How long does film have?

[Finder]

Well, maybe Kodacrome slides if stored correctly. But, Ektachrome and those like it are not very stable over time.

Nothing wrong with my 20+ year old Ektachromes. My parent's slides from the 60's on Agfa film stock have done great as well.

 

[Finder]

Dogman, how many of your kids great-grandkids, finding your stash of 10,000 35mm negatives, are going to start coating their own photograph paper and mixing their own chemicals, to print them. While doing so may be possible, it will simply be not practical to do so. More likely, if they are interested at all and don't just throw them in the trash, they will input them into some unimagined digital device and show them on a handheld digital device of the future.

Oddly enough, they may find it easier to digitatize the film images than try to recover image from very obsolete CD-ROMs. Just as I can do with 100 year old film, but I have a heck of a time getting anything from my 8 year-old 3.5" floppies.

 

[literiter]

jbf, the problem is that film faces the same archivability problem as digital. What's going to happen when you can't bypass the computer? When you can't buy photographic film, paper or chemicals? Sure, you may still have the negatives, but what are you going to do with them? Scan them and print them digitally? Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of your argument?

The technology to reproduce film negatives in a wet darkroom will become as obsolete as my Serial ATA hard drive will eventually.

I cannot believe I'm responding to this.

I know film will be archival, I've seen negatives that are at least 100 years old. Unfortunately I will not see if they last 200 years.

I know that no one knows, they only guess how long a digital file can exist. No one has the final proof of the existance of digital files in 100 years. There is only intelligent speculation.
I really don't care how the image is released from film, do it with a digital, whatever, in 100 years. You will still have something that is finally transformable.
Digital files may not exist because we did something wrong in the storage of those files now.

If you must have an archival image, use film, or wait 100 years and see how it goes for digital. Thats it!

 

[literiter]

Maybe that comes from working in a field where photos are disposible, where the paper they are printed in becomes fish wrap the next day.

As a PJ you are recording what happens around you, in our world today. I believe some of your images will perpetuate a understanding of what happens today. These images could be important. We learn from the past, never the future, someday perhaps, from your images. What you do must be important and not all "photos are disposable". Don't trust all your work to a flippin' disk.

 

[aad]

I guess the thing that keeps occuring to me is, so what if digital files or film are not archival? As a PJ, I've shot tens of thousands of photos over my so far 35 year professional career, and I just don't see the long term value of that.

Look at the photos David Allan Harvey has shot over his long career, for example. What has been published? A few hundred? How many will be rememberered? A few dozen?

In 50 years, if the human race survives, there will have been trillions of photos more taken. Where does that leave even my tens of thousands? I do gallery shows. I've sold prints. I've had thousands of photos published in newspapers. But who will care in 50 years? What real value will the negatives and slides or digital files I preserve have? Will they be worth the cost (time, money, energy) to preserve them?

I don't think, for the most part, people alive 50 years from now will give a flip about the photos we shot and posted on RFF, or showed in galleries, or sold as prints. I shoot photos because it's what I do. I can't think of anything else I'd rather do. But, I have no illusion that there will be any interest in those images in 50 years.

Maybe that comes from working in a field where photos are disposible, where the paper they are printed in becomes fish wrap the next day.

I understand your point of view, and appreciate that you, as a professional, have different needs and desires from your photography.

On the other hand, I post a fraction of what I take, and have only sold prints by accident. I cherish the pictures of my parents et al, and enjoy looking at a slide and realizing that this piece of film was altered by light reflected from my mother, a lost friend... you know.

I am encouraged by the surprisingly large number of younger people picking up film cameras because they're cool.

 

[rlightfoot]

sitemistic, you seem to have a very cynical view of the future generations and their interest in the past!

Speaking as a young person in this generation, I have a substantial interest in the creations of my ancestors, both in the near-history and the ancient. I would definitely not discard any artifact that I happened across, even if it didn't work with my iPod or my computer!

I really don't think there's ever going to be a time when people simply turn off to any kind of media that won't work in their digital equipment... There will always be archaeologists and people interested in the past, there'll be collectors and people who want to recreate the past, just as there are now and always have been...

Think of archery! Surely the bow was well and truly made redundant by the rise of the rifle hundreds of years ago? Yet I can still find plenty of companies making new ones, and there's actually been a lot of r&d leading to high-tec modern compound bows, made of carbon fiber and other composites, which need to be made by specialist factories. There's a large group of people who still enjoy archery, either as as a hobby or as a means to hunt (or both) ...

People simply do not abandon tools which have given them so much... even if those tools are superseded.

 

[Dogman]

Sitemistic--

The archival issue is not so important to me. My negatives will most likely end up in a landfill shortly after my demise anyway. But the idea of not having the technology in the future to make light sensitive material and produce images with it is just plain silly. As is the argument on practicality. Given the availability of nicely packaged sheets of film and photographic paper of consistent quality, it's already impractical to "roll your own" and yet people are doing it today. People are motivated to do things for many reasons other than practicality. If people only went with what was practical, life would be rather boring, don't you think?

