My theory on the SLOW death of digital

[John Robertson]

Socke you are lucky, I also was scanning and burning CD's in 1995/6 on a Sony CD writer, using Samsung and TDK discs, my new computer and my friends new laptop won't read some of these early discs properly . Fortunately I still have the slides to re-scan!!

 

[TonyKInTexas]

And I am a computer person with over 20 years experience.

Copying information, from one media to another, does not result in loss of data. If we lost data just by copying no one would be using computers or any other digital device.

Now moving a compressed image, via an imaging editing program and re-saving it can result in loss data.

The difference? Copying information is operating at the OS level. It is moving the physical information that makes up the data.

The second example is editing that data using a program to re-save it.

Uncompressed data should not be impacted.

Doing the same with film/prints will result in loss of data as we are taking a copy of a copy. There are differences between analog and digital data.

My sister is an archivist with Masters degree, and we've had conversations about this. She says that transferring an image file from one medium to another cannot be done without data loss and that it's a major concern in the archiving community. I've done no research to support this, but... It seems to me you might be onto something there. I don't think most people care one way or another, but as far as long term image life, until there's a better archiving technology, film is the way to go. I compare it to how no one cared about baseball cards in the 1950's, so they became rarer and rarer. No one cares about archiving digital photographs now, so thirty years down the line there will undoubtedly be more quality film images from 2005... That said, digital photography isn't going anywhere; it's not an either/or situation. I liked the jazz analogy. Jazz, vinyl, and film photography. I don't see a problem with that.


Ben

 

[Solinar]

Copying information, from one media to another, does not result in loss of data. If we lost data just by copying no one would be using computers or any other digital device.

Actually, that is not the whole story. There is a statistical error rate in both the reading and writing of files on alll storage mediums, but it is usually so small that is of little consequence. A statistical data defect such as a 10110 being written or read as 10101 can occur, but it is of a magnitude of amounting to maybe one off-colored pixel on one copy of a file that isn't evident in a previous copy

The more likely culprit in files becoming unreadable is physical damage to the medium due to repeated use of the medium or human error.

Storage conditions are an issue. For example, with regards to optical storage such as CD-R, the quality of the original and it's exposure to UV are important. Again, human error plays the largest role in whether a file stays readable.

 

[tamerlin]

Actually, that is not the whole story. There is a statistical error rate in both the reading and writing of files on alll storage mediums,

There are some fairly simple ways to verify data transfers; CRC (cyclic redundancy checks) and checksums are for, among other things. Basically, if they detect an error in a block of data, they transfer it again.

Even a one-bit error could cost millions of dollars in environments like the Fannie
May servers which handle billions of dollars in transactions daily, so error detection
on data transmissions are extremely thorough.

Besides, most of the error detection methos in use today came into existence during
a time when the hardware's reliability was weak (they were punching holes in paper
for crying out loud), so for normal everyday use these days some of them are
actually overkill.

In other words, unless you're doing something silly like decompressing lossy files
and recompresssing them with lossy codecs like JPG, you're not going to lose any
data from moving stuff around, at least not with modern computer systems.

You can even be confident in your data's integrity when you use lossless
compression codecs over and over again.

TonyK is right about one thing though, if there were enough data lost in transfers
to affect your friend the archivist, the digital revolution would simply not have
happened. Computers would not be so flaky that Fannie Mae would either have
consumed the world's money and killed off the economy, or lost so much money
that they went out of business and took the US housing market out with it.
We would not have functional spacecraft that didn't crash and burn with every
launch, and there would be no possibility of instrument-only landings of
commercial aircraft, let alone an unmanned rover wandering around Mars and
sending back incredibly photography AND GOING WHERE WE TELL IT TO GO.

Show that to someone from the 1900's and they'll prove Arthur C. Clarke right
yet again -- they'll think it could only be possible through magic. 🙂

 

[Iskra 2]

Hmm... long thread, too much conflicting info.

Please accept my apologies, but.........

Fact: Transportable computer storage media has always had a high risk of failure or cost of recovery or cost of maintenance...... far exceeding film.

Fact: The best storage media (remember the Tsunami... no EMP though, just water), a CF type card, is pretty expensive.

Fact: Film has an unquestioned permanence based on decades of demonstrated success. Granted there were some minor exceptions related earlier.

No Brainer: Kodachrome rules. 🙂....... and it's fun to watch the kid's eyes "light up " when the projector "comes on". 🙂 Large prints from MF film works also. 🙂

Regards. :angel:

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

No Brainer: Kodachrome rules. ....... and it's fun to watch the kid's eyes "light up " when the projector "comes on". Large prints from MF film works also.

I really love Kodachrome. But, you know what... I have heard that the process is quite toxic and that there is only one lab left in the US that processes it. Somewhere in Texas, purportedly because Texas enviromental laws are lax. That is what I was told at my favorite lab- Chrome.

I wouldn't count on it being around for another whole decade. Which means you would need to move a Fuji color slide film or one of the Ektachrome family.

