I don't shoot film, I'm not rich enough...

[benlees]

Unless prices have changed in the last couple of years, it costs anywhere from $3- $5 per roll to process C-41 up here in Canada (Calgary). B&W film - at around $15/roll. Expensive.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong with the prices.

If your local Costco still does film it is $2 a roll of 35mm c41. Don's Photo does 120/35mm c41 for $4.25. B&w is about $8 (at Don's) with a wait of 10 days.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

Well, the comparison should also make it pretty clear who won and what photographers actually wanted, amateurs and professionals alike.

Who won what round is not the issue. Mediocrity has often prevailed..

Is it? How much hard drive space do you think Winogrand's 300,000 unused images would occupy? How many $100 hard drives do you have to buy for that?

That's not how to archive 300,000 images. But if you wish... Using current full sensor images and uncompressed (RAW) its about 10 TB.

In case you're worried about the longevity of hard drives - an LTO-3 tape holds 400 GB uncompressed, is specified to last at least 20-30 years,

Please.. don't tell me about LTO tapes.. They are not that good.. and worse still there are loads of technical obsolescence issues to make things even worse.
Those 20-30 years are about as reliable as the 500,000 hour MTFs I used to get from disk vendors.. where each and every disk (and not just the ones in my center but also those we sold to the local University) failed to surpass 6 months of 7x24 service---- we never turn off our machines. We now have disks with the MTBF listed in the millions of hours.. Funny how we still need to replace them.. and in contrast to our SCSI disks of old.. when they go they are toast..

and costs $35; how many tapes do you need for those 300,000 images? You need a drive, but you don't need to worry about it too much; the installed investment in tape libraries is large enough that you can be sure that someone will be around to read them for you.

If the tape is readable.. We've given up on them.. Nothing like backups that get flagged as "BAD".. In the wash its no better than the nightmares we had with DAT in the 1990s.. And I won't even talk about my digital tapes from the 1970s that went sticky and goopy--- just like all the videos I made on the old Porta-Pacs. The best experiences we had were with MO. The Fujitsu MOs were quite good.... and the archival record was reasonable.. but as is known.. Fujitsu dumped MOs and that technology is now heading towards the garbage bin of history.... In today's world where supermarket PCs have TB disks the capacity was just too small... In 20 years some of my MOs might be readable.. but even if they are its doubtful if we'd have a drive working that could read them.... They can't, unfortunately, outlive their own technology...

And how much do 10,000 film sleeves, 10,000 contact prints, and 500 folders to hold them cost? Shelf space in an archival environment? Keeping the gear around so that you can make prints or scan them? Making a copy of each film strip so that everything won't be lost in case the archive burns down?

Again... as I've mentioned.. going the whole mile in film archival can be expensive but film can do quite well at much lower standards of storage. A moving carton filled with negatives and stored in an attic has a much better chance of survival than ....

 

[wgerrard]

A moving carton filled with negatives and stored in an attic has a much better chance of survival than ....

No doubt, but I don't know anyone who's holding their breath to look at a box full of old negatives. Nor do I know anyone who wants to see prints of my photos, or prints of anyone's photos. They want to see photos on a screen. If I mailed them prints, they'd look at them once and put them away in a closet.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Watching where you're walking takes a photographer's attention.

Not as much as chimping...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

No doubt, but I don't know anyone who's holding their breath to look at a box full of old negatives.

I do.

Alongside the large numbers that collect old photographs there are large numbers that are intrigued by "found" photos.

Now, however, we are talking about YOUR photos. What about family? They are artifacts.

When people's homes are on fire.. What do people try to save first and foremost? The statistics say photographs are among the top of that list.

Nor do I know anyone who wants to see prints of my photos, or prints of anyone's photos.

Are your photos that bad?

They want to see photos on a screen. If I mailed them prints, they'd look at them once and put them away in a closet.

And perhaps those photos if they were captured using digital sensors now have a chance of survival...

 

[rxmd]

Who won what round is not the issue. Mediocrity has often prevailed.

