thambar
Shouldn't it be sharper?
Wonderful presentation on the subject by Brian Reid, founder of the Leica Users Group. Reid has been involved in the tech industry for decades, at one point leading all technology at Google. He came to roughly the same conclusion of film vis a vis digital: all will be lost unless you make a physical print (or color separation prints), or unless you have a rigorous program of recopying data to the latest operating systems. In either case, preservation must be an active effort, rather than passive (as he put it, in the past preservation "just happened" as pictures were relegated to photo albums, trunks, boxes, closets, garages and attics). http://leica-users.org/NYLUG-2011.pdf
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
So... how many family and friends are going to look for your negatives? Unless you're name is Winogrand, or Maier, or Steiglitz, its probably not likely they're going to be digging through that 'treasure trove' of old b&w negatives.
Much more likely that those you leave behind are going to sift through old albums/prints to find the family treasures to be passed along. Thus I think its better not to worry about digital archives, but to be making prints and books of images you cherish and want to leave to future generations.
And if you happen to be one of those fortunate very few of us who's photos are going to be sought after by the larger public years from now, you can always begin making negatives from the digital data and storing them in that shoebox.
yep, it does not seems to make sense,
until you try to load a 8" floppy disk onto your PC or Mac,
or try to read your DOS wordstar format documents with Word.
times and technology change.
with those changes technology bridges are available for awhile,
those those bridges fade and fall off from non use.
even my Imac from 7 years ago is not capable of updating to the current operating system.
Stephen
rscheffler
Well-known
Thank you VertovSvilova for such a comprehensive and spot on answer!
My takeaway is that analog or digital, it takes resources to ensure archival longevity (money, equipment, time, planning, intent). Most analog content owned by many of us is not correctly archived. I'm sure some are better than other, but over time, priorities change, ownership changes, and preservation usually ends up coming down to some lowest denominator of money/value/effort.
Digital makes content generation easier. Archiving, in part through distribution/dispersal is also easier. The whole concept of the original is irrelevant unless your business model is based on maintaining scarcity to increase value. The cost of entry to decent digital archiving is low, meaning more likelihood of doing it. That's not to say it's perfect, as the article outlines. And I agree, it's still largely the individual's responsibility to ensure data is maintained and migrated.
I believe in the shorter term, like 30-50 years, there is an advantage to digital, in that it is less susceptible to 'general environmental' degradation (shoebox in the attic/heat/humidity/mold) that affects analog images, primarily color dye based images. Nor is it generally susceptible to loss through duplication/reproduction, though granted, issues of file corruption and digital rot are valid concerns. Perhaps its biggest advantage, IMO, is space efficiency. I love prints, but storage is such a pain. File formats such as Jpeg, Tiff and DNG have been around a relatively long time now, are common and are well understood. 30-50 years is decent since that will span most people's lifetimes and give them many opportunities to revisit their photos, videos, etc. and enjoy them with the same physical properties (color, tonality, sound, etc.) as the day they were created. After that, it's in someone else's hands anyway.
Just recently I saw something about FaceBook allowing users to designate 'inheritance' of accounts. Google has a similar capacity in that a longer period of account dormancy, such as when you die, can be set up to automatically forward your credentials to a designate. While this won't guarantee continuation of someone's archive, it's a sign that digitally based entities are starting to take these points into consideration. In the future you and all your relatives will likely inherit uncle Harry's media archive without any physical transaction. And there will be provisions to transfer it also to some sort of public entity.
Ultimately, this is only of any good if society continues to maintain a certain technological standard, let alone manages to continue at all.
My takeaway is that analog or digital, it takes resources to ensure archival longevity (money, equipment, time, planning, intent). Most analog content owned by many of us is not correctly archived. I'm sure some are better than other, but over time, priorities change, ownership changes, and preservation usually ends up coming down to some lowest denominator of money/value/effort.
Digital makes content generation easier. Archiving, in part through distribution/dispersal is also easier. The whole concept of the original is irrelevant unless your business model is based on maintaining scarcity to increase value. The cost of entry to decent digital archiving is low, meaning more likelihood of doing it. That's not to say it's perfect, as the article outlines. And I agree, it's still largely the individual's responsibility to ensure data is maintained and migrated.
