My theory on the SLOW death of digital

[RML]

Seele, all history suffers from tunnel vision. Even recent events like the War on Terrorism. IMO these kinds of events suffer much more from censure over time and much sooner than my family's life story. And many aspects of life are never or at least hardly recorded on film/dig.sensor anyway for too many reasons. Historians might lament this but I think they've been trained to deal with it. After all, they still can draw quite accurate pictures of earlier times, and even have to rewrite their theories regularly when new information appears.

 

[kbg32]

"The mainstream practice of digital photography is actively destroying the collective visual memory of the presence at the expense of the future."

Seele


How true. It's is unfortunte that things we knew when we are younger are disappearing. Technology marches on. Remember when reel to reel tape was the big thing? Eight track tapes? cassette tapes? As we get older, we become the minority, as consumerism, advertising, and marketing, is driven by and for the young. People want things faster and faster - now, not today, but this very moment. All this is at the expense of archiving history.

It is unfortunate, but our children's children's children, will look at film as part of history, if they ever hear of it at all. The sad truth is that we are doomed by history, because it will be forgotten.

 

[Kin Lau]

What actually happened to these "dormant" images if we all shoot on digital? One click of the button, gone; because they're not "good enough", not "important" or "significant" enough for the here and now.

I think this works both ways. Many people don't cull their shots, so that with many people I know, they take 10x the photo's they would have with film, and many I know would have _never_ bothered taking any shots with a film camera.
I've also seen many rolls film expired and thrown out due to being left in the camera for too long.

B&W certainly has great staying power, but painting "all digital" with such as broad brush doesn't make sense.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

When Daguerrotypes appeared, many worried about the death of painting; when film-based photography appeared...ok, so daguerrotypes don't exist as a viable and safe media, so that's one, but...

B&W was feared dead when color appeared; medium/large format dead when 35mm took hold, and film will be dead because of digital. Now digital is dying in its uberinfancy. I think making broad predictions belong to the likes of Miss Cleo, or to those who have no idea who that was, to the likes of American newsmedia trying to predict who'll win an election before the primaries are even underway.

Adobe's DNG is aiming to solving the problem of platform dependency, and vendor-dependent software support. Besides, people mismanaging their digital files is still more the owner's responsibility: backup media is relatively cheap. Backing up film to other film is not only not easy but inconvenient, to say the least. It's all about a point of view. A properly stored, UDF formatted CD-ROM on gold media will last much longer than film.

They both have advantages and disadvantages. Bias towards one's advantages and the other's disadvantages only shows, imo, lack or unwillingness to understand the flip side of the coin.

 

[richiedcruz]

digital last longer than film?

digital last longer than film?

I have to keep wondering why people keep stating that digital lasts longer than film.

I once saw a news feature on the PBS show the Newhour about the Corbis Bettman archive, currently owned by Bill Gates and efforts to preserve it. In the news feature the consulting conservator in charge of preserving the archive pointed out that improperly stored film will degrade, because of the eventual disintegration of the plastic that film is composed of; but if properly stored, at a cool enough temperature, film should last virtually forever.

They have the feature online at their website, if anyone cares to watch it.

Just a thought. 😉
Richie

 

[Issy]

And I thought I was just being anal-retentive...

And I thought I