M8 Review by Tom Abrahamsson

[fgianni]

Gammatech in New Mexico will output to film. As Tom say, the best archival storage.

Is anyone aware of a similar service in Europe?

Thanks

 

[EllitoGuy]

Film may be more expensive than digital back-up, but one thing that it definately has going for it is that it is human-readable. You can pick up a piece of film and look at it, print it, etc. Try doing that with any sort of digital media.

Digital media is just as likely to be damaged by fire, water and time as film.

You can continually update your back-ups just as easily--if not as inexpensively--with analog media as with digital.

umm you can preview a digital file just as easily these days, probably more easily since you dont need a loupe to get a decent idea of whats on the neg-- the screen gives you much more information. plus, i dunno if you heard about this, but you can print digital files too... 😎

digital media is superior because one is not limited to the physical, youre only trading and storing information. that information can be transmitted and stored in many places very cheaply.

and im sorry but youre way off base saying you can update backups for analog media as easily, you need to send the digital file to be burnt onto a neg, which then has to be shipped to you. i can put my files on a digital server which is backed up on 20 different drives in about one minute, for free.

like i said, digital is superior because the medium is inconsequential, you can destroy a hard drive, but if i put the file in my gmail account, the only thing that could permanently destroy my file is a nuclear holocaust that wipes out all of america. in that event my pics wont be my largest concern.

 

[EllitoGuy]

Sometimes I feel very silly and have gotten good results😛
Probably the better way is to set the camera up for B&W and the shoot RAW or RAW + JPEG. The RAW file will have all the info for PP conversion and you can compare it to the in-camera version. While shooting, you get to see a B&W version on the LCD for composition.
Bob

well i didnt say its impossible to get a good shot, youre just shooting yourself in the foot in that when you shoot bw only in cam, youre throwing away all the color information which you can later manipulate into black or white values (channel mixer FTW!)

but yeah, maybe bw on screen for composition is helpful as a compositional tool, i havent really used it as such...

 

[Nachkebia]

You can shoot raw file in BW mode, so you can see BW on the back screen (for the mood) but have all the color information saved...

 

[EllitoGuy]

You can shoot raw file in BW mode, so you can see BW on the back screen (for the mood) but have all the color information saved...

thats what bob ross said...

 

[Nachkebia]

🙄 Pardon me 🙄

 

[EllitoGuy]

🙄 Pardon me 🙄

😀🙂😱😎

 

[Matthew]

umm you can preview a digital file just as easily these days, probably more easily since you dont need a loupe to get a decent idea of whats on the neg-- the screen gives you much more information. plus, i dunno if you heard about this, but you can print digital files too...

digital media is superior because one is not limited to the physical, youre only trading and storing information. that information can be transmitted and stored in many places very cheaply.

I was more refering to storage in the realm of 50-100 years and worse case scenarios than storage concerns in the short term. No computer + digital file = 0. At least with a piece of film you have something.

and im sorry but youre way off base saying you can update backups for analog media as easily, you need to send the digital file to be burnt onto a neg, which then has to be shipped to you. i can put my files on a digital server which is backed up on 20 different drives in about one minute, for free.

Am I so off base? Once you have that first piece of film--whether it came straight out of the camera or from a digital file copied to film--it is a simple process to make dupes. While this isn't as simple as uploading files to a server, it really isn't that difficult.

... if i put the file in my gmail account, the only thing that could permanently destroy my file is a nuclear holocaust that wipes out all of america. in that event my pics wont be my largest concern.

Fair enough...

 

[EllitoGuy]

I was more refering to storage in the realm of 50-100 years and worse case scenarios than storage concerns in the short term. No computer + digital file = 0. At least with a piece of film you have something.

do you see yourself not having a computer anytime soon 🙄

Am I so off base? Once you have that first piece of film--whether it came straight out of the camera or from a digital file copied to film--it is a simple process to make dupes. While this isn't as simple as uploading files to a server, it really isn't that difficult.
.

sure, its simple in that it probably involves sending a file to a place that burns negs, and wait for it to ship back.

now,
costly? im sure its considerably more than 'free'.
time consuming? unless youre willing to contribute to cost with mroe expensive shipping, yes. certainly more time consuming than clicking the mouse a few times.

most importantly though, is it secure, esp compared to digital alternatives? is it just as viable?

i dont think so. film ages. 50 years from now your photos will not print like they do now off the negative. digital is timeless.

lastly, negatives take up space! i love my negs, but 10 binders full of negs are a pain in the ass to take off the shelf, sort, sift through, find specific photos, etc. id much rather have windows sort it for me, by date, time, hell even location(!) if you have a gps device hooked to your camera.

this is why i think analog storage of digital files is not viable.

 

[VinceC]

>>Digital media is just as likely to be damaged by fire, water and time as film.<<

We're off topic a bit, but I think digital is an excellent backup because of its ability to do exact copies onto media that can be stored in separate locations. For example, I back up all our digitized family photos can keep one copy in a bank safe-deposit box, another at home, plus what I store online.

 

[Matthew]

do you see yourself not having a computer anytime soon 🙄

I don't see myself not having a computer anytime in the next decade to fifteen years or so, but I wouldn't want to be placing bets beyond that. The only reason I even suggest this is because of uncertainty in energy supply. The arrival of peak oil is imminent if not slightly past. The entire infrastructure of modernity relies upon this energy supply. While alternative energy sources will certainly take up some of the difference, it is unlikely they can completely take over from oil. The resulting society is going to be much different in construction and texture than what we currently experience. I don't think widespread personal computer ownership--not computer existence but personal ownership to the extent we now have--is guaranteed to survive in this situation.

We're so far off photography here that I'm just going to leave it here. Digital back-up is certainly quicker and in many ways better than analog, but at the same time film really isn't a bad option if you feel its strengths outweigh its weaknesses.

 

[EllitoGuy]

I don't see myself not having a computer anytime in the next decade to fifteen years or so, but I wouldn't want to be placing bets beyond that. The only reason I even suggest this is because of uncertainty in energy supply. The arrival of peak oil is imminent if not slightly past. The entire infrastructure of modernity relies upon this energy supply. While alternative energy sources will certainly take up some of the difference, it is unlikely they can completely take over from oil. The resulting society is going to be much different in construction and texture than what we currently experience. I don't think widespread personal computer ownership--not computer existence but personal ownership to the extent we now have--is guaranteed to survive in this situation.

We're so far off photography here that I'm just going to leave it here. Digital back-up is certainly quicker and in many ways better than analog, but at the same time film really isn't a bad option if you feel its strengths outweigh its weaknesses.

dude. wow.

youre seriously misguided if you think the personal computer is going somewhere and the camera isnt.

 

[Socke]

You can continually update your back-ups just as easily--if not as inexpensively--with analog media as with digital.

A third generation slide copy is ugly, a third generation CD or DVD copy is as good as the original. Add to that the time it costs to duplicate one slide compared to the time it takes to copy a DVD with several images.

That`s why the RIAA loves the internet and CD or DVD recorders so much 🙂

 

[Nachkebia]

Lets all happyly move to digial and sing haliluja! 😀

 

[Crasis]

Actually the RIAA loves CDs and DVDs so much because they're easily scratched and rendered unlistenable, hence forcing you to buy another copy! Paying twice or more for the same thing is a gold mine 🙂

 

[Socke]

I was more refering to storage in the realm of 50-100 years and worse case scenarios than storage concerns in the short term. No computer + digital file = 0. At least with a piece of film you have something.



Am I so off base? Once you have that first piece of film--whether it came straight out of the camera or from a digital file copied to film--it is a simple process to make dupes. While this isn't as simple as uploading files to a server, it really isn't that difficult.



Fair enough...

If I judge storage lifetime by the Kodak Gold negs I have had developed at the 24hour lab in Disneyworld in 1984 I`d say 25 to 30 years is the best you can get.

 

[Matthew]

dude. wow.

youre seriously misguided if you think the personal computer is going somewhere and the camera isnt.

Well, photography would likely fall by the wayside as well ...

 

[EllitoGuy]

Well, photography would likely fall by the wayside as well ...

rendering your point null...

 

[VinceC]

>>Actually the RIAA loves CDs and DVDs so much because they're easily scratched<<

Film is also easily scratched. More easily than a CD or DVD.

 

[Socke]

Actually the RIAA loves CDs and DVDs so much because they're easily scratched and rendered unlistenable, hence forcing you to buy another copy! Paying twice or more for the same thing is a gold mine 🙂

Yeah! Sure! What they hate is the recordable CD and DVD and the recorders.

It took the better part of an hour to copy a Vinyl LP to tape, with more or less pleasing results depending on the recording device and material used.

Then you gave that tape to a friend who made another copy for a third person which was even worse and the third person might have bought the original because it just sounds better and what are 3 quid for a best price LP compared to hours of taping?

Today you rip a one hour CD with better quality any cassette tape ever had in minutes and distribute it to thousands via the internet in a day.

Or in other words, I don`t want the Walkman back. My Ipod is smaller, doesn`t eat tapes for breakfast and I have more music I`ll ever listen to in my car on a pocketable device 🙂

From there to digital picture storage is not far, especialy for someone working with document management systems.