Impermanence of Digital / Unfeasibility of 35mm

[DODPHOTOGRAPHY]

I was wondering , I suppose in a more philosophical perspective, how people handle the idea that digital files are impermanent in some way.

I'm 32 and I've spent the last 10 years shooting film of all sorts. While I love the analog workflow this has been designated to sheet film. I enjoy the slow look and printing holds up very well to 16x20.

However, I have a love/ hate with 35mm. The Leica (I've used M3/6/MP) is the most beautiful thing I've held in my hand. However, the format is very impractical. I don't have a dedicated scanning machine, that process is painful. I do enjoy wet printing 35 but it's become a novelty for me. It's not a serious practice on my end.

At the same time I look at the MM and M262 and think it's a wonderful solution. I primarily make BW pictures, I enjoy the RF and form factor of a Leica, but that fear of impermanence, even if illogical, sticks with me.

Am I the only one that thinks this way?

 

[mdarnton]

Go to Flickr and look at pix for an hour or so. Notice how many of them are really fine. Does the world even need more photographs? In 100 years, unless you DO something spectacular, no one will care about your pictures, so why do you care about this? Statistically, though you don't realize it at 32, what is going to happen to your work is that it's going in the dumpster when some relative cleans out your apartment after you die. That's how I think of it regarding my own work.

There, that solves the philosophy; on to the practical:

A second way to look at is is that if you make good digital B&W prints, they stand a slightly better chance of being intact in the future than chemical/silver prints. I think the most permanent method of all is probably to have a book printed well, and the best way to make sure something remains of you in 500 years is multiple copies of the book, widely distributed.

What I actually do, which may cover both ends of the problem for you, is shoot film and then camera scan it with my Nikon D7200*, and print digitally. I find this much better than the darkroom, since I am able to do more in the printing, consistently, than I could by waving my hands around during enlarging, and there are some really exquisite digital photo papers that I like better than the silver papers.

I used to work for a company that did archiving work which was actually important, in a global sense over time. I lobbied unsuccessfully for staying with film, for archival stability. I'm pretty sure some of those early CDs we cut are unreadable today, and I don't even know what they're doing now, but I bet it won't be readable in 50 years.

*Nikon D7200, bellows PB-5 with slide holder PS-5, El-Nikkor 75/4 or 63/2.8 (I have two rigs, and both work equally well when used at optimum aperture, around f/11 or f/8, respectively).

 

[DODPHOTOGRAPHY]

Go to Flickr and look at pix for an hour or so. Notice how many of them are really fine. Does the world even need more photographs? In 100 years, unless you DO something spectacular, no one will care about your pictures, so why do you care about this? Statistically, though you don't realize it at 32, what is going to happen to your work is that it's going in the dumpster when some relative cleans out your apartment after you die. That's how I think of it regarding my own work.

A second way to look at is is that if you make good digital B&W prints, they stand a slightly better chance of being intact in the future than chemical/silver prints. I think the most permanent method of all is probably to have a book printed well, and the best way to make sure something remains of you in 500 years is multiple copies of the book, widely distributed.

What I actually do, which may cover both ends of the problem for you, is shoot film and then camera scan it with my Nikon D7200*, and print digitally. I find this much better than the darkroom, since I am able to do more in the printing, consistently, than I could by waving my hands around during enlarging, and there are some really exquisite digital photo papers that I like better than the silver papers.

I used to work for a company that did archiving work which was actually important, in a global sense over time. I lobbied unsuccessfully for staying with film, for archival stability. I'm pretty sure some of those early CDs we cut are unreadable today, and I don't even know what they're doing now, but I bet it won't be readable in 50 years.

*Nikon D7200, bellows PB-5 with slide holder PS-5, El-Nikkor 75/4 or 63/2.8 (I have two rigs, and both work equally well).

Damn, dumping in the trash... that was dark!

 

[Lux Optima]

I prefer a hybrid workflow: Shooting film and having the negatives scanned. So, I'll have my fotos as negatives (who will be for many decades be usable), as prints (in books or at framed at the wall) and as files on my harddisk.

I am about 20 years older than you. I don't care what remains of my pics after I am dead. I know that my relatives love the photo books and calendars I am making for them (and some of them collecting them since the 90s), so they may remain like the old photos we ourselves inherited.

But I am really glad that I don't need to think of buying any modern digital camera again (unless I want to, got a Leica Monochrom 246 this year): Got several old film cameras (Leica M3 and Pentax) and buy very good lenses now and then.

