Does it concern you that you can not hold a digital image?

kshapero said:
I back up my digital data to a DVD. I store my BW negs in an air conditioned room. 40 years later I die. 50 more years past by. Someone finds my DVD and my negs. I am betting that the negs will be usable and the DVD won't.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought your original question was more metaphysical.

Yes, it irks me to no end that I have to worry about backups and backing up the backups.
 
Well I have a point of view that is irrefutable. First off though I must say that I actually use Carbonite for off site backup, plus I have an external Hard drive plus I do shoot digital. But I like the whole idea of film. Call me old fashion but to me it is the best.
 
I've made some good bucks from the sale of previously worthless images of previously unimportant people. It's the nature of the business. Pictures from early in their careers seem to be more valuable than those shot at their peaks of fame. That's as true for a senator as for a rock star.
 
You keep up to date with digital darkroom stuff and you don't have a problem. You can have a setup that automatically backs up your digital files to multiple offsite storage spaces, in which in the case of a fire or a flood or similar where a set of stored negs would be ruined, you still have backups of digital photos. RAW files will always be able to be converted, JPEGs will always be able to be viewed. A RAW file is a digital negative.

At the moment, I have an automated backup running every few hours of my whole computer onto an external HD, and I have aperture manage my photo library to 2 separate hard drives in different rooms, one for weekly backups and one for monthly backups on a more expensive hard drive. Aperture uses a thing called a "vault" to do this, so even if your whole library is corrupted or if your computer stuffs up, I can always restore my entire photo library very easily. If something goes wrong I'm basically set.

It sounds complex but I find it much easier to pull off than filing negatives - I hate filing. I love DAM (digital asset management) though. Get used to it, it's literally the way of the future.
 
Glad to know we're good....

Glad to know we're good....

bmattock said:
I suspect we're agreeing. As I said, I wasn't entirely sure from the tenor of your post, but decided to simply deal with each point you made.
Click to expand...

Always a bit difficult to determine intent without facial and voice inflection... Wonders of The Internet.

Proper backups seem to mystify and frustrate people.
 
Not really, no.

The pros and cons of analog film versus digital data can be debated, but the actual point of not having something to hold in my hand that's "original" doesn't factor into being a positive on the film side for me. Unique originals can be lost or destroyed, so I can't see why it's any kind of profound argument in favor of the lasting power of film.

I've got plenty of more rational reasons to shoot film. I only bring out the melodramatic ones to be ironic.
 
kshapero said:
But I like the whole idea of film. Call me old fashion but to me it is the best.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion. When you post 'innocent' questions that are actually intended once again proclaim the goodness of film and the badness of digital, you prove the opposite.
 
pvdhaar said:
Most camera/photo places now have cheap printing stations. You insert a memory card, come back a couple of minutes later, and for a couple of dollars you get a stack of prints. Prints that because of the protective upper layer are even very resilient to scratching (unlike negs and slides).

And best of all, you don't have to bother with computers and printers yourself. It's not all that different from handing in a roll of film for developing and printing.
Click to expand...

It is a phenomena I have noticed recently - the digital printing kiosk at the local Walgreens is always busy - sometimes there are several people queued up waiting to use the two machines. It's clear to me that Walgreens did not anticipate that much demand, there's no place for them to stand or sit while waiting, and they block up the aisles standing around.

This means to me that digital printing is finally catching on - I didn't think much of the kiosk idea, but it appears I was wrong and it's working. Personally, I don't bother with taking a camera or memory card in to have prints made, I can upload them and then just go pick the prints up an hour later. Works a treat and is quite inexpensive.
 
bmattock said:
It is a phenomena I have noticed recently - the digital printing kiosk at the local Walgreens is always busy - sometimes there are several people queued up waiting to use the two machines. It's clear to me that Walgreens did not anticipate that much demand, there's no place for them to stand or sit while waiting, and they block up the aisles standing around.

