteran
This is more of a digital vs film rant thread. I use both, and have for a very long time. I understand both, and am comfortable with both. I do not understand why so many people object to one or the other. If people just want to rant about one or the other, we have a forum for that.[/quote]
I too am at a loss over this argument.. It's like taking someone to task over their like of hiking over cycling, ice cream over sorbet, Fortran over Colbol.. Why does anyone care if or how I make my photographs?
I too am at a loss over this argument.. It's like taking someone to task over their like of hiking over cycling, ice cream over sorbet, Fortran over Colbol.. Why does anyone care if or how I make my photographs?
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I think the OP has a point and the 'work arounds' suggested are possible but I'll go to the example of the youtube video from Fred a couple of days back regarding $20 Vivitar film cameras. People by and large are not capable of doing the conversions suggested (in a deprecating manner by some here) and have no interest in doing so. I use both and I know there are looming problems which neither camp can totally resolve in a satisfactory fashion for everyday users.
______________________
Here's a few links to some interesting reading on the very topic of photograpy and other archiving issues by the Library of Congress, and several other notable organiztions, apparently they know something needs to be done. The government links are factual but very dry, the last link to Tau Zero is an interesting read. Enjoy.
Library of Congress:
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/you/content/photos.html
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/
http://www.digitizationguidelines.gov/
US Workshop on Roadmap for Digital Preservation Interoperability Framework
http://ddp.nist.gov/workshop/home.php
National Archives: Electronic Records Archives
http://www.archives.gov/era/about/faqs.html#era
Tau Zero Foundation: Burying the Digital Genome
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=12575
______________________
Here's a few links to some interesting reading on the very topic of photograpy and other archiving issues by the Library of Congress, and several other notable organiztions, apparently they know something needs to be done. The government links are factual but very dry, the last link to Tau Zero is an interesting read. Enjoy.
Library of Congress:
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/you/content/photos.html
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/
http://www.digitizationguidelines.gov/
US Workshop on Roadmap for Digital Preservation Interoperability Framework
http://ddp.nist.gov/workshop/home.php
National Archives: Electronic Records Archives
http://www.archives.gov/era/about/faqs.html#era
Tau Zero Foundation: Burying the Digital Genome
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=12575
user237428934
User deletion pending
Of course people have interest in doing so. Most people are not good in scanning so they let the conversion from film to digital file do a specialist and pay for that. There are specialists for converting video cassettes to digital. All this exists because there is a demand. If there is an increasing demand there will be someone offering that service for digital conversion.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Brian,
'Data' that are not 'important' today -- not important enough to be shifted from one medium to another -- may be extremely important in 100 years or more. The beauty of plates is that even when they became obsolete, the information didn't need to be transferred to film...
Cheers,
R.
Roger,
I suspect that more plates, prints, negatives, and slides are in landfills than stored in closets, attics, and basements. That is the sad truth, learned going through thrift stores and seeing peoples life-time collections of Kodachrome being offered in the trays. The slides probably get dumped by someone wanting the trays. Too bad, too sad, too true.
At least with images uploaded to FLICKR and other on-site places, SOMEONE could be archiving them. Maybe someone will archive as many digital images as film based images will be available in 100 years.
I've used a lot of computers over the last 30 years, have written a lot of code. I still have most of it. Some was lost when a mainframe was decommisioned, some I kept. I have the Digital images made on my time, a lot of early digital images made 30 years ago were dumped at work when projects ended. In 100 years- maybe a Museum trying to show evolution of Digital would have wanted some of them. The Smithsonian has some early ones, one that my wife worked on. It was cool to show it to our daughter and tell her, "Mommy worked on that".
I suspect that more plates, prints, negatives, and slides are in landfills than stored in closets, attics, and basements. That is the sad truth, learned going through thrift stores and seeing peoples life-time collections of Kodachrome being offered in the trays. The slides probably get dumped by someone wanting the trays. Too bad, too sad, too true.
At least with images uploaded to FLICKR and other on-site places, SOMEONE could be archiving them. Maybe someone will archive as many digital images as film based images will be available in 100 years.
I've used a lot of computers over the last 30 years, have written a lot of code. I still have most of it. Some was lost when a mainframe was decommisioned, some I kept. I have the Digital images made on my time, a lot of early digital images made 30 years ago were dumped at work when projects ended. In 100 years- maybe a Museum trying to show evolution of Digital would have wanted some of them. The Smithsonian has some early ones, one that my wife worked on. It was cool to show it to our daughter and tell her, "Mommy worked on that".
MRohlfing
Well-known
Digital Negative (DNG)
Digital Negative (DNG)
Anyone archiving fotos as DNG?
As I take pictures in RAW format, I feel the need of archiving some kind of RAW. The concept of DNG as an open format looks promising.
The color of a DNG might fade slower than the color of other proprietary RAW formats
Digital Negative (DNG)
Anyone archiving fotos as DNG?
As I take pictures in RAW format, I feel the need of archiving some kind of RAW. The concept of DNG as an open format looks promising.
The color of a DNG might fade slower than the color of other proprietary RAW formats
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Anyone archiving fotos as DNG?
As I take pictures in RAW format, I feel the need of archiving some kind of RAW. The concept of DNG as an open format looks promising.