All of my photos that are important to me I have around me as prints. My beautiful film equipment offers me a peace of mind solution for my photographic needs. So, why bothering what may happen to my digital files in some decades? The film stuff will survive me anyway. And if all digital is gone while I am still alive - I will make some new photos...

 

[mdarnton]

Yes, it is darkish, but I'm just telling you what will really happen. I'm 68 and just made over part of my house. My furniture up to that point was Early Dead Aunt style. No one wanted it, not even resale or antique shops. When I cleaned out my parents' house, same thing. I kept a few things that were important to me, individually, but I was not interested in surrounding myself with my childhood--I have a life, myself. My brother was a photographer, and I kept a couple of the photos that interest me, that's all. Our first boss in high school in the 60s owned a photo studio. He gave us a few negs of the more creative pix of us and the rest went in the trash.

If you are pumping for photo immortality, it isn't going to be an issue of how archival your prints are---it's having your work widely dispersed and recognized. That's not dark--that's the way it is.

 

[DODPHOTOGRAPHY]

I wasn't thinking about photographic immortality...it's for my own sake.

I'd like to be able to print my work in the future if need be.

I'm not saying the fear Is rational or that I'm "correct".

 

[Godfrey]

Why do you consider digital to be "impermanent"?

1- data :: Data lasts as long as you are willing to maintain it with zero change. The key words there are "maintain it". Maintaining it means keeping it readable by migrating through new storage technologies as they arise and old ones disappear. Data formats and such have already been stable in the main for thirty years. Moving to a cloud storage server based storage solution puts the hardware maintenance and updating onto someone else.

2- physical representation :: In the film world, well, film itself is only "permanent" if carefully processed and constantly maintained. Otherwise it degrades pretty quickly. Silver-gelatin prints are somewhat more permanent, dye-ink prints (chemical color prints) somewhat less so. Inkjet prints made on archival quality paper with pigment inks are probably the most permanent of print media ... and you can make them from either film-negative or digital-capture originals. In the case of prints (and negatives), permanence is entirely up to the quality of the media, how well it is processed, and the quality of the storage you utilize.

I'm 63 and I've spent over fifty years shooting film- and digital-capture photographs. I've lost FAR more film images to materials degradation and accidents than I've lost digital images, even though I've made at least 10x more digital images in the past twenty years than I ever made in film images.

My ideal camera nowadays is the Leica M-D typ 262: it works just like a Leica M7 works, with all the same features, and presuming that I'll be able to power it (I will ... 😀), it should pretty much last the rest of my lifetime.

Beyond my lifetime, I really don't care much what happens to my photographs: That's actually other people's concern and problem because I won't be around to do anything more than I did when I was alive. I do the best I can while I'm alive, which includes printing them with archival materials and storing them in archival print boxes. And also... putting my work into photo books, registering them with the Library of Congress, and publishing them. That way, they are the responsibility of the Library of Congress to preserve.

G

 

[mdarnton]

I wasn't thinking about photographic immortality...it's for my own sake.

I'd like to be able to print my work in the future if need be.

I'm not saying the fear Is rational or that I'm "correct".

Oh, then you misled us by calling it a philosophical question. If it's purely technical, as you now say, then film wins, absolutely, because it gives you a tangible mirroring of reality that you can print by whatever means is current in the future.

 

[mdarnton]

Godfrey, I have to say I've been shooting film since around 1958 and haven't lost a bit of it, especially not to chemical/material failure. Every bit of it is still in perfect condition, too. However, I have a couple of early years of digital that were lost thanks to changing standards and materials that I didn't keep up with and one back-up failure. The film, however, has required zero in the way of migration, and in fact was stored in a hot attic for most of its recent life.

 

[SaveKodak]

There is a reason why HABS/HAER shooters still have to shoot B&W film, don't let anyone tell you that digital images are archival.

Use a lab for scans! Many labs do basic level scanning quite affordably with film processing now. I like www.northeastphotographic.com and there are many others. You are right to doubt the permanence of digital image making. Unless you're consistently printing with an archival pigment printer, digital images are in a far less stable state. The great thing about the "hybrid" workflow is that you have a film original as your ultimate back up, and whatever digital files that you derive from it. "In theory" you can be ultra diligent about your digital asset management but if we're realistic about the fact that we're all humans most of us don't do that. Whereas after I scan my images, my film goes into a Print File and into an archival file folder...and now I'm good for probably more years than I have left in this world (and I'm only 33). Now digital people will say that I'm subject to fire and water damage but lets be honest in an act of god scenario I have bigger problems.