I believe in the shorter term, like 30-50 years, there is an advantage to digital, in that it is less susceptible to 'general environmental' degradation (shoebox in the attic/heat/humidity/mold) that affects analog images, primarily color dye based images. Nor is it generally susceptible to loss through duplication/reproduction, though granted, issues of file corruption and digital rot are valid concerns. Perhaps its biggest advantage, IMO, is space efficiency. I love prints, but storage is such a pain. File formats such as Jpeg, Tiff and DNG have been around a relatively long time now, are common and are well understood. 30-50 years is decent since that will span most people's lifetimes and give them many opportunities to revisit their photos, videos, etc. and enjoy them with the same physical properties (color, tonality, sound, etc.) as the day they were created. After that, it's in someone else's hands anyway.
Just recently I saw something about FaceBook allowing users to designate 'inheritance' of accounts. Google has a similar capacity in that a longer period of account dormancy, such as when you die, can be set up to automatically forward your credentials to a designate. While this won't guarantee continuation of someone's archive, it's a sign that digitally based entities are starting to take these points into consideration. In the future you and all your relatives will likely inherit uncle Harry's media archive without any physical transaction. And there will be provisions to transfer it also to some sort of public entity.
Ultimately, this is only of any good if society continues to maintain a certain technological standard, let alone manages to continue at all.
Kwesi
Well-known
The very idea of cloud storage is based on long term retrieval of data. It's very survival depends on there being a solution to this problem. Cloud storage is here to stay.
rscheffler
Well-known
Because the hardware and OS are a proprietary system intentionally designed to have a maximum period of support, to force you to buy something newer.
The image files, and most every other file you managed with that computer, however, still work on newer models. A good example though, of the value of open source or extremely popular file formats, such as Jpeg, Tiff, DNG, PDF, TXT, MP3, etc..
But you're right, it's about migration and staying on top of things.
DNG
Film Friendly
Besides printing on archive materials, BluRay has a 100 year archive rating, as does SSD hard-drives...
BUT, the BluRay may have a longer life span than SSD's since Opticals drives have been backward compatible since the CD.
BUT, a strong magnet could wipe a BluRay I would guess.
It is absolutely a concern if you want to have future generations enjoy your work. I would also add to have good quality photo books made.
That may not preserve the file or negative the image came from, but, it does place your work in an easily managed archive..
And books are always kept as people move from one home to another, for most.
Technology will advance, and what ever electronic media we choose, will be obsolete. So, the age tested is to print, print, print,
so others can enjoy them w/o having to print the electronic themselves.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
That's a totally irrelevant analogy. Operating systems are the epitome of hardware dependent software, by definition. The old iMac cannot run the current OS because its hardware lacks things that the current OS requires.
Your iMac from 7 years ago with its installed OS is capable of reading any of today's PNG, JPEG, TIFF, or PSD image files as well as the ones I made a decade before it was created. These image file standards are not hardware dependent.
G
NY_Dan
Well-known
Best of both worlds, shoot film and have scans -- so they can back each other up. Of course, how many shots are good enough for posterity. And how many of us are young enough to care about the accessibility of our work in 30 years? Or people can shoot digital and then print negatives as back-ups. Or just make prints of the best images -- hopefully nothing larger than 11 x 17 would suffice, and yet not take up too much room. Just today, I finally finished scanning my faves from 26 rolls this afternoon. And I had this thought -- I now have about 10 archival boxes filled with about 200 rolls of 120 negs in pages -- what sort of burden is that for my 2 children? Will they just throw it out? I couldn't blame them. Who has room for stuff these days?
charjohncarter
Veteran
I use only RAW files: that's in 21st century terms. I used to call them slides and negatives.
I do some digital work but I don't do anything I consider important (that is work for others). Although I will say with lighting photographs digital is an excellent flash meter when you use the histogram display.
Pentax just came out with or will come out with a FF DSLR. I will probably buy it and use it when I do work for others, but mostly I'll be able to tell people that I have a FF digital. There are still a few drops of Thorstein Veblen's conspicuous consumption blood in my veins.
I do some digital work but I don't do anything I consider important (that is work for others). Although I will say with lighting photographs digital is an excellent flash meter when you use the histogram display.