 

[Solinar]

Sitemistic-- If people only went with what was practical, life would be rather boring, don't you think?

How true - While it is generally more convenient to follow the herd, there are times when it is more gratifying to stray from the current norm a bit.

 

[Solinar]

Sitemistic - For my dad's 78th birthday - I printed up some B/W negs that he had in a shoe box since the early 1950's. - He is home bound and two years later still has them posted on his wall next to his................................. computer.

A close friend's computer was attacked by a virus and he looking for someone to rescue thousands of images from his hard drive.

 

[varjag]

sitemistic, I have an 8" floppy, and a DEC reel of magnetic tape. They all are somewhat problematic to read now, despite that this tech is barely 30 years old.

True that a lot more computer hardware being produced in modern times, so chances for CDs or compact cards are much better. But 100 years is extremely large timespan for technology. The state-of-art computing device in 1907 was crank-driven cash register.

 

[Tuolumne]

I find it amazing that people have enough time, much less the interest, to look at their own pictures of 10-35 years ago. I have a hard enough time keeping up with the ones I shot yesterday. I have a huge box full of old negatives and slides covering some 25 years of film shooting in my basement. I have no - zero - repeat nada - interest in seeing them. The ones that were of enduring interest have been redered as prints where they live in photo albums and on walls. That's enough archivability for me. I recommend the same approach to anyone who cares about the future of their photographs. I now print out a much larger portion of my photos than I ever did, since I enjoy seeing them. Many of them I print quite large - 13x19 - since I enjoy the impact. For me, that is the archival record. To think that I or anyone else will ever scan thorugh my tens of thousands of digital files is just plain ridiculous. Even I don't do that. Get real folks.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

sitemistic, I have an 8" floppy, and a DEC reel of magnetic tape. They all are somewhat problematic to read now, despite that this tech is barely 30 years old.

True that a lot more computer hardware being produced in modern times, so chances for CDs or compact cards are much better. But 100 years is extremely large timespan for technology. The state-of-art computing device in 1907 was crank-driven cash register.

I don't understand why people pick such archaic methods, not technologies, when talking about the archivability of digital media. No one in their right mind should consider any fixed media as archival, even for next week. The DVD you write today may not even be readbale tomorrow.

People who are serious about archiving their digital output use terabyte++ hard drives, in fully redundant mode. That is, each file is mirrored on a second disk in the two drive array. That way, there is never a single copy of the file, even if you don't use backup software. Then, as you upgrade computers or storage systems, you copy the files from an older to a newer drive. At that point you have 4 copies that are readable. And none of this requires an ounce of computer savy.It's just the way the drives work when set up as a Raid 0 array. You can, of course, also use trickle backups to online services, if you are really paranoid about your output.

/T

 

[jbf]

Maybe that comes from working in a field where photos are disposible, where the paper they are printed in becomes fish wrap the next day.

Bingo.


Herein lies the issue. Your view of worth of a photograph is distinctly controlled by your daily basis or view of what the commercialized world considers to be valuable. They want quantity not quality. Obviously there are still some amazing reportagephotography being produced by newspapers, magazines, etc... but overall the general outlook from advertising firms and other entities is getting their 'product' as fast as they can.

Advertising agencies want the assignment they gave you today, two weeks ago. If you have to skimp on quality and real meaning behind a photograph in order to get your shot in quickly they do not care so long as they get something that they deem "good enough". It's all about getting the shot, then the next and the next and the next. It's become a systematic process of simply getting a commercialized end result to the company. The value of the individual photographer and their work diminishes.


It's pretty sad when people are unable to see the defining line between commercialized product and art.

 

[Tuolumne]

"Advertising agencies want the assignment they gave you today, two weeks ago. If you have to skimp on quality and real meaning behind a photograph in order to get your shot in quickly they do not care so long as they get something that they deem "good enough". It's all about getting the shot, then the next and the next and the next. It's become a systematic process of simply getting a commercialized end result to the company. The value of the individual photographer and their work diminishes."

Sounds like all work in the 21st century to me.

/T

 

[varjag]

I don't understand why people pick such archaic methods, not technologies, when talking about the archivability of digital media.

Because that's the digital equivalent of Kodachrome in shoebox, the most likely future scenario for 98% of users?

People who are serious about archiving their digital output use terabyte++ hard drives, in fully redundant mode. That is, each file is mirrored on a second disk in the two drive array. That way, there is never a single copy of the file, even if you don't use backup software.

There is a hundred of ways for RAID array to die painful death, and I've seen half of them. It is getting tiring to repeat that RAID *is not a backup solution at all*, and it was never meant as such. Redundant arrays were meant to increase availability/online time of a system, they do not substitute proper backup routine. Having all your data on hard drives in same room, within single chassis, fed from same power supply, managed by same controller, synced by same software, one user action away from disaster is really really bad idea.

 

[Finder]

Finder, the point is, will anyone in 50 years care enough to digitize your film?

Probably not. But I do not shoot for some abstract future. I shoot for myself now.