Plus there is the fact that the limitations of film can make you a better craftsman. You are forcibly less prolific and therefore each roll is easier to organize and keep track of. I gave up digital and I can tell you there is nothing more depressing than a year's LR gallery full of 95% crap. Not saying all my film images are gold, but there are fewer of them and I get more hits per roll. Plus they automatically organize themselves in little groups of 36, or 12/16 when I'm shooting 120.

I only shoot digital for work when I have to. If it's important, it's worth shooting on film.

 

[Michael Markey]

I shoot both film and digital and when I want to archive I print.

I send the files (digital and film) to Ilford and they expose using lasers and then wet print on photographic paper.

A friend recently had a house fire .... years of negs and wet plates gone.
The only thing that survived were his hard drives.

I`d not worry too much about it ....

 

[Corran]

You're overthinking it.
I can't remember what artist said, essentially, "Do your work."

Film can be gone in a second in a fire. Digital files can be stored properly with a redundant system. There's no relative difference in archivability for home use (serious archivist systems for libraries or universities are a different discussion). If you want to make silver prints, DO IT. If you want to have ease of use with highest IQ, get the digital camera that suits your style/needs and print digitally. The relative value of your images is not determined by the 1s and 0s or the silver grains (and it's probably valueless like the rest of us, for the time being). Just keep plugging away and you'll find your way or maybe at least have some fun on the way there.

 

[willie_901]

I believe the best way to have your photographs outlive you for a reasonable period of time is to make prints, including photobooks. The most convenient way to print is with digital images. Some papers and inks are much shorter lived than others. Higher quality print media costs more.

Editing (image selection, not image rendering) is a lot of work, but it makes printing practical. It is extremely unlikely someone will edit our work after we're gone.

After we're gone it is entirely possible all our prints/books will end up in a recycling bin.


In one way digital data are fragile. One simple mistake and they're deleted[1]. More troubling is all digital media are semi-permanent. The most permanent is high-quality magnetic tape. SSD storage is probably a close second. Corporations store tape data copies in salt mines. But for the typical photographer, digital storage media are inherently impermanent.

At the same time, digital data have an inherent permanence. They can be perfectly copied countless times. I have digital image files that once were on CDs, DVDs and several generations of magnetic hard drive storage. Since 1995 these files were copied onto multiple devices and eventually compiled into an archive. Right now the archive itself is on three different generations of HD technology. I just purchased two new 3 TB drives ($99 each). I have about 2 1/2 TB of digital raw files. The new drives were about half the price of the 2 TB units they replaced. I have three copies on separate devices. The backup process is automated. The process of porting image data to newer storage technologies eliminates the problem of inevitable storage device failures[2].

Cloud storage is controversial. The fact is all types of organizations store data in the cloud. Many of these organizations are highly regulated by government agencies. Many of them have invested stratospheric levels of resources to create the data. For some of them, their entire corporate assets are digital files. Photographers can strongly disapprove of cloud storage for personal use, but contemporary global stability depends on cloud storage.

With Amazon Prime, I can store unlimited images files in their cloud for at no additional charge. I have 600 GB of personal images and client image files in my Lightroom Libraries. These are backed up at Amazon. Of course, it took a long time to upload all that data. After a catastrophic loss, downloading the backups would also take a long time. Uploading new images is not so bad. I have three copies of these images on separate devices at home. The Lightroom Catalogs also exist on three separate devices.

Maintaining a useful analog photographic archive or a digital image archive both require planning, time and money.


1/ Under common circumstances accidental digital file deletion can often be reversed.

2/ Until someone stops porting the data to newer devices.

 

[zuiko85]

@mdarnton
Hey, I'm 68 also and have found you comments spot on. Except I have not been shooting since 1958! more like 1970. I long (l-o-n-g) ago realized I'm no artist. I only like cameras as mechanical art in and of themselves. You folks have seen us fellows around, hand us a classic 35mm SLR and as we chat and bull ship about cameras we're fondling and dry firing the shutter like some lovely feely.

But on to the question. Unlike mdarnton I lost all my Chicago negatives (lived there from 1969 to 1978) in some move or the other. And the only pictures important to me are family shots and a couple I happen to like or that trigger a pleasant memory. None of them are 'art', most are snapshots printed 3.5X5 or later 4X6 'album size'.