The color of a DNG might fade slower than the color of other proprietary RAW formats
I've noticed since switching from Leica to Nikon the different behaviour of the NEF files compared to DNG. The NEF's are far less affected by the humidity here in Brisbane!
kuzano
Veteran
CPM... the real story.....
CPM... the real story.....
CPM was a leading OS software. It was the leader in the race to be the OS system for IBM. When the IBM people showed up for a meeting, Gary Kildall (CPM) was not there. The rumor that he went flying instead and missed the meeting became popular and is better explained on this Web Site:
http://www.freeenterpriseland.com/BOOK/KILDALL.html
IBM ended up dealing with Bill Gates instead, which has it's own set of mythical tales, the best of which is that when Gates took the deposit (front money) for DOS, he did not own DOS. Shortly after putting the money in the bank, he did own DOS, buying it from the actual author, which he did do some development work with. Again most of these stories and truths can be documented in diligent searches on the internet.
Gary Kildall did go on to make major dollars with his company, Digital Research. In fact, he wrote and marketed a shell program which made PC-DOS (IBM), run much better. It was called DR-DOS and many old timers in computers know it well.
I make these points for a reason related to this post and thread. It is these types of common classic F-ups throughout the computer software world that reinforce conclusions that archiving of file formats and software compatibility will ever give us a reliable system of image migration to future systems.
Discussions of RAW are compounded by the proprietary nature of individuals to protect their intellectuall property by making it different from the competition AND hard to engineer to a compatible state.
Digital images will NEVER achieve the reliabilty or archival length of film.
But as has been aptly pointed out in posts on this thread. It is only ego and arrogance that make this an issue, and it is not important.
Other posters can argue religiously about the ease with which one can find solutions to file conversions. Really NOW, file conversions alone are a minimal part of the discussion. Media changes, file corruption growing out of migrations, hardware changes, etc are all part of the issue.
Simple file conversion, which some conclude is easy, is of little or no interest to 90% of the people using these digital capture devices, if even close at that figure. The presumption that any significant number of digital camera users want to learn and use all these solutions is preposterous.
CPM... the real story.....
CPM was a leading OS software. It was the leader in the race to be the OS system for IBM. When the IBM people showed up for a meeting, Gary Kildall (CPM) was not there. The rumor that he went flying instead and missed the meeting became popular and is better explained on this Web Site:
http://www.freeenterpriseland.com/BOOK/KILDALL.html
IBM ended up dealing with Bill Gates instead, which has it's own set of mythical tales, the best of which is that when Gates took the deposit (front money) for DOS, he did not own DOS. Shortly after putting the money in the bank, he did own DOS, buying it from the actual author, which he did do some development work with. Again most of these stories and truths can be documented in diligent searches on the internet.
Gary Kildall did go on to make major dollars with his company, Digital Research. In fact, he wrote and marketed a shell program which made PC-DOS (IBM), run much better. It was called DR-DOS and many old timers in computers know it well.
I make these points for a reason related to this post and thread. It is these types of common classic F-ups throughout the computer software world that reinforce conclusions that archiving of file formats and software compatibility will ever give us a reliable system of image migration to future systems.
Discussions of RAW are compounded by the proprietary nature of individuals to protect their intellectuall property by making it different from the competition AND hard to engineer to a compatible state.
Digital images will NEVER achieve the reliabilty or archival length of film.
But as has been aptly pointed out in posts on this thread. It is only ego and arrogance that make this an issue, and it is not important.
Other posters can argue religiously about the ease with which one can find solutions to file conversions. Really NOW, file conversions alone are a minimal part of the discussion. Media changes, file corruption growing out of migrations, hardware changes, etc are all part of the issue.
Simple file conversion, which some conclude is easy, is of little or no interest to 90% of the people using these digital capture devices, if even close at that figure. The presumption that any significant number of digital camera users want to learn and use all these solutions is preposterous.
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
I have to admit I find it difficult to make a connection between Gary Kildall's seeming lack of business acumen and the software engineering issues surrounding digital archiving.
The problem of digital archiving will be resolved. Files won't last forever, but then neither do paper products like photos. Libraries spend small fortunes preserving ancient books and manuscripts under controlled conditions. Something analogous will happen with digital. Right now, I'd wager that the JPEG format will be alive and well 100 years from now.
DR-DOS was a clone of PC/MS-DOS. It was marketed with a kludgy graphical interface called GEM. I believe some ATARI machines used it, as well. GEM wasn't really very good at all. Since DR-DOS did what PC/MS-DOS did, consumers had little reason to buy it. Later versions also featured a kludgy task-switching routine.
PKR
Veteran
Interesting comment on storage Brian.. My long time printer and close friend and his sister created a web page honoring their mother. I think she had been gone for about 5 years when this was done. Millie, a Mathematician, ran the wind tunnel at Hughes Aircraft for many years. Her kids, were able to get photos of the wings & finished planes and the signed blueprints (Millie's signature) of all the aircraft she "signed-off on". It was a great tribute to her. Many of the planes were WWII vintage. I think she retired in the late 80s. All the imagery was at Hughes and permission was given for the page. It was really cool!
Last edited:
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Like I told the young lady returning a few items at Freestyle today..."Film is the Future"...
BTW...I hope you made it home all right and traffic didn't get too bad...
BTW...I hope you made it home all right and traffic didn't get too bad...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.