jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Utter nonsense, Do you really think that when something new comes along that it will be acceptable that all files become unreadable overnight. Of course there will be a transition period, probably decades. And there has yet to be a file format that has become unreadable since computers were invented. And if the worst comes to the worst - there will always be some ancient system in a museum.....Mark said:
HAnkg
Well-known
Prepress companies used to keep client's image archives on 9 track tape. It was a big selling feature having a "state of the art digital archive". When 9 track became obsolete millions of images went into the trash. To expensive to port them to a new format (reading 100's of tapes, writing them to another medium) and clients still had the transparencies anyway.jaapv said:
If you find a pile of 70 year old prints and negatives you can look at them and see what you have got -they are photographs. A 70 year old disk that would have to be sent to some specialized recovery service to see what's on it will get trashed, as it could just as easily be a speadsheet as an image. If the images are on a typical CD-R disc such as the sort purchased from an office supply (99% of CD's) the surface holding the data will have long since detiorated beyond recovery anyway. I'm 100% digital and have no desire to use film again but film does have some advantages when it comes to archiving.
Last edited:
Mark
Newbie
jaapv said:
JAAPV:
I wish you were right, but I'm afraid it's more complicated than it appears at first blush.
Each manufacturer has its own proprietary raw format. But even these are not single formats. Canon and Nikon and the others have modified their raw format several times and Canon no longer supports its own raw format issues just several years ago. Nikon would like to sell you raw processing software so they have encrypted the white balance in their raw format. You can't use Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture effectively with Nikon NEF files. Take a look at the below blog for information about how photographers are banding together to demand a standard format:
http://www.openraw.org/forum
One more thought..... when I was in high school in the early 1980's my father had a reel to reel tape machine that played high fidelity music. Since that time here are the music "formats" that have come and gone...
Reel to reel
Eight track tape
Cassette tape
33 RPM records
45 RPM records
CD (now on the way out due to MP3)
We now are moving to MP3 and Apples own music format but it's fair to say that we will get further improvements and new formats in the future.
So in music we've had 6 formats in 25 years. Know anyone who can play an 8 track tape? I'm sure there's SOMEONE out there who can, but it's not a practical reality for most of us.
JPG probably will be with us for a long time and there probably will be a way to convert them. But the whole point of shooting in RAW format is to be able to adjust your images anytime you want to achieve different effects and to use new technology to enhance your images. I may be overly concerned, but it's not "utter nonsense" to think that our digital files are at risk.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Let's assume that as you say each company has it's own proprietary format (true, true). So long as these companies are in business they will continue to support there old formats? Now let's assume a company like Nikon goes under or gets absorbed by the Borg. I believe that Canon *cough* I'm sorry, the Borg, will step in and create a set of conversion suites for the now defunct Nikon. Assuming the company dies a natural death then users will make available conversion software and the iconic images shot with the proprietary software will be protected and preserved. I just don't see society allowing the vast majority of its photography to disappear in ten to thirty years. True a good portion will be lost but that is also the case with film and negatives- they deteriorate with age but rest assured that much of our photographic record will survive long into the night.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
You are all losing sight of what's important. Instead of worrying about this, we should all begin to learn Mandarin :bang:
N
Nick R.
Guest
Almost all of the data taken in my lab during the early eighties is unaccessable. The old tape drives are all broken. The Dec pdp 11's are long gone. No one wants to deal with VMS anymore. Yet, the data taken in the seventies, when we were taking polaroid pictures of oscilloscope displays, can still be viewed.
I met a guy at a camera show who says he transfers his digital photos to film for archiving. He's got a point there.
I met a guy at a camera show who says he transfers his digital photos to film for archiving. He's got a point there.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Gabriel M.A. said:
Check and check- already on the agenda
HAnkg
Well-known
There was recently a book published compiled from old Kodachrome snapshots. I don't think you will be seeing the equivalent with digital. I think the loss rate of digital images will be astronomically greater then with film. Most digital snapshots never get printed much less archived.Nick R. said:
Ben Z
Veteran
Sailor Ted said:
Except that when I bought my M6 for $900 I wasn't obligated to buy $3900 of film along with it that I'll need to use up before it expires.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Perhaps if we all wait for everything to go on sale as "used" on the Internet we'll all have lots of new and improved products to purchase as used in the future. Certain consumers are a parasitic nightmare to any manufacturer.
Tony C.
Established
No, you weren't obligated to buy any film. But it's safe to assume that you spent quite a bit of money, certainly far more on film and processing over the years than one would ever spend for the digital equivalent.
Tony C.
Tony C.
Ben Z
Veteran
Sailor Ted said:
Using my $900 used M6 was a poor example because there's only a 33% jump to the M8 from an M7/MP, but that's not a reflection of the M8 being a bargain so much as the M7/MP being priced insanely out of touch with reality. In the general world of digital, if we compare a new film body to a DSLR that's the nearest equivalent in features and build-quality, eg Elan 7n to 5D (rather than 30D because both being full frame) there's around a tenfold price differential.