I've always been out of place on photo forums, some of you folks are really good photographers, me, well I'm a tinkerer at best, but surely there must be others in the same boat.

 

[Rob-F]

Oh, then you misled us by calling it a philosophical question.

No, I think it is "applied philosophy." Philosophy is the attempt to answer questions that have no definite answer, or can't be answered by science alone. Since both film and digital have advantages and drawbacks around permanence issues, and the contributions to the thread show that there is no one simple answer, the question does seem to lend itself to philosophical argument.

Personally, I know where my negatives are, and can print them any time I want; whereas I don't really know that my digital files will still be available tomorrow. What if both my computer and my external hard drives all crashed together? But wait: when I'm too old to have my own home, and perhaps will have to settle for a condo or apartment, I won't be able to do wet prints. But I can look at my pictures on the computer.

There's no simple answer. Who you gonna call? A philosopher!

 

[Out to Lunch]

Go to Flickr and look at pix for an hour or so. Notice how many of them are really fine. Does the world even need more photographs? In 100 years, unless you DO something spectacular, no one will care about your pictures, so why do you care about this? Statistically, though you don't realize it at 32, what is going to happen to your work is that it's going in the dumpster when some relative cleans out your apartment after you die. That's how I think of it regarding my own work.

My thinking exactly. It's the family pics that have the best chance of surviving beyond your expiry date.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm puzzled what for RF is needed for OP, if sheet film cameras are superior to 135 format Leica? What RF is for? Slowly focusing on the vase on the table or at the dead rock on the beach?

Well, I use Leica for people, moving, alive people and rarely use RF for it 🙂, but VF and frames are the tools, not ground glass where image is all wrong and barely visible.
It is possible to use press cameras for what I use Leica, but it is totally impractical and next to useless these days.

Now, about impermanence. Most of photography lasts as long as photographer is alive.
Digital, film, doesn't matter and have nothing to do with it. Impermanence is unavoidable for 99% photogs. Because once you stop pushing it, it is dead. VM case is the case of one from hundreds of millions.

Also film has zero disaster recovery factor. In opposite, digital could be stored on the multiple clouds and on multiple locations. Then on clouds, no hardware is involved.
In real and practical world, film is digitized in archives all over the world. For secure storage reason included.

But digital Leica are nice toys and tools for sure. While, BW, color is no difference, it is not the film, if someone needs BW and quicky, it is most prestige and sexy way of getting it by digital Leica. But maybe another digital Leica might be even more practical for sheet film OP.

 

[aizan]

willie gave the best answer so far; there are many misconceptions regarding this topic. everyone here should do some reading on digital preservation if they have similar goals. to start, you can read the digital preservation handbook. the key takeaway is that you have to be committed to it and make it part of your normal workflow if you want your digital photos to be available for the duration of your life and beyond.

 

[DODPHOTOGRAPHY]

I'm puzzled what for RF is needed for OP, if sheet film cameras are superior to 135 format Leica? What RF is for? Slowly focusing on the vase on the table or at the dead rock on the beach?

Well, I use Leica for people, moving, alive people and rarely use RF for it 🙂, but VF and frames are the tools, not ground glass where image is all wrong and barely visible.
It is possible to use press cameras for what I use Leica, but it is totally impractical and next to useless these days.

Now, about impermanence. Most of photography lasts as long as photographer is alive.
Digital, film, doesn't matter and have nothing to do with it. Impermanence is unavoidable for 99% photogs. Because once you stop pushing it, it is dead. VM case is the case of one from hundreds of millions.

Also film has zero disaster recovery factor. In opposite, digital could be stored on the multiple clouds and on multiple locations. Then on clouds, no hardware is involved.
In real and practical world, film is digitized in archives all over the world. For secure storage reason included.

But digital Leica are nice toys and tools for sure. While, BW, color is no difference, it is not the film, if someone needs BW and quicky, it is most prestige and sexy way of getting it by digital Leica. But maybe another digital Leica might be even more practical for sheet film OP.

No, I'm not saying it's one or the other... sheet film is how I make my work primarily but the issue of a handheld option is something I'm looking to add to the way I work. Every tool has its own job.


The question I keep going back and forth over is the convenience of a native BW digital file vs the aesthetics of film (which I love) and having to come up with a solution of scanning for the sake of making books (which I do) and for submissions to grants and such (photography is my living, so some degree)

 

[Ronald M]

I have a RC hanging on the wall mounted to cheap mount board. 30 years on looks good.

Neg location ?