This means to me that digital printing is finally catching on - I didn't think much of the kiosk idea, but it appears I was wrong and it's working. ...
Click to expand...

Basically, it's history repeating itself; "You press the button, we do the rest.."
 
Just take the red pill and you can touch all those 1's and 0's

morphesuspill.jpg
 
There is nothing right now like the book ..... I print the images that matter via one of the on line companies. I was just at a photo shoot, and even the guys showing their portfolios on the internet were simply amazed and this hand held old fashioned printed thing that they could thumb through. Until the digital paradigm reaches the notion of a very high bandwidth low latency random access model, the coffee table book will live. Technology will get there, but it's not there now.



Dave
 
One time we had 7-track mag tapes from a digital sensor that could not be read. I had the mag tape photographed, and found some error bits in the inter-record gap. The bits were toward the front of the IRG and caused the tape not to get up to speed. So, I just ran the tape to the end and read it in going backwards.

It does not bother me that I can't hold a digital photograph. It more bothers me when I cannot read one.
 
When I hold that mounted Kodachrome slide up to the light I know what I have in my hand was there with me when I exposed the film. I also know that it will be around a long time. You cannot hold the 1's and 0's in your hand that comprise a digital image.
 
Tuolumne said:
Nope, doesn't bother me at all. I can make a print and hold that in my hand, if I want something in the hand. There's nothing like a digital image viewed on a large, high res computer screen. Even beats projecting slides.

/T
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat. Film and paper are still very delicate media. If I wanted something more permanent, I'd take up sculpture.

Prints now have much more..."archivalness" now, any look at Wilhelm studies shows that.

We all hear the stories of CD/DVD failures. Well, here's my anecdotal example: I've got music CDs over 20 years old now, that still play and haven't been treated nicely.

I'm not as worried about digital formats. The code to read JPEGs for example is ubiquitous - it costs nothing to implement it in whatever viewer you have. So long as there's a need, there will be the ability.

What I do worry about is that people's lack of editing. Before, you stuck your best prints in an album. Now, you have hundreds of shots...which one do you print? They end up printing none and in most cases languish on their hard drive with their OS, their games, their viruses ;) and whatnot to die when they get their new machine.

I think we'll see this phase in history documented by the "professionals," so to speak. The ones who archived, printed, whatever. The snapshot era of the 20th century will be gone and the amateur account of the history will go with it. I don't like it because I think that most "pro" work is either agenda or entertainment, or consumption driven. There's so few accounts of everyday life, because it is just that...everyday. But 100, 200 years from now, all people will see is the sensationalist. I don't think that's a good thing.
 
The holding is not what concerns me, but perhaps in a way it does. I am concerned about compatability and accessablity. From one way my slides without a slide projector are not very accessable. Without an enlarger or a scanner I'm SOL too.

I go crazy on doing backups to multiple different media, looking into on-line as an option too. I'm just wondering what will happen 50 years from now when my sons are trying to show their grandchildren pictures that I took.

It kind of points towards the need to keep moving the image if I really care about it. The old 4x5 negatives perhaps should be scanned to TIFF or something.

I'm not concerned now, but I need to learn from the early copies of my resume's on 8" WANG Labs diskettes that are now, well lost.

B2 (;->
 
kshapero said:
With film I can actually hold the neg. The original film itself. Is there anything to actually hold with digital. A SD card? A Hard Drive? Are they the same as holding in one's hand a neg? Once you really think about it, are your images really all that "safe" with digital? I invite rebuttals, opinions and informative disagreements.
Click to expand...


holding a roll of unprocessed film is jut as un-exciting to me as holding a "card" of some sort. it's the images themselves be it a contact sheet, printer or computer screen that excite me.

- chris
 
I started to get bored so I didn't read through the whole thread.
My simple answer is yes, it does concern me that I can't hold a digital image. There is no logic in my answer, no debate about which is better.
As Devo says "I've got a gut feeling". I get an unquantifiable emotional reaction to holding my film and projecting my slides over viewing them on a monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom