chris000
Landscaper
English Heritage* have recently published a book called ‘England Observed’ by a photographer named John Gay (born Hans Gohler in Germany). I purchased a copy a few weeks ago and have enjoyed it immensely. Photos of England from the last 60 years or so – portraits, street stuff, rural and urban landscapes, children, animals; you name it, it’s there. English Heritage holds a large collection of Jan Gay’s work because it is deemed of both artistic and historic importance, and they have published this book to mark 100 years since his birth.
But given all the talk on this and other forums recently about restrictions on photography and harassment by police and pseudo police, it struck me that we might not see it’s like in future. If I were to try to emulate his work in 21st century England I would almost certainly face arrest as a suspected terrorist or paedophile (and probably a few over things!).
I am e-mailing English Heritage to suggest that they note that photographers (professional and amateur) will not be the only losers from this lack of respect for our hobby or profession. Historic records will be much the poorer a hundred years from now as a result.
Here is a link to the book on Amazon (UK): http://www.amazon.co.uk/England-Observed-John-Gay-1909-1999/dp/1848020031/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234038133&sr=1-1
Here is a link to the John Gay collection at English Heritage http://www.englishheritageimages.com/pics_12756/john-gay-collection.html?pn=6&so=2&sci=1234040873&gid=12756
* For those not of the UK, English Heritage is the UK Government’s statutory advisor on the historic environment in England
But given all the talk on this and other forums recently about restrictions on photography and harassment by police and pseudo police, it struck me that we might not see it’s like in future. If I were to try to emulate his work in 21st century England I would almost certainly face arrest as a suspected terrorist or paedophile (and probably a few over things!).
I am e-mailing English Heritage to suggest that they note that photographers (professional and amateur) will not be the only losers from this lack of respect for our hobby or profession. Historic records will be much the poorer a hundred years from now as a result.
Here is a link to the book on Amazon (UK): http://www.amazon.co.uk/England-Observed-John-Gay-1909-1999/dp/1848020031/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234038133&sr=1-1
Here is a link to the John Gay collection at English Heritage http://www.englishheritageimages.com/pics_12756/john-gay-collection.html?pn=6&so=2&sci=1234040873&gid=12756
* For those not of the UK, English Heritage is the UK Government’s statutory advisor on the historic environment in England
oftheherd
Veteran
Lamentations aside, there is a worry that those of us who use cameras as if we knew what we were doing, may face more restrictions in the future. However, with 3 mp cell phone cameras here and higher to come, I expect there will be many photos to choose from in the future, as long as they are in fact preserved.
chris000
Landscaper
Aye, there's the rub
Micky D
-
Nostalgia can be painful eh?
I remember the rag and bone man with his horse drawn cart.
What are the kids photographing today that they will create such "nostalgia"?
edit: Thanks for the link Chris, wonderful images and memories.
I remember the rag and bone man with his horse drawn cart.
What are the kids photographing today that they will create such "nostalgia"?
edit: Thanks for the link Chris, wonderful images and memories.
rumbliegeos
Well-known
Frankly, I think a much larger and more comprehensive threat to the long term visual record of history is the current iteration of digital recording. Huge amounts of photographs will never be recorded in a remotely durable and form. I say this as someone who uses digital technology and appreciates its advantages. Better standards and materials for storage of images are needed. This is not a rant against digital photography, just an observation about improving part of the process.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
We know that the E2, E3, E4, and E6 Ektachromes are fading. Most all of the Anscochromes and GAF stuff is aleady very faded, and Agfachromes as well. C-22 and C-41 color negatives aren't stable, nor was Agfacolor. I'm not too familiar with Fuji's dye stability. When it comes to color that leaves Kodachrome. I have a box here that my dad shot on my parents honeymoon in 1941. They're in pretty good shape after 68 years. My B&W negatives from the early 1960's are still in great shape, and cataloged, along with the contact sheets, also in good shape.
Most publications purge their picture files every few years, and only the stuff deemed important enough to begin with was kept even that long. Stuff gets stuffed into the wrong file folder, prints get pushed off and under desks by accident, then the custodial staff sweeps it up and out it goes with the the rest of the trash.
Sure, digital makes it easier to purge files, and it doesn't fill up landfills, but purging files has always happened. I remember reading someplace that at one time it was common practice to scrape the emulsion off of glass plates and use them to build greenhouses.
There's an old saying about "He who wins the war gets to write the history books". In the long run that's just as true with photography. "Winning the war" might just consist of being the one who still has the images, and perhaps making them easy to locate via the web with good captions filled with all the right key words. They might not be the greatest pictures taken of an event, but if they're the only ones available that doesn't matter.
Save EVERYTHING, make notes about who, what, when, where, and why, "the five W's of journalism". I have photos of numerous people as teenagers or twenty-somethings who then went on to bigger and greater things. If we're going to "win the war" and define the history of our times through our images we need to preserve those images.
Most publications purge their picture files every few years, and only the stuff deemed important enough to begin with was kept even that long. Stuff gets stuffed into the wrong file folder, prints get pushed off and under desks by accident, then the custodial staff sweeps it up and out it goes with the the rest of the trash.
Sure, digital makes it easier to purge files, and it doesn't fill up landfills, but purging files has always happened. I remember reading someplace that at one time it was common practice to scrape the emulsion off of glass plates and use them to build greenhouses.
There's an old saying about "He who wins the war gets to write the history books". In the long run that's just as true with photography. "Winning the war" might just consist of being the one who still has the images, and perhaps making them easy to locate via the web with good captions filled with all the right key words. They might not be the greatest pictures taken of an event, but if they're the only ones available that doesn't matter.
Save EVERYTHING, make notes about who, what, when, where, and why, "the five W's of journalism". I have photos of numerous people as teenagers or twenty-somethings who then went on to bigger and greater things. If we're going to "win the war" and define the history of our times through our images we need to preserve those images.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Vehicles powered by interbal combustion engines I suspect ... I believe that nostalgia as such is purely perception and our own view of our surroundings will certainly not be shared by the generation viewing history fifty or one hundred years from now!
Keeping the crap together will be the problem as very little seems to be made to actually last more than a few years before it gets crushed and recycled!
bmattock
Veteran
The threat is not from digital recording. The threat is from people failing to take those steps necessary to protect their images.
Digital is inherently more durable than film.
Part of the work I do is in the field of data preservation. Amazingly, lots of us do. And we're good at it. Please don't tell me that you work in this field as well, that would make me very sad.
Not if you take adequate steps to protect your images. Existing materials and standards are quite sufficient. However, both continue to evolve and get better over time, so that's a win-win.
How do you think that banks store financial data? Paper records? Think again. It's all digital. Stock markets and financial transactions worldwide? Digital.
The financial industry understands the need to do two things with data - protect it from theft, and protect it from damage or destruction. Both are critical. They don't tend to the former nearly as well as they ought, but they do the latter very well indeed.
There is no essential difference between the methods used for storing financial data and for storing digital photos. A digital copy has the added advantage of being identical to the original it was copied from - thus, an nth-generation copy of an image is the same image, bit for bit, as the original. Although film can be copied very faithfully, it is never an identical copy, and additional generations of copies-of-copies will degrade the image even further.
Ultimately, anyone who complains that CDs or DVDs lose integrity over time, or that hard drives fail or that hardware and software standards change, leaving data 'stranded' in inaccessible formats, has taken insufficient care of their photographs. They claim to value them, but they did not have a plan, a workflow, or a pattern of protecting their images. Their data storage method fails, they have no backup, and they're hosed - and that's the fault of digital technology? I left an LP record out in the sun in my car once and it warped - that was the fault of the record, huh?
I agree that people need to take better care of their photos - film or digital - if they intend them to survive over a long period of time. The means exist for them to do that - there is no need for newer or better standards or technology for that to happen. They just need to decide how much their photos are worth to them, how much time, money, and effort they are willing to devote to protecting them, and then develop and implement their plan to do so. If they fail to do so - then they have no right to complain.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Yeah, I have two copies of all of my digital files. One is on my desktop, one on my laptop. Since the laptop and the desktop are in different cities most of the time, it's offsite storage.
pesphoto
Veteran
I'm not sure you can make that statement. How long has digital been around compared to film? IN 50 years are you sure the files you save now will be readable? I have negs more than 20 years old myself. Others have much much older negs that they can pull out and make a perfectly nice print from. Talk to me in 50- 100 years and tell me then that your current digital files are durable. Then I'll take your word for it.
Tuolumne
Veteran
bmattock
Veteran
I am.
How does that matter?
No, they probably won't be. But the copies made of them will be, and they will be identical to the originals. That's the nature of digital. Every copy is identical to the original.
So a copy of a copy of a copy, etc, etc, of a digital photo will be identical in 50 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, whatever - if you or your descendants care to keep the data fresh and redundant and safely stored and backups tested, it will essentially last until there are no more people to keep track of it. It can be as immortal as the human race, assuming we do not lose technology and fall back into savagery.
I don't care if you take my word for it or not. If you don't understand how digital works, that's really not my problem. The fact is that digital photos can be stored essentially forever if maintained, and film cannot, it has a lifespan even if that lifespan measures in centuries. Forever is longer than centuries. Digital wins. End of discussion.
pesphoto
Veteran
really BIll? You know that digital will last FOREVER? That's silly. How can anyone know that? Nothing lasts forever. Honestly, you may even be correct, but I dont care if my negs disintegrate in 300 years. To me its part of the beauty of the process of film. Everything is meant to disintegrate and go away eventually. As long as humans continue to create...that is what is important isnt it? Why does everything need to last for eternity?! Digital is not beautiful it is mechanical and it is sterile. Not to say that people can not take beautiful images with digital cameras,not at all. But you can not say for sure it will last longer than my negs or prints. You dont have a time machine . Well...maybe you do. I'm still jealous of your camera collection.....
. Well...maybe you do. I'm still jealous of your camera collection.....
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
As surely as I know that a digital copy is the same for generation 1 as it is for generation N.
The rules of math do not change. A digital 1 is a digital 1 and a copy of that digital 1 is 1.
Forever being a relative term, yes. I did qualify my statement earlier - my position on the longevity of a given digital photo depends upon the existence of people who care to keep making copies and the technology with which to do it. If there are no more people, or no more technology, then yes, the digital photos remaining will eventually degrade and cease to exist. Of course, there won't be anyone around who cares at that point - can that still be considered 'forever' for all intents and purposes?
I know some people like to take photos of urban decay, but I never thought of entropy as an art form in and of itself.
I'd argue that. For a thing to be 'meant' to do something, a purpose must exist. A ball is not 'meant' to bounce - without someone to bounce it, it does not care if it is bounced or not. If it was created with the intent that it be used for bouncing, then that intent was present in the designer's purpose.
So to say that 'everything' is 'meant to disintegrate', we must posit a purpose that intends that happen. Science and nature have no separate intelligence, and thus cannot purpose anything. Even most religions I know of do not intend to destroy 'everything'. So the concept is self-falsifying.
Ah, that's changing the parameters to suit your desired outcome. First we claim that film will outlast digital, but if we can't win that argument, we claim that lasting a long time isn't that great anyway. Ah-ah-ah...
But to answer your question - I have said before and I will say again - the brutal truth is that most of us produce great heaping mounds of horrible crap-tastic photographs and we ought to be horsewhipped for doing it (I include myself in that condemnation). Our relatives and loved ones will no doubt flog our precious cameras and lenses for pennies on the dollar on eBay the moment our bodies quit twitching, and our negatives, slides, and other photographic detritus will be headed for the garbage dump moments after the Will is read. So whatever we think about the lifespan of this film or that CD-ROM, the truth is, none of it really matters. We mostly produce insults to humanity that no one should see anyway. So, uh, no, it need not last forever. Just until we assume room temperature.
dfoo
Well-known
What you say is correct in theory. However, practice has shown often things don't work out like that. There is lots of stuff that can no longer be ready because the hardware is no longer available, and somebody could not, or did not preserve a copy of the data on another more recent device. I speak from experience on this issue. I once worked for an organization that stored some data on paper tape... They had two paper tape readers. One backup, and one that was used. The in use broke, and then they found out that the back up wasn't working either. It was very very difficult to recover that data, and in the end it was only recovered at extreme cost.
bmattock
Veteran
Human error is not the fault of digital technology. When a new format becomes standard, if the data is not copied to that format, it is either not important enough to preserve, or the humans who were supposed to do it were negligent.
There is no one to blame but the people responsible. The technology did not fail, they did.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/cs-081114-moon-photo.html
In the above story, the technology did not fail. In fact, the data was amazingly intact considered how it was stored. The people charged with protecting it failed.
dfoo
Well-known
Sure, however, the point that you are missing is that people are fallible... people screw up all the time.
pesphoto
Veteran
I agree that most of what we produce isn't that great, but some of my work is important to me. (even if others think its has no value)I dont know how your family works, but my family respects and cherishes each other and values ones life work especially knowing it is important to the person in question. We save and display such things proudly and use it to show the younger generations of the family the value of their relative's lives. We don't sell their stuff on ebay!!