BTW as a representative of the Loyal Order of Parasitic Consumers I extend our heartfelt gratitude to hosts such as yourself
Tony C. said:
We weren't talking about "over the years", rather an arbitrary 5-year period of obsolesence for digital cameras and expiration of film. I can buy and process a 36-exp roll of slide film for around $15. If a new M8 @ $4800 depreciates to a terminal value of say $500 after 5 years, the $4300 depreciation would be offset by roughly 5 rolls per month. Negating the photographic promiscuity fostered by the "no-cost effect" of shooting digital, that's probably on the high-end of average for a serious amateur. So while I can see hitting the break-even point I can't see any economic windfall coming from buying an expensive digital camera vs shooting film. My $800 20D and $1400 RD-1 will pay for themselves much sooner, and if they happen to keep on clicking, I'll be in black ink well inside of 5 years. As long as I don't try to put a dollar figure on the added time I have to spend diddling with post-processing that's unncessary with slides
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Scanning and printing slides goes quickly and cheaply? (How much for a good slide scanner these days- $1000) Also an M8 in five years will sell for no less then one grand I'd imagine- I'll talk to you then but I'm fairly certain it will be well north of this figure. All factors taken into consideration and your at least $1500 to $3000 ahead of the game- Dollars or Euros in the bank (I shoot far more then Ben's example) when you purchase an M8 vs. buying an old M6 for $900 plus it’s development costs over five years time.
Good points Ben- thanks.
Good points Ben- thanks.
Ben Z
Veteran
Sailor Ted said:
Printing cost is the same whether the file came from a digital camera or a scanner, so it doesn't belong in the equation. I only digitize slides for burning to a DVD to display on a big-screen HDTV and my Canoscan 4000 (itself overkill for the purpose) cost me $250 in mint shape. Time is not money for me, but if it was, I would probably just keep dragging the projector and screen out. I do agree with you that the M8 will most certainly be selling used for well more than $1000 in five years. Either Leica will have gone out of business and the few thousand in existence are sought after by collectors, or else Leica will still be in business still selling the M8, unchanged. After all, since it's perfect right now, why would they change it and risk losing loyal customers like yourself?
Last edited:
EotyLMB
Newbie
I'd like to think you were wrong...but
I'd like to think you were wrong...but
I awaited the arrival of my new M8 on Friday. Finally after a flight diverted for fog it arrived, but late. Maybe this was an omen. After unpacking everything, starting the battery charging, reading the manual (yes), attaching a lens, inserting SD card, and the strap, I was ready to fire it up. The camera beeped and displayed "bottom cover off" or something like that as I inserted the battery. That was all she wrote. Turning on the switch did nothing.
I recharged the battery two more times. Same thing. If anyone has a magic trick, please. Otherwise, I already have the RMA to return. It is just that there is no replacement available.
Thanks for sharing my pain
LMB
I'd like to think you were wrong...but
I awaited the arrival of my new M8 on Friday. Finally after a flight diverted for fog it arrived, but late. Maybe this was an omen. After unpacking everything, starting the battery charging, reading the manual (yes), attaching a lens, inserting SD card, and the strap, I was ready to fire it up. The camera beeped and displayed "bottom cover off" or something like that as I inserted the battery. That was all she wrote. Turning on the switch did nothing.
I recharged the battery two more times. Same thing. If anyone has a magic trick, please. Otherwise, I already have the RMA to return. It is just that there is no replacement available.
Thanks for sharing my pain
LMB
HAnkg
Well-known
Ben Z said:Printing cost is the same whether the file came from a digital camera or a scanner, so it doesn't belong in the equation.
Scanning costs certainly do belong in the equation. You may value your time at 0 but I like to get something north of what they pay at McDonalds for my time. If someone would drum scan all my film mounted in scanning fluid for free I might still be shooting with film.
In addition any advantage film might have is gone once you use a desktop scanner with an imaging sensor inferior to the one you would be using in a high end digital camera. What's the point of shooting 4x5 then scanning on an Epson?
Of course how much you shoot will impact your value proposition. For pros film and processing costs can easily exceed $30,000 per year. If your shooting one or two rolls a month it's pretty difficult to practically justify the exorbident costs of top of the line digital when there is so much top of the line film stuff available used at a fraction of the price.
Ben Z
Veteran
Sailor Ted said:
I hardly have any reason to, given there's a lush supply of barely-touched photographic equipment that affluent amateurs with GAS sell as soon as the high wears off
Right now someone would have to pay me to jump into that abyss
You're describing a famine but what I'm seeing is a bounty.
Actually over the last 50-60 years that's exactly what most slides were used for outside the professional domain. IMO there's still nothing out there with the WOW factor of good slides projected on a big screen. Big-screen HDTV is great but not many people can afford them as big as a typical slide screen.
I guess you never heard of a batch scanner? Even my lowly Canon 4000 holds 4 slides in a strip and I can set it to running and come back when it's done and put 4 more slides in. There's no need for me to sit there babystitting it. It's one more step than going straight from digital capture but there's no tedium involved.
I'd amend that to read "the only active company in the DRF market" and in fact if you zealous owners succeed in silencing any dissenting voices, Leica isn't going to have any reason to bother improving it.
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
HAnkg said:
Read it again. I said printing costs don't belong in the equation because they are the same regardless of whether the file came from a digital camera or a scanner.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
All my father's old Agfa slides I can throw into the dustbin - colors gone, contrast washed out.(Kodachromes are fine btw) Photographic and movie museums spend millions trying to salvage old cellulose film. Digital data - sure- the format can became obsolete, as a matter of fact is sure to be, but it can be easily converted to new formats when the time is there. And I noticed a printer company guaranteeing their papers and inks for 200 years...My nineteensixties colour photographs are grey in grey...Look at it this way: Using clay tablets is rather obsolete, very few of us are fluent in ancient Semitic languages but nobody has a problem reading the Bible....Don't confuse content with form.
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
jaapv said:
I'm lucky my father shot Kodachrome. I've got some of his from the 1940's that are as snappy as the day they were shot. I duped a lot of them onto E6 because Kodachrome fades from projection more than storage, but that was before I got a scanner. Now put a lot of them onto DVD. I just have to remember to transfer them onto whatever the next medium-du-jour is while I've still got a computer that can read them. Or else I may have to go back to those pristine Kodachromes and scan them all over again