My theory on the SLOW death of digital

[MP Guy]

You read correctly I am starting a film vs digital war! . I may be the only one out here to say this. But, I think DIGITAL cameras will not necessarily die but eventually the demand will demish and film will prevail. I see this happening in about 10 years!Here is why.

As it stands the shelf life of archive media such as CD's, DVD's magnetic tape etc is not as long as some had hoped for. This being the case, those who want their work preserved for q VERY long time will have a problem finding a way to do so. For example, just the other day I was looking at pictures from the civil war dating back to the 1860's. Ah, glass plates that survived. If digital cameras were around back then, we would not have been able to see these photographs today because the storage media would have degraded and lost its archival purpose or the format standard used 150 years ago would be hard to find today. However, I guess one could transfer from old to new storage before it becomes useless. Thus preserving the digital image. However, over the life time of many of us, I doubt we will say to ourselves, Oh, I am getting old and may die soon. Better takes thos images I captured 20 years ago and copy them somewhere else. Not to mention that format of these devices will not be the same in the future. Backwards compatability on standards can only go back so much.

Thus I say to you. The masses who want their pictures to pass on to the next geneartion will one day realize the consequences of digitizing their memories and say to themselves, I better print on RC and pass on down.

 

[back alley]

as moderator, i must warn you that this thread is being monitored and i am prepared to edit any offensive posts.

🙂😉
joe

 

[Kyle]

This thread would be even more interesting on FM 😀

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

But... But... But... I truly love fussing with my digital camera. I like the idea that something so flimsy and dependant on electricity can command so many dollars. I believe planned obsolescence is key to modern civilization.

I like the idea that one can have a dead pixel or dust on the CCD. I love waiting for autofocus. I love when my G2 dissagrees with me and shoots what it wants when it wants.

And, If want to I can send those images anywhere I want immediately... As long as I can find the darn USB cable. Oh and the software.. yeah the software. Its so.... cool, so intuitive.

I revel in the thought that one good EMP could render it brain dead.

So much for sarcasm- I enjoy both film and digital. But, I have to say film has wonderful qualities that aren't often matched by digital. However, digital media and photography has its place.

I think film will survive. I think Fuji has done a decent job of keeping the public interested in film. I am always amazed when I visit the local drug store or Ritz Camera and see that people are dropping off their film. Not their CF cards.

I kind of think the rennaisance for film is probably only just beginning. In a way it is similar to the way Hip-Hop brought back vinyl as part of the form. Many of the RFF members shoot film (analog) and scan their chromes and negatives to show here (digital). In a way its the best of both worlds.

 

[Kin Lau]

It's a little strange, but preservation of digital & analogue images seem to require the opposite approach. The more you "use" a film image, whether it's for printing, view a slide, or just handling it, will impact on it's lifespan, such as scatches, oil & dust, acid from your hands etc. Whereas a digital file, has a longer life the _more_ you use it, copy it, view it etc... why, then you're reminded of it's existence, and the need to keep it.

Funny thing is tho, what exactly do we have today, film wise, that will compare with _glass plates_? B&W (not c-41) in archival storage might come close, but what are our real choices...and this is not an argument, but a serious inquiry.

Another question for the B&W printers here: How many here do FB or other "archival quality" prints?

 

[GeneW]

I'm a hybrid shooter -- film and digital -- and while I think there's some truth in what you say, I think there's more to it.

Unless your negatives and slides are stored archivally (and yours probably are), their chance of surviving many years into the future is uncertain. There is more acid in materials today than ever before and it destroys negs and slides slowly. Negative and slide collections are also vulnerable to fires and floods. There's no way to easily replicate the collection and store them offsite. If fact you can't replicate them. You can copy them, but something is always lost during a copy.

Digital images can be replicated and copied with no data loss. Digital storage media can definitely go bad, which is why IT shops spend so much effort on backup and storage. I'm less pessimistic than you, however, about being able to read older digital formats. They're more standardized than they were twenty years ago and standards tend to live for a long time. I can still read CP/M diskettes easily. There are still places that can read punch cards.

I agree with you though that it takes less effort to preserve film-based images.