I have what is probably my last Kodachrome roll in my camera today. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find. I found this roll new at a local Long's Drug Store. There were only two rolls there with 2006 dating on them. I went back for the other roll and it was gone. None since. I check now and then.

I have found it on Amazon.com. The pricing just pushes me toward Fuji products. Which I have no problem using.

I still say the best thing to do is be wise about using both digital and film for archival pruposes. I am sure someone has developed an archival workflow that uses both.

 

[Solinar]

I remember paper punch cards. Those were the days of don't tear, fold or mutilate.

I can't say that film is always permanent, as I have some GAF chromes from the early 1970's that are more than a bit off with regards to their color retention. This is probably the worst example of what can happen to dyes versus silver halide crystals.

Kodachrome is an altogether different process for storing color images today's films and it's days are definitely numbered in the market place.

The biggest culprits for the loss of images will be from overwriting/deleting files, failing to back-up on to a transferable media, failure to protect said media from physical wear and failing to properly label the back up media for future retrieval. All of which sounds like human error to me.

Tsunamis and other acts of destruction, will fall into a special category.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

One more thing regarding film. I have found on more than one of my chromes that something is eating them. I have keept them in their original Kodak processing boxes- In the darkest driest places I have in the house, inside of other boxes. The tell tale sign is a regular pattern is a zig zag pattern similar to that of rows tilled by farmers. Only thing I can think of are some kind of mite.

Now ask me how I found the pattern?...

By scanning digitally. I was even able to scan at higher rez to get a look. The "holes" in the emulsion weren't visible on inspection with a loupe.

I for one will continue to rely on both media. Redundancy rules!

 

[Iskra 2]

Kodachrome has taken alot of "heat" over the years. I stopped using it in the 90's because the local labs no longer processed it (E6 was much more profitable I guess). They gave the environmental excuse.

Never really used 35mm Fuji products after unhappy experiences in the 80's. Agfachrome was nice but never really matched Kodachrome.

My Iskra 2 prompted my Kodachrome interest after a few rolls of Ektachrome and Fujichrome..... didn't look like the old Kodachrome. After purchasing a scanner for the MF negatives I happened to scan an old Kodachrome. Hmmmm... I had been missing something.

Pulled out my old Canon FTbn and tried Kodachrome again. Now, Kodachrome is the last film I'll ever use for 35mm color.

The only lab in the US is Dwane's located somewhere in Kansas (maybe Oz). Last two rolls I mailed left on a Saturday morning and were back the next Wedneday morning... as good or better than in the old days.

Film is readily available in most camera shops or from the big retailers on the east coast.

Back to storage, all of my slides were kept in the original boxes or in slide storage containers. Many of the early ones were well traveled spending time in basements etc. The point here is they remained viable without ANY thought of special care!

And this is why, IMHO, film and especially Kodachrome Rules 🙂

:angel:

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I don't think most of us would be in this forum if film wasn't the greatest thing since air. Right?

Digital drove me back to film. Yet I have my own requirements that include it [digital].

To be fair the person at the lab did open with "We didn't find it cost effective to maintain a whole separate processor for Kodachrome with the small amount of orders we had been getting." I can appreciate that. I think that only Apple and BMW are capable of maintaining comfortable profit margins in extreme niches (read 3% market share). A small lab can't handle that in a small market.

Kodachrome is readily available in consumer and professional form in local camera stores. At a premium price.

 

[pfogle]

Hi, just a couple of thoughts... I used film as a pro for about 15 years, and have been non-pro digital user for 5.

I switched to digital because I CAN do my own prints (I used to have a good darkroom and ciba processor in my house) and I'm finding i'm getting color prints better than I used to in the darkroom, but not really yet satisfied with b/w. I'm using the Epson 1290 - cheap and slow, but quality is ok.

As for archiving, I have been using cd's, but really it's not yet sure how long they'll last. I've heard of people using the gold cd's (supposed to be the best) and having corrupt files after 4-5 years. I regard the cd's as emergency second backup, and my main storage is simply a large hard drive. In future, I'll just use a couple of mirrored h/d's. It's easy to check, easy to make more copies, and it's almost impossible to completely destroy the data, though if both the drives did fail, it may cost a bit to get the data off. I reckon a 250GB drive will last me about a year, and they'll be a lot bigger by the time it needs replacing!

Still, the price of hard drives now is as low as cd-r's, so keeping a couple is not a problem, and when they fill up you just get another - the files on the disk won't disappear, and as long as the disk format is recognised (drivers are pretty standard now) it will be easy to migrate to new storage as it comes online.

The real problem with cd-r's is that, if you've got say 1000 of them, it's almost impossible to check them all for errors - with a big h/d you can run a full disk check once a month or so with no problems - and just swap out the dodgy h/d if it throws up errors.

One more thought - I think people are wary of digital storage because, one, we have all lost files at some time or other, and two, you can't quickly scan your pix to make sure they're ok - there's no way to see them without a working PC (or Mac): this tends to make me a bit more nervous about them!

cheers
Phil

 

[Kin Lau]

Hmm... long thread, too much conflicting info.