It may or may not be "the issue", but it's a fact. There's no returning to the 1950s. Nor to film on a mass basis. I photograph on film myself, but I won't advocate it to everyone and their mother (nor will I use it as a means of feeling smug because it's technically possible that my negatives might be around longer than I will).

Then again, it takes quite a bit of elitism on the one hand, and cultural pessimism on the other, to say that over the last 50 years, the vast majority of photographers around the world, professionals and amateurs alike, have consistently chosen the inferior path of ease of use, rather than opting for bettering themselves.

Please.. don't tell me about LTO tapes.. [...] Again... as I've mentioned.. going the whole mile in film archival can be expensive but film can do quite well at much lower standards of storage.

Now we can hurl anecdotal evidence at each other; where I've been working in cultural heritage preservation over the last few years, I certainly haven't had the problem of having to replace each and every hard disk in our servers every six months, etc. pp. I also don't want to confound high availability (those 24x7 hard drives of yours) with backup and storage.

Then again, if we're talking about not going the whole mile, private collections with somewhat less than 300,000 pictures, digital storage gets a lot easier, too. A hard drive that sits quietly in a cupboard somewhere for five years before it's copied to another hard drive has a pretty decent chance of survival. Things can go wrong, but then attics can catch fire, too. Copy it once every couple of years and it will be fine. It just requires a bit of thinking ahead and planning, something traditional photographers are supposedly good at, too.

Digital archiving may have its issues, but given that the film era won't be coming back no matter how much we lament, I would consider it much more useful to work towards solving those issues, rather than pining for how everything was better in the glory days.

 

[wgerrard]

Edward, the larger point i've been making, one I think you understand, is that people are increasingly accustomed to dealing with digital material and accepting the storage issues it presents. The long-term storage issues you've cited don't show up on their radar because they assume that they'll just transfer their "stuff" to new tech when it comes along. I think they're right. No one is going to sell new tech into the consumer market that can't store data created on the previous tech.

On the other hand, people are growing increasingly unaccustomed to having boxes and shelves of paper hanging around. For example, I love books. I own too many of them. I like the feel and the smell of a book. But, I bought a Kindle because I want to get my cluttered shelves under control. it's a worthy trade-off, as I see it.

Printing interests me as a technology. But, at present, it isn't convenient to convert space to a darkroom and, more importantly, my interest is not strong enough to sustain the effort long enough to justify the cost and to develop a modicum of skill. In any case, any prints I offered to friends and family would, honestly, be quickly stashed in closets, never to be seen again.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

It may or may not be "the issue", but it's a fact. There's no returning to the 1950s. Nor to film on a mass basis.

I'm reminded of the late 1970s and into 1980s when people all dumped the film and adopted video. Instead of filming their kids birthday with 8mm they choose video. How many of these old videos do you think are still around? Back when companies like BASF introduced Polyurethane binders it was hailed as a great step forward.. And then? ALL my videos I made using reel-to-reel video tape in the late 1970s I found DEAD by the early 1990s. Sticky shed meets goo... nothing could be salvaged.. And how many people do you think are able to read--- if they are readable--- these old tapes?

And have we started to talk about some of the odd standards and formats.... Anyone remember the European answer to VHS: Video 2000?

I photograph on film myself, but I won't advocate it to everyone and their mother (nor will I use it as a means of feeling smug because it's technically possible that my negatives might be around longer than I will).

But that is, I think, part of the function of family photographs. Baby photos, photos of kids growing up, their first school day... etc.. I have a photograph of my father and his brother standing on the streets of Warsaw in their army uniforms that was taken in 1939. My uncle did not survive the gas chambers but the photograph survived in the pocket of a friend that manged to make their way to Palestine.. I know how my grandmother looked.. Not because I ever got to see her--- she too was gassed alongside my uncle and his fiance--- but because a picture escaped to Palestine in someone's pocket...