Gene

 

[denishr]

I can only say that I'm getting more "retro" as time goes by. I do use digital, but only for snapshots of my analog gear, and for documenting my DIY projects ("Now, where the h*** does that screw go?!!!!")...
🙂

Lately I've been studying Civil War era tintypes, ambrotypes, etc... see my other post a few days ago ("Very vintage optics...."). So, it looks like I'm getting backwards as technology progresses. Soon I'll be hand-drawing my "solarographs" with the aid of a giant "camera obscura", constructed in my back yard 😀

Denis

 

[Solinar]

I'm not too sure the masses want images that will last a generation or two. Much of the phenomenon is about momentary gratification and the moment is now. Plus, I have met more than a few people who really do see their digital camera as this year's model and good for the one year warranty.

I'd say more, but I've got to charge some batteries for the Nikon 8700, which is last year's model.

 

[DougK]

Let's see if this counts in the film vs. digital war. This is from my recent experiences in making a birthday gift for a friend who expressed an interest in hanging some of my photos in her house. Needless to say I wanted the highest-quality end product I could possibly get.

I took the slides she wanted and had a lab scan them into high-res, uncompressed TIFF files which looked gorgeous on a big monitor. I had the lab print the TIFF files at 8x10 on a professional inkjet printer. The prints, while attractive and inexpensive, seemed somewhat flat and lifeless in comparison to both the original slide and the digital image, as well as being very slightly off in color fidelity, tonal gradation, sharpness, and amount of detail rendered. I then took the same slides and had them conventionally printed at 11x14. The 11x14 prints blew me away with their color fidelity, tonal gradation, sharpness, and detail.

Guess which ones I gave her as the gift? I will admit that printing enlargements from film was far more expensive, but the look in her eyes when she saw the prints was easily worth the extra dollars spent.

Digital images are far easier to share with my far-flung family and group of friends, whether scanned or shot with my digital camera. It's uncertain how many of those images, no matter how good they are, will survive past a few years even though I'm religious about backing up my files. I've had files get lost or corrupted and CDs go bad before I can re-archive the images despite my best efforts to preserve them.

End result? I will continue to use both film and digital media, but for the images I want to make sure stay with me for a long time, I'll stick with film.

 

[aizan]

i think accidents and improper storage have more to do with lost photos than the medium.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I realize my previous post was about 5 degrees off tangent.

I think that digital archiving is valuable simply for its speed in retrieval. I think that the concerns regarding storage on optical media are over-hyped. Following similar protocols for storing film and prints you could greatly increase the life of the digital file contained on a DVD or CD. Just don't count in using cheap disks any more than you would count on cheap film or quick and dirty processing. Buying good media (stock) whether it is film or digital and then practicing careful storage techniques are what a good conservator would rely on.

Consider what happened in Hollywood when they discovered that many classic films were deteriorating in the can. I understand they stored the art and didn't check on it for years. To me its more a matter of neglect. Periodic checks of the conditions under which the media is stored and of the media itself would tell a conservator what steps need to be taken.

In Hollywood's case some films were transferred to digital in order to aid the restoration. Here we have a case where digital became a key solution in archiving an analog treasure.

So, when it comes to archiving, maybe it is more about vigillance than whether or not one media is superior to another.

 

[Roman]

I

Another question for the B&W printers here: How many here do FB or other "archival quality" prints?

Funny, actually right at the moment I'm taking a break from a dark-room printing session (GF is working night-shift, so I have the kitchen = dark-room for myself all night...). Yes, for my 'serious' stuff I use FB paper, properly wahed & toned for longevity (though I also use a lot of RC, for the 'quick & dirty' stuff..)

Roman

 

[DougK]

I definitely agree that the method of archiving and the diligence in the application of that method count for more than differences in media. For the record, I avoid cheap CDs like the plague for exactly the reason Fedzilla_Bob stated.

What I seem to have left out of my previous post above that I'm really focusing on the quality of printed output from digital and film. Currently, I can't get the quality in large prints I want from the printing methods generally used with digital images, which offsets the ease of archiving and retrieval for me. In the future, this may not be the case, but for now, I still think a great film print beats a great digital print.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Hi Doug- finding a good source for digital printing is difficult. It reminds me of trying to get a decent print from slides back in the 80's. Some labs did it well. I prefered Cibachrome over a color internegative for this purpose. I digress...

Maybe it is still a little early for easy access to good digital printing. Or, it might just be that quality these days suffers from worker apathy or knowledge. I feel this is the case in most places in the US.

Maybe the solution is to find a lab that is as enthusiastic about the photographic image as you are.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Hand a roll of exposed film to a six year old 🙂. Better yet hand the camera with the roll of film in it over to the six year old.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Archival? We could always go back to cave paintings! 🙂

As I look back on past images I've taken, I am grateful that the ones on disc will expire, soon I hope, lest someone else see them and I be reminded of my lack of talent. 😉
Will digital collapse? I somehow doubt it, it will live on if for nothing else to spur debates on internet forums until the end of time. In the immortal words of one Winnie the Pooh, "oh bother"!