Pentax just came out with or will come out with a FF DSLR. I will probably buy it and use it when I do work for others, but mostly I'll be able to tell people that I have a FF digital. There are still a few drops of Thorstein Veblen's conspicuous consumption blood in my veins.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Again, if you want your work to survive you, publish. For anything you publish, get an ISBN number and register the copyright with the Library of Congress; send them an archive copy. It will be maintained until this civilization crumbles into dust.
Leaving your future to boxes of prints or negatives in a storage locker is not an archival solution. It's a solution to stuffing your junk somewhere so others can destroy it for you when you die.
G
Leaving your future to boxes of prints or negatives in a storage locker is not an archival solution. It's a solution to stuffing your junk somewhere so others can destroy it for you when you die.
G
KM-25
Well-known
I'm not too worried about it. I have shot digital along side of film for 21 years professionally and have nearly 30TB of all kinds of storage, off site and on, that in addition to DVD's which I do not rely on at all. Also, my two biggest clients also have robust backups of my work in several places.
And thankfully, I am largely phasing digital out of my work as film use now represents 90% of pro work, so there is that...
And thankfully, I am largely phasing digital out of my work as film use now represents 90% of pro work, so there is that...
OP, yes it is possible. Make high grad prints of your digital images. At least you can recover 95% in a scan.
And part of this discussion is about "lost" images. Will they be able to be viewed after time has passed? If Vivian Maier's photos were shot digitally and stored on 5 1/4 inch disks would they have been found today and discovered? Highly unlikely. If they were stored on USB 2.0 sticks and found in the year 2080, would they be easily viewable? Again, highly unlikely. Who will even know what USB 2.0 is in 70 years from now?
Completely wrong here. I have negatives from my family that are just about to pass 90 years old. These negatives, which are fully printable and in excellent shape, were not archived in any way except to be put into a box and stored in my parents attic.
I dont think these negatives have been looked at in the past 20 years or so as they were forgotten/lost. But they were found and now are in the process of being printed.
It is this type of archiving that 99.9% of us want when we discuss this in threads like this. Few here produce timeless words of art that are almost mandated to be saved for posterity.
No, what we want is for our important images to be saved for our families. Film gives us the easiest way to "file and forget" about images. Digital requires active management to prevent loss due to data rot, format obsolescence as well as hardware obsolescence.
leicapixie
Well-known
Who cares about immortality!
Only some fat egos.
I want my kids and grand-kids to have, hold and see.
If NASA can't read their early data, what chance have i..?
I have had CD/DVD not read, back up drives do suicides/PCs
become obsolete.
Sorry but the danger is real and here..
FrankS
Registered User
Print !
majid
Fazal Majid
Those ratings are all extrapolated from accelerated fading tests, and his methodology has failed before, when he overestimated the lifespan of Epson 1270 prints on Epson Premium Glossy paper because he did not anticipate extreme sensitivity of the paper and cyan to ozone.
The only inkjet medium I'd comfortably accept as archival is carbon-based pigment inks for B&W.
Extremely optimistic. A number of photo sharing startups have come and gone:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/2/7964663/why-every-photo-storage-startup-dies-or-gets-acquired
The cloud is not a non-profit (well, apart from the Internet Archive). Cloud providers expect you to pay for storage, otherwise it will be reclaimed and the files deleted. They won't survive benign neglect as well as negatives or print would.
You were lucky. There are many families where the negatives are unceremoniously tossed away after their owner dies.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Count me among the not worried but if I were a betting man my money would be on digital being the last "man" standing.
Film is far too fragile and just as easy to dispose of.
I was given a pile of MF negs from the 20`s and 30`s last year .
Any idea how long it takes to go through them and scan them ...most folk just wouldn`t be bothered .
I`m not sure that I can be to be honest which is why they`ve sat there for over a year.
Film is far too fragile and just as easy to dispose of.
I was given a pile of MF negs from the 20`s and 30`s last year .
Any idea how long it takes to go through them and scan them ...most folk just wouldn`t be bothered .
I`m not sure that I can be to be honest which is why they`ve sat there for over a year.
Ranchu
Veteran
Are you just assuming these 'many families'? I personally have never heard of anyone dumb enough to do that. It certainly doesn't seem as common as a dead hd. Not enough to make someone appear 'lucky' that it didn't happen, as if it were a narrow escape from a common problem. Ko Fe was just telling us the firmware and hardware of cloud storage hard drives was getting corrupted after only 4 years. Nice.