Film or digital

[Trius]

Andy: If you read upstream, I am sticking with film, too, for a variety of reasons. Long term storage is one of them, though I didn't mention.

What I meant was, your questions such as "how many 60-year-old digital files have you printed?" were nonsense, since there are no files that old; same applies to prints.

I think you understand.

The original post by Jorge was about telling the difference between a film image and a digital image, although obviously presented on the web, both are digital in their "final" presentation. I'm sure he knew we'd go off topic! 😉

Earl

 

[Socke]

ManGo, I forgot! They use dyes in colour film. The same dyes as used in the better DVD+-Rs and CD-Rs 🙂

"I see a red door and I want to paint it black.
No colours anymore the whole world turns to black."
M. Jagger

 

[Byuphoto]

Quote "The argument is very useful. The point is digital files, prints and technology are NOT tried, tested and proven. Yes there are 'lab' tests for longevity, but those are purely estimates, there is no actual proof of longevity or archivability.
What HAS been proved about digital technology is that it is inherently unreliable. If it was reliable there would be no such thing as a backup. If digital cameras were as good as film cameras there would be no such thing as Photoshop.
I looked at the price of the latest Hassy digital back. $27,000. For something that is still not as good as film, it might almost equal 35mm, but not yet. "

I bet the cave dwelling artist said the same thing when someone painted on an animal hide 😀

 

[Andy K]

Hey🙂

Glad to know your frame of reference Andy: Only darkroom printed black and white pictures are "proper photographs".

ManGo

You said that, not me.


It seems digital users and photoshoppers are very uncomfortable to see others still using a 100% analogue process. So they fall back on personal attacks and comments such as:

Don't mention colour photography, Andy's head might explode!

This was an intelligent discussion, now it is deterirorating into childish insults.

 

[Ukko Heikkinen]

Hey🙂

Don't mention colour photography, Andy's head might explode! 😀

ManGo

Absolutely nothing.

If you have not done it before, take a look at

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/4800.html

Pure carbon pigment inks are even better.

Ukko Heikkinen

 

[Andy K]

Absolutely nothing.

If you have not done it before, take a look at

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/4800.html

Pure carbon pigment inks are even better.

Ukko Heikkinen

Show me a 200 year old inkjet print and I'll believe those figures.

 

[Ukko Heikkinen]

Sorry, folks, I always seem to do something wrong.

My previous post was meant to be a reply to the question "What happoens".

Ukko Heikkinen

 

[Bertram2]

Hey🙂

Don't mention colour photography, Andy's head might explode! 😀

ManGo

Manolo, I think Socke could live with the idea that he is , seen from the puristic POV of some APUG members, a second class photog. If at all a photog ? 😕

@ socke: Dealing with colour photograpy in general for some is "bah-pfui!!" at APUG.
You've put something in your mouth which those guys refuse to touch with their hands, you see !? 😀 😀
Don't know tho if Andy belongs to this group of members.

bertram

 

[JohnL]

From a Canon photo ad with the headline:
"Here's a photo that will last.
ChromaLife 100 inks and genuine Canon photo paper, you end with...photos that can last a lifetime*."

Now the fine print...
(snip)

I'm aware of all that

'Master printer'? I make duplicates of my prints all the time in my darkroom. It is easy.

Maybe you are a master printer.
It's a long time since I made any prints in a darkroom, but I don't remember it being especially easy, to get good results. YMMV

'The original digital file'... IF it hasn't corrupted... IF you have bothered to back it up... IF it is on a currently supported media...

You have to care for digital arquives, same as negatives.

Even if a neg has deteriorated I can still get a print from it in the darkroom. But as yet I have not seen a deteriorated neg, and I have recently made some beautiful prints from negs my father shot nearly 60 years ago. How many 60 year old digital files have you printed?

Facetious question. However I have restored numerous old pictures both from deteriorated prints and deteriorated negatives (up to 95 years old). It's usually possible, but it can be a lot of work, and in some cases I'm very sure you couldn't get decent results by chemical processes.

If a digital file corrupts, that's it, it's gone forever.

Keep backups

There are traditional wet process prints, anything up to 160 years old possibly older, hanging in many museums and galleries all over the world. How many 160 year old inkjet prints are there?

Ask again in 150 years

Film and wet darkroom prints are tried, tested and proven.

True. And digital media is being tried and tested, and will eventually be proven.
Just to sum up, I'm not really arguing with you here. I just don't accept the out-of-hand dismissal of digital methods just because they haven't been lying around for 150 years or so. Those who work with digital media are (generally) aware of its risks and limitations, and know how to contain them.

 

[Andy K]

Hey🙂

No Andy you are wrong. I am not at all uncomfortable with the fact that you use a 100% analogue workflow. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Having been a professional B/W printer for the best part of 20 years, I can appreciate the quality and depth of a properly printed bromide print.

You, however, have a problem with people you derive pleasure from a digital/partially digital workflow. Only a wet printed photograph is "complete"? How patronizing. My exploding head comment might be a little peurile, but at least it was said in jest. Your snobbishness is what is truly insulting I am afraid.