Todd

 

[Jason_K]

I think the technology might level out and slow down at some point, but it is definitely not going away.
Just a few years ago the newspaper industry was waiting to see where the technology would go. In the span of about 10 years nearly every newspaper in the U.S. (can't speak for the rest of the world) has now switched to digital. Archiving is of particular importance for us and while the perfect storage method has yet to be devised - I don't see anyone running out to set up darkrooms again.
I don't see consumers worrying about it too much either. In this day of instant gratification I seriously doubt Joe Consumer is thinking that cd's and the longevity of his JPEGs.

Hopefully the 2 mediums can continue to exist together.

 

[Doug]

It doesn't need to be exclusively film or digital; I shoot film and get a CD with digital scans of the roll. For prints up to 5x7 or 8x10 I'll toss the edited scan(s) on a CF card and trot them down to the local lab. For those images there are now three storage media in use.

I'm not sure how concerned I am about archival longevity... I guess most of us hope that our efforts will be recognized now, but later is ok too!

 

[DougK]

... it might just be that quality these days suffers from worker apathy or knowledge. I feel this is the case in most places in the US....

I think you're on to something here.

When I had the 11x14s made, I went to a local shop instead of the "big-box" shop I went to before. I talked with the gentleman who would be doing the prints for fifteen minutes about the purpose of the prints, how the slides were shot, etc. before he threw them on a lightbox, grabbed a loupe and actually studied them before he would commit to what he could produce. I left the store knowing he was going to do the best he could and I wasn't disappointed; when I picked them up a week later, they truly showed the effort he put into making my photos look the best he could.

I'm no Ansel Adams or HCB, but I really want my best photos to look as good as they possibly can in print whether they're shot with film or a digital camera. I may be too young to be such a curmudgeon, but I seem to remember that prints, on average, were better before the rise of one-hour photo minilabs and the people behind the counter generally knew what they were doing. The declining quality of prints were what moved me to digital in the first place... well, that and I could shoot a whole lot more pictures that way and learn what the heck I was doing faster without going broke on film. 🙂 Ironic, now that my skills have improved to the point where I can confidently shoot film or digital, with either input method I'm right back to the printing issue. I don't have the space for a darkroom, so that's out of the question until my friend finishes building one in his basement. I know it's possible to get good inkjet prints, I've done it. It's just not really economically feasible for me to feed and maintain a second inkjet printer for the sole purpose of printing B&W, nor would it be feasible to try and maintain a large-format printer.

...I'm not sure how concerned I am about archival longevity... I guess most of us hope that our efforts will be recognized now, but later is ok too!

I'm not really that concerned about archival longevity either, I would just like the next generation or so of my family to be able see my shots 🙂.

My sole remaining concern with digital vs. film is in obtaining affordable top-quality enlargements over 8x10. I've seen the rest of my objections to digital vaporize over the last couple of years, perhaps affordable large-format printers equally good with color and black-and-white will appear Real Soon Now (TM) and I'll be able to do it myself without a darkroom or relying on a lab. If that happens, I'd be a fool not to switch.

Wow... I think this is the most I've ever said on one topic. Too bad we don't have word count instead of post count. 🙂

 

[SolaresLarrave]

A while ago, Jorge, there was an editorial in Pop Photo about the longevity of digital files, and the author made almost the same points you made, but also proposed a solution: make prints.

In both cases, the "end" product is a print, so as long as we have that in mind, neither film nor digital will conquer. I believe they'll be able to coexist... and we, RFF members, are living proof.

Another circumstance to keep in mind: while the US and some European countries have citizens wealthy enough to own a digital camera AND a computer, that's not the case for most Latin American, Asian or African countries. What do these people resort to? Film. Besides, ownership of a film camera like any P&S out in the market only requires the shooter to know what button to push. And, of course, how to operate the zoom. Everything else is decided by the camera.

Can you really expect a do-it-all digital P&S? Wouldn't this kind of camera go against the grain when it comes to what serious digital users expect?

At a given moment, I can see professionals choosing digital because of its immediacy. However, not all the people in the world can go the digital route. And there are some who simply don't want to. So, to follow a bit on Jorge's main idea, digital may fade, but film won't die.

And, as I said above, we're living proof that these things can coexist peacefully! 🙂