Fact: Film has an unquestioned permanence based on decades of demonstrated success. Granted there were some minor exceptions related earlier.

B&W, yes. C41 no. E6 depends. Kodachrome see other's comments.

Just as reel to reel tape does not equal CDR, film is not all encompassing.

There's a lot of "conflicting" information because people are much too general in their descriptions. "Film vs Digital" is one of the _worst_ generalizations out there, there's simply too many variables.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Reel to reel tape was really bad for storing digital images. Try to find a 9-track or (worse) 7-track tape drive these days! And even if you can, get prepared to get a lot of bad records. CDR's are better; so is DVD-r. I do not know about the long-term survivability. Back up tape cartridges are very-very bad. Disk drives can die "just-like-that", or worse the disk controller goes wild and wipes out everything. Disk cartridges, like JAZ, are also very unreliable and ZIP disks are not much better for long-term archiving. Off-hand, I cannot think of any digital medium that is more reliable than negatives in a sleeve.

So as you build up digital-inertia, you are doomed to copying it to newer media every two-three years. If you want to keep it, that is.

 

[Iskra 2]

another thing to remember about digital storage....... just before you "trash" your scanned negative ....... did you "pull" everything out of the negative?

Let's see now..... if you scanned the negative 5 years ago was the scanner good enough to "pull" everything compared to scanners 5 years from now?

Think about it...........how much information does a 35mm Kodachrome slide contain? How much information does a 6x6 Astia slide contain?

Pretty big files. Much disc storage. Much time and effort.

I do use digital though.......... a 123 spreadsheet keeps track of all my film images.

Backup is a hardcopy printout every few months.

Regards. :angel:

 

[Kin Lau]

I use both. I only scan what I need, and keep the neg/pos. I do my own b&w. I'm shooting probably about 10k dslr shots a year, and that's alot of CD's, so DVDr's will be welcome.

As far as I'm concerned, calling b&w, c41, e6 and kodachrome all the same thing is as sane as putting reel to reel on the same level as cdr or dvdr.

The key is, learn to deal with what you're using. Ignorance will cost you, whether it's film or digital.`

 

[Iskra 2]

C41 and E6 films haven't been around long enough to really tell if they will last however,.............. I did find some old Kodacolor negatives from the 50s. Scanned several and was not surprised to see bad colors. Interestingly, Photoshop was able to correct them . The basic image was present, only the color had shifted and they printed nicely. Perhaps a film expert could enlighten us 🙂

Based on about 50 years of storage, I would expect Kodak color negative films to last with only minor color adjustments needed to restore, not sure about other manufacurers that have no demonstrated track record.

If there is any color slide film that has a permanence compared to Kodachrome I'd like to know what it is. Kodachrome I found from the 40's still looks good. Some other brands from the 50's were gone. Agfachrome from the 80's looks OK but I'm skeptical. The new Astia is supposed to be long lasting ..... we'll have to wait and see.

and....... those old pieces of film lasted all by themselves...... without any special TLC......... but..... some of the better negatives were sleeved.

Regards. :angel:

 

[Kin Lau]

Hmmm... I don't consider colour-shift to be a sign of permanence. It's fixable if you're aware of the correct colour, but what if you don't? For the same reason, I can't put c41 and it's predecessors in the same category as e6 (and it's predecessors) & kodachrome.

Colour correcting c41 (or just colour neg film in general) is a real joke at times. You get your pic's back from the lab, and you say great, look at the beautiful colours. Then you scan the neg, and you realize how much guesswork it really is. I usually use my little digicam to take a shot of the scene so that I can correct the colours later on film. There was a funny story on pnet about someone who was taking pictures of a base where he was stationed, and brought the film in to be developed. When he got the prints back, the grass was a beautiful green. The guy took one look at the pic's, and asked for all of them to be re-printed... the grass was anything but green, more like yellow.

I've also had consumer Kodak Gold film with a massive blue shift, less than 3 years old. The shift probably happened due to storage, and was likely there before development. But the basics of film storage, are dry, not-dusty and dark. Ignore any of the 3, and you'll be in trouble. If you do your own b&w, then you'll see arguments pnet abouve archival quality of fix, washing, and the type of sleeves used.

I like film, I still shoot quite a bit of it, c41 & mostly b&w, with a little bit of e6, but I try to be aware of how it acts, and what to expect.

 

[Iskra 2]

Kin, I notice you have a Yashica GS. I just picked up two non working GT's and will soon be running some film through the survivor. How does that Yashinon DX lens do with Kodachrome?

 

[Kin Lau]

Check out the other thread on Yashica's. Quite a few pic's there. I'm mostly a b&w shooter with the RF's, and I really hate having to mail film away to be processed, so Kodachrome is not a choice for me. Even E6 is getting to be a royal pain to get processed here in Toronto.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

E6 remains big here in the San Diego Area. We have 3 labs that will process it, one just down the road. They charge $7 US for 36 exposures, I'm not sure how that compares price wise.

Have you done a search for Toronto area? (I am probably asking a dumb question)