Then again, it takes quite a bit of elitism on the one hand, and cultural pessimism on the other, to say that over the last 50 years, the vast majority of photographers around the world, professionals and amateurs alike, have consistently chosen the inferior path of ease of use, rather than opting for bettering themselves.

Absolutely not. Please compare the cameras sold to the cameras in use. All the fine old mechanical cameras did not disappear. Just many of the German ones just ended up in Japan

Now we can hurl anecdotal evidence at each other; where I've been working in cultural heritage preservation over the last few years, I certainly haven't had the problem of having to replace each and every hard disk in our servers every six months, etc. pp.

I don't keep track of when we need to replace disks. We replace them when they go bad. Despite the observation that no disk vendor we have purchased from since the 1990s has claimed anything less than 250,000 hours MTBF they all seem to fail sooner or later... Some sooner and some later. With the current claims of millions of hours MTBF we should never have need to replace disks. We do. I think--- but need to confirm--- that we have not a single disk that works from the 1990s including disks that were not even in operation. They fail... and we toss 'em. Warranty you might ask? Its a joke.. You wait anywhere from 2 to 11 months--- generally longer than shorter--- and eventually a "refurb" disk of exactly the same model arrives.. just waiting to fail...

I also don't want to confound high availability (those 24x7 hard drives of yours) with backup and storage.

All our machines run 24h a day. 7 days a week. We have uptimes measured in years. Our customers expect nothing less from us.

Then again, if we're talking about not going the whole mile, private collections with somewhat less than 300,000 pictures, digital storage gets a lot easier, too. A hard drive that sits quietly in a cupboard somewhere for five years before it's copied to another hard drive has a pretty decent chance of survival.

It has a chance but I'd not call it "pretty decent". We have seen more than a few disks die that were sitting in a cupboard. Our experiences seem to indicate that the differences in experienced lifespan of disks in systems running 7x24 versus those hardly running (or sitting in machines turned off) is not a significant order of magnitude different.
The problem with disks is that when they fail they fail and the costs to retrieve data from them are, if at all technically possible, very expensive.
But lets go back to MOs.. they were really not bad.. but with today's highest resolution full sized sensors you can't even put the contents of a 36 exposure roll on a single 3 1/2 disk (640 MB).
What do we do? We shuffle data around our network.. We're multi-homed and have more than a few servers and loads and loads of fallbacks and redundancies.. Have we ever lost data.. Oh yes! What the German's call GAUs--- größter anzunehmender Unfall (Maximum credible accident)---- happen.

Digital archiving may have its issues, but given that the film era won't be coming back no matter how much we lament,

For archiving the film era is still among us. Microfilm is still kicking. We just use the data these days in electronic form rather than as film or fiche.

I would consider it much more useful to work towards solving those issues,

I've been working with archives in a number of projects over the past decades.. and have been involved in more than a few WGs and SIGs... And operating our own network starting from before the AUPs got lifted on the then NSF Backbone.... and even before that.. as wee laddie I go back to the early days of the ARPAnet where as Enfant Terrible.....

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

I'm reminded of the late 1970s and into 1980s when people all dumped the film and adopted video. Instead of filming their kids birthday with 8mm they choose video. How many of these old videos do you think are still around? Back when companies like BASF introduced Polyurethane binders it was hailed as a great step forward.. And then? ALL my videos I made using reel-to-reel video tape in the late 1970s I found DEAD by the early 1990s. Sticky shed meets goo... nothing could be salvaged.. And how many people do you think are able to read--- if they are readable--- these old tapes?

And have we started to talk about some of the odd standards and formats.... Anyone remember the European answer to VHS: Video 2000?

But that is, I think, part of the function of family photographs. Baby photos, photos of kids growing up, their first school day... etc.. I have a photograph of my father and his brother standing on the streets of Warsaw in their army uniforms that was taken in 1939. My uncle did not survive the gas chambers but the photograph survived in the pocket of a friend that manged to make their way to Palestine.. I know how my grandmother looked.. Not because I ever got to see her--- she too was gassed alongside my uncle and his fiance--- but because a picture escaped to Palestine in someone's pocket...
Absolutely not. Please compare the cameras sold to the cameras in use. All the fine old mechanical cameras did not disappear. Just many of the German ones just ended up in Japan

I don't keep track of when we need to replace disks. We replace them when they go bad. Despite the observation that no disk vendor we have purchased from since the 1990s has claimed anything less than 250,000 hours MTBF they all seem to fail sooner or later... Some sooner and some later. With the current claims of millions of hours MTBF we should never have need to replace disks. We do. I think--- but need to confirm--- that we have not a single disk that works from the 1990s including disks that were not even in operation. They fail... and we toss 'em. Warranty you might ask? Its a joke.. You wait anywhere from 2 to 11 months--- generally longer than shorter--- and eventually a "refurb" disk of exactly the same model arrives.. just waiting to fail...

All our machines run 24h a day. 7 days a week. We have uptimes measured in years. Our customers expect nothing less from us.
It has a chance but I'd not call it "pretty decent". We have seen more than a few disks die that were sitting in a cupboard. Our experiences seem to indicate that the differences in experienced lifespan of disks in systems running 7x24 versus those hardly running (or sitting in machines turned off) is not a significant order of magnitude different.
The problem with disks is that when they fail they fail and the costs to retrieve data from them are, if at all technically possible, very expensive.
But lets go back to MOs.. they were really not bad.. but with today's highest resolution full sized sensors you can't even put the contents of a 36 exposure roll on a single 3 1/2 disk (640 MB).
What do we do? We shuffle data around our network.. We're multi-homed and have more than a few servers and loads and loads of fallbacks and redundancies.. Have we ever lost data.. Oh yes! What the German's call GAUs--- größter anzunehmender Unfall (Maximum credible accident)---- happen.

For archiving the film era is still among us. Microfilm is still kicking. We just use the data these days in electronic form rather than as film or fiche.

I've been working with archives in a number of projects over the past decades.. and have been involved in more than a few WGs and SIGs... And operating our own network starting from before the AUPs got lifted on the then NSF Backbone.... and even before that.. as wee laddie I go back to the early days of the ARPAnet where as Enfant Terrible.....

yawn...yawn....zzzzz! zzzzzz! zzzzzzz!

 

[wgerrard]

I...Instead of filming their kids birthday with 8mm they choose video. How many of these old videos do you think are still around?

Keeping 8mm film around for 40 years carries its own storage issues. Besides, no one would know how to show those old 8mm films today. And many (most?) wouldn't want to, anyway.

Re: disk drives: I've been using personal computers since the days of the Apple II. I've lost track of how many I've owned and how many I used at work. In that time, I've had exactly one drive fail, and it gave me plenty of warning. Drives in typical home PC's experience considerably less use than drives in high capacity business and networking applications.

 

[film nut]

How about this for a statement: digital costs too much and I can't figure out how to use half of the software etc. to get good results. I read a study that showed it would take three and a half years for the cost of film camera use to match that of digitals original cost and equivalent use. After three and a half years, it would probably be time to update the digital equipement. And the process would start all over.

Mike

 

[David Hegar]

If you don't like the LCD screen in the DSLR...just use gaffer tape to cover it up.

The options are there. Whether or not you want to use...it's totally up to you.

 

[wgerrard]

How about this for a statement: digital costs too much and I can't figure out how to use half of the software etc. to get good results. I read a study that showed it would take three and a half years for the cost of film camera use to match that of digitals original cost and equivalent use. After three and a half years, it would probably be time to update the digital equipement. And the process would start all over.

Mike

If you buy a film camera and a roll of film for $500 and a digital camera and a memory card for $500, you're only going to a few pictures out of the film camera before you need to spend more money, even if someone else pays for the processing. Meanwhile, you can take pictures as long as you want with the digital for no additional cost.

I don't think the obsolescence factor needs to be considered because no one is compelled to buy a new model. A digital that is succeeded by a new model that offers the typically incremental technical improvements does not make its predecessor obsolete. Any more than the M6 made the M3 obsolete. (Of course, since the design of film cameras matured long ago, obsolescence is an odd term to apply to them.)