MaNGo

And so you continue with your childish name calling.

Nowhere in this thread have I said those who use digital methods are 'not photographers'. All I have done is outline my own reasons for sticking wth analogue. In return what happens? You accuse me of 'snobbishness' and Bertram uses it as an excuse to attack APUG.
It is not me who is displaying the characteristics of insecurity.

 

[Andy K]

Hey🙂

Where, Andy, did I say you did?

ManGo

You said it here, the implication is clear:

Hey🙂

Glad to know your frame of reference Andy: Only darkroom printed black and white pictures are "proper photographs".

ManGo

 

[Bertram2]

Show me a 200 year old inkjet print and I'll believe those figures.

This tells me that around 2200 we first really KNOW if the carbon prints are as good as the silver prints. O.K. , but do you really mean that THIS is reason enuff to stay away from carbon ink-jet printing NOW ?

If there is something keeping me still away from ink jet printing it is the fact that I have to invest a LOT of money in a printer (replaced by a new model every 2 years) and a bulk system with expensive inks, needing expensive papers, and (worse) that it would be a loooong and painful learning curve to get this all under control.

That possibly (we don't know it yet) ) the kids of my kids cannot pass my photo to the kids of their kids is not a prob for me.

Bertram

 

[Socke]

I use colour too. But I see it as 'pretty pictures' and use it only for snapshots.

As I understand this statement, colour pictures are not propper photography.

 

[Andy K]

As I understand this statement, colour pictures are not propper photography.

If I thought colour photography was not 'proper photography', believe me Socke, I would say so, and there would be no ambiguity.

 

[Kin Lau]

What HAS been proved about digital technology is that it is inherently unreliable. If it was reliable there would be no such thing as a backup. If digital cameras were as good as film cameras there would be no such thing as Photoshop.

Nothing's proven. Backups exists first and foremost because of _US_. Human error is the main culprit... ask my client who deleted their database. People can/have thrown away important paper files, shredders still sell well too. What's one of the 1st things divorcees do to their wedding pictures? How many pieces of paper with something important written on it have we all lost? Chances are, we don't even remember that we've had and lost it.... electronic backups are sometimes used as a convenient way to point fingers.

As for film, as Socke already gave us a nice history lesson, nitrate based film was highly flammable, even explosive. There's "archival" for you... kaboom! My FP4+ negs still say "safety film", thank goodness for that. I'd hate to think this pile of negs sitting besides me is literally a time bomb.

As for film not having/needing backups... Robert Capa might have commented differently, his assistant certainly more so. All the movie film from the Normandy invasion was dunked in the ocean and lost. Movies studios were scambling for years to save rotting/decaying/crumbling movie film. Precious footage has been lost forever.

Nothing is immune to fire, flooding, theft and just plain ol' user error. My wife's family nearly threw away 90 year old glass negs from her grandfather. Analogue backups are at least 1 generation removed from the original, so it's never as good, and it's also a pain. That's why we don't bother unless it's very important, hence we use microfilm, photocopiers, digital archival systems for all those paper records.

Want to hazard a guess as to how many irreplaceable digital _and_ analogue records were lost in New Orleans?

Digital backups are so easy that we're stupid not to bother, so much so that it's become 2nd nature to just back it up "on the spot". We don't do it for film simply because it's impossible to make another exact copy immediately. That's why many take along a second backup body and shoot a second shot on a separate roll... there's the backup. In case film is lost/stolen, the lab screws up etc...yup, human error again.

Just because _we've_ changed our excuse from "sorry, we seem to have misplaced your account file" to "the computer seems to have lost your account info", doesn't change the truth. We've messed up, and it's very convenient to blame someone/something else. Since the "computer" doesn't have feelings, it's a convenient scapegoat. If _you_ scratch the film, lose it, destroy it etc, it's plain and simple... it's your fault. How come if you do the same thing to a computer file, it's the computers fault?

I'm not "in love" with digital or film... I'm in love with my wife. I have precious memories on both that I intend to keep, so I'm interested in the upkeep of both types of images.

 

[Socke]

If there is something keeping me still away from ink jet printing it is the fact that I have to invest a LOT of money in a printer (replaced by a new model every 2 years) and a bulk system with expensive inks, needing expensive papers, and (worse) that it would be a loooong and painful learning curve to get this all under control.
Bertram

Jep! I experimented with Lyson Quadtone inks in a converted Epson Photo 850 printer.
From my point of view with very good results, but the cost are prohibitive.
You can't use the printer for anything else and it took me two sets of ink to get the calibration right, even with the help of a very expensive Gretag Macbeths print calibrator used for offset presses.

Paper and Ink sum up to more than $5 for a 8x12 and then you have to add all the failed attempts until you get everything right.
And if you don't use it for a week or two, you have to flush $10 worth of ink to clean the nozzles.
No, that's not for me. I have a very professional lab some 10 miles away, they have masks up to 6x9 for their Fuji Frontier and can print pretty reasonable B/W on it. Not fibre based, but I said reasonable.