My point was that if someone did care about this material, they would probably have an easier time with a piece of film. Just like I have an idea of what my tintypes are, but would not know if my punch cards and ticker tape was worth the effort in finding a way to read it.

 

[jbf]

jbf, many of the photographers of the past whom we laud as artists were not making art, they were making money. It was a job, same as today.

While you might not call the work of advertising phtographers art, there is no question as to its quality. Successful advertisting photographers are generally outstanding photographers.

As for photojournalists, it is amazing the quality of the photos many photojournalists make within the time constraints of their profession. If you think that makes them less than artists, spend day after day trying to make "art" on demand.

See this is the problem I have with almost everything you comment about "art" and it's value. You are approaching the longevity of film and it's lifetime as well as it's worth purely on the basis of how it is valued in a commercialized corporate sense such as photojournalism and advertising agencies.


There is a vast distinction between those who practice fine art in making money and those photographers in a commercial photography sense. For the artists making money there is also a distinction between those who were truly making rich and meaningful pieces of art first and making money second as well as those who were simply exploiting the system to make money in the first place.

Who individuals consider to be into those categories is up to themselves but as I have and always will aproach the longevity and worth of film, is from the standpoint of those practicing fine art film photography first for themselves and not for purely the means of employment, money, etc.


The whole point is that it's obvious that these more commercialized entities such as advertising/marketing/newspapers/etc have long ago abandoned film. So why are you still constantly arguing about how film is dead/dying/ending in the sense of how you (who have been versley trained in such forms of commodity) see them in the world of photojournalism, advertising, etc.

We already know that film is no longer used and viewed in such ways by these photographic job markets.

That are thousands of individuals who practice fine art photography who still find outlets to get their work known and published.

Saying that film is dying or will go under soley based on your view of the world from this stance of what the capitalistic idea of photographic commodity (such as advertising) is problematic at best. There will always be individuals who will practice fine art photography and use film as their medium.

Also it's quite easy to say that those who practice fine art photography are also most likely going to teach their children the value of photography from the sense of film and fine art, and most likely their children will also continue the same set of beliefs and values.


Also just to make the point clear, I never once said that photojournalists or advertising photographers were not good photographers, nor did I ever incinuate such, either. I did not say that it was easy to produce work from the stance of photographers working as photojournalists or within the advertising market so dont' try to make it look like I am saying that either.


The point i'm trying to make is that just because the mainstream job markets do not see film as viable for their workflows anymore does not mean that it will not be around indefinately.

 

[Finder]

I have a hard drive with tons of info. I just wish I could find a SCSI to USB cable.

 

[Finder]

BTW, I am really happy the Bernice Abbott picked up that box of old photos Aget was throwing out.

 

[climbing_vine]

See this is the problem I have with almost everything you comment about "art" and it's value. You are approaching the longevity of film and it's lifetime as well as it's worth purely on the basis of how it is valued in a commercialized corporate sense such as photojournalism and advertising agencies.

Your increasingly strident posts are utterly missing his point.

The issue at hand is continued availability of film. Without some kind of market--and whether you like it or not, that means a commercial one--film will effectively cease to exist. And this is surely going to happen, and sooner not later.

No matter what kind of rant you want to get on about "commercial vs art" (and I was an English major, and am the most bomb-throwing anti-reactionary-capitalist you'll find who doesn't actually, um, throw bombs ), the realities are:

1. Technologies to view that "archival" film will not be available to the average person in a century, and maybe earlier.

2. Nobody will care, because most of the images worth seeing will be available as prints and carried forward on contemporary (digital) storage.

3. No matter what you want to say about digital files disappearing to viruses, malfunction, whatever, it is *dwarfed* by the number of film frames lost to camera malfunction, accidental exposure before ever being processed, mold and other destruction from improper storage, simple deterioration due to unstable chemicals, those thrown away without ever being looked at, those lost to house fires, floods, tornadoes, moving lossage.....

etc.

It's an utterly bogus argument. Film is not *remotely* archival, unless treated as such; and given that basis, a digital file is exactly as archival (and easier to store for well-motivated but poorly-funded interested groups who do most archiving--and this is one critical point often overlooked).

So, get over yourself already and learn to read the argument a person is actually making. We all want to think we're artists, but that isn't the point here (and probably isn't even true--I would bet the mortgage that neither you nor I have taken a picture that hasn't been done better by someone else, except of our loved ones).

 

[antiquark]

Film is not *remotely* archival, unless treated as such; and given that basis, a digital file is exactly as archival

What is the definition of "archival" here anyways? Everyone's throwing around the word, but it appears that everyone thinks it means something different.

Perhaps there are degrees of archival storage. On the upper end, you have silver halide negs being stored in humitity and temperature controlled facilities. In the middle of the scale, you have prints stored in shoeboxes and photo albums. At the low end of the scale, you have photos stored in .pict format on 5.25 floppy disks.

Maybe shoeboxes and photo albums are "practically archival," because they're known to last for 50+ years. If we're comparing shoeboxes to floppy disks, I'll put my money with the shoeboxes.