 

[lewis44]

I'm just guessing, but I think the point is that you already have a film camera and are happy with it. You are contemplating a move to digital, therefore the costs that were expressed.

Also, Just like keeping up with the Joneses', lot's of folks do seek the next bigger and better thing.

 

[wgerrard]

I'm just guessing, but I think the point is that you already have a film camera and are happy with it. You are contemplating a move to digital, therefore the costs that were expressed.

Granted, but that's not an appropriate or accurate way of considering the costs of film versus digital.

Also, Just like keeping up with the Joneses', lot's of folks do seek the next bigger and better thing.

True. The American auto industry stayed fat and happy for decades conning buyers that way.

 

[btgc]

A hard drive that sits quietly in a cupboard somewhere for five years before it's copied to another hard drive has a pretty decent chance of survival. Things can go wrong, but then attics can catch fire, too. Copy it once every couple of years and it will be fine. It just requires a bit of thinking ahead and planning, something traditional photographers are supposedly good at, too.

I'll set up little survey among my friends if they refresh their archive disks. I highly doubt they are so organized. I don't believe they have such disk, everything is on same "production" HDD they use every day. Only one guy I know has ordered special CD-R's (or DVD's ?) for archival purposes, at extra cost compared to casual discs, others say it's not worth paying as no one has tested them for claimed lifetime or it's not as simply to buy them as fetch a pack of casuals during weekend shopping.

Some of them once a year or twice send selected files to printing service. If files go, they have kind of backup.

 

[IK13]

I'm really close to dumping my film equipment and go (again) 100% digital.
Just returned from a short vacation. Didn't shoot much, but the the two rolls (Ektar & Reala) I picked last night from Costco were horrible (and I used to recommend this Costco). The two films were shot with two different cameras (OM1 and SP35). The scans from both rolls came grossly overexposed (yes, there were plenty mid day summer shots without any filters, but c'mon - the negatives don't look that washed out) and very heavily "processed".

So apparently I'm not good enough (anymore) to shoot film.

Am I rich enough to shoot film...I seriously doubt that too - I shot film for the old feeling , nostalgia, in old cameras etc. I don't shoot B&W anymore and I don't process, scan or print myself.

Too many hops I can't control add too many chances to screw up the final result.

Can I afford to shoot film?
Yes - I don't shoot too much.
...and NO - I can't always put a price on a ruined result.

 

[ohoyer]

For digital backups: You have to keep data at different locations, preferrably off-site. Some companies are beginning to sell/rent virtual storage space to end-users for some bucks a month, so that you can fill up some gigabytes in a datacenter somewhere on this planet.

HDD: in professional Systems, HDDs are monitored and in a redundant config, so that they can be replaced easily. So when a HDD fails, a spare kicks in and within reasonable time a new HDD is put in so that there are enough spares available. In our HDD cabinets we have more than two spares available at any given time...

Problem is with digital, that you need to copy it over to fresh media every 3-5 years. One reason is to avoid mechanical defects of the medium, another reason the format the data are in.

To put it plain: If anyone gives you today a 5,25" disk, that was popular still around 1990, or a Zip Disk with 100 MB (popular 2000), would you be ready to read it?
I'm typing this here from a netbook without CDROM-Drive. Should someone opt to give me data on a CD, I will not be able to read them.
When I can read the data, and they are not in a format that my programs support, I cannot read them- then the .raw files from the highend cameras are also lost. Also popular formats like .gif had their patent and legal issues with them.
So these memories may be lost in time, like tears in rain- or pictures in digital vein (free after Bladerunner)

 

[btgc]

If anyone gives you today a 5,25" disk, that was popular still around 1990, or a Zip Disk with 100 MB (popular 2000), would you be ready to read it?

I always since advent of digital appliances have thought this will be nice business niche. Read obsolete medias and copy content to current ones, also converting data in obsolete formats to what's used now.