 

[RJBender]

Quote "The argument is very useful. The point is digital files, prints and technology are NOT tried, tested and proven. Yes there are 'lab' tests for longevity, but those are purely estimates, there is no actual proof of longevity or archivability.
What HAS been proved about digital technology is that it is inherently unreliable. If it was reliable there would be no such thing as a backup. If digital cameras were as good as film cameras there would be no such thing as Photoshop.
I looked at the price of the latest Hassy digital back. $27,000. For something that is still not as good as film, it might almost equal 35mm, but not yet. "

I bet the cave dwelling artist said the same thing when someone painted on an animal hide 😀

Back on topic. In post 107 of this thread, I said

90mm Elmar, Fuji Superia 400 with sharpening applied 2 or 3 times.

Yes or no? 😕

R.J.

 

[Andy K]

Nothing's proven. Backups exists first and foremost because of _US_. Human error is the main culprit... ask my client who deleted their database. People can/have thrown away important paper files, shredders still sell well too. What's one of the 1st things divorcees do to their wedding pictures? How many pieces of paper with something important written on it have we all lost? Chances are, we don't even remember that we've had and lost it.... electronic backups are sometimes used as a convenient way to point fingers.

As for film, as Socke already gave us a nice history lesson, nitrate based film was highly flammable, even explosive. There's "archival" for you... kaboom! My FP4+ negs still say "safety film", thank goodness for that. I'd hate to think this pile of negs sitting besides me is literally a time bomb.

As for film not having/needing backups... Robert Capa might have commented differently, his assistant certainly more so. All the movie film from the Normandy invasion was dunked in the ocean and lost. Movies studios were scambling for years to save rotting/decaying/crumbling movie film. Precious footage has been lost forever.

Nothing is immune to fire, flooding, theft and just plain ol' user error. My wife's family nearly threw away 90 year old glass negs from her grandfather. Analogue backups are at least 1 generation removed from the original, so it's never as good, and it's also a pain. That's why we don't bother unless it's very important, hence we use microfilm, photocopiers, digital archival systems for all those paper records.

Want to hazard a guess as to how many irreplaceable digital _and_ analogue records were lost in New Orleans?

Digital backups are so easy that we're stupid not to bother, so much so that it's become 2nd nature to just back it up "on the spot". We don't do it for film simply because it's impossible to make another exact copy immediately. That's why many take along a second backup body and shoot a second shot on a separate roll... there's the backup. In case film is lost/stolen, the lab screws up etc...yup, human error again.

Just because _we've_ changed our excuse from "sorry, we seem to have misplaced your account file" to "the computer seems to have lost your account info", doesn't change the truth. We've messed up, and it's very convenient to blame someone/something else. Since the "computer" doesn't have feelings, it's a convenient scapegoat. If _you_ scratch the film, lose it, destroy it etc, it's plain and simple... it's your fault. How come if you do the same thing to a computer file, it's the computers fault?

I'm not "in love" with digital or film... I'm in love with my wife. I have precious memories on both that I intend to keep, so I'm interested in the upkeep of both types of images.

I suggest you Google Mitchell and Kenyon.

So Manolo, because I express my preference for black and white, and state how I use colour you accuse me of something I have not said?

If I said i did not like Damien Hurst's Cow sculpture would you assume I was saying it was not proper sculpture?

You are deliberately twisting my words because you do not like my preferences. This place is starting to look and sound very much like Photo.net.

 

[fgianni]

Ok here is my workflow:

1) If shot with film I scan it immediately.
2) Then I have a database of images managed by Imach, every new picture is added to the database, the files themselves are kept on an external HD, so should my computer crash I don't have problems getting at the images.
3) as soon as the picture is in the database, and indexed, a directory containing all my images in yet another external HD is recursively syncronized (it takes only seconds) together with the database files (to back up the indexing as well)
4) Only at this point the image is deleted from the memory card.

The whole back-up process takes a couple of minutes

So as soon as I get back to my PC all my images are stored in two separate external drives. On top of that a set of DVDs with all the images is produced on a by-monthly basis and sent off site for storage (to my mother in law), so even a fire can't destroy all my pictures, can anyone say the same for negatives?

As soon as an external drive becomes too small, it is replaced by a bigger one (my guess is an HD upgrade every 2 years)

I can suffer a catastrophic failure of one external drive without losing any image (and a catastrophic failure is extremely unlikely since there are data-recovery companies that can recover 99% of the data from HD that have been trough a fire)
I can suffer a catastrophic failure of two HD (if someone wants to try and calculate the probablility of it be my guest, but it is going to be less than 1/1000000000) losing only 2 months of family memories at most.

Can your negatives go trough a fire and survive?

 

[RJBender]

Andy,

Back to the analogue darkroom argument. Please describe your darkroom and its ventilation system. Is it in a spare room, closet, bathroom etc? Do you have a fan installed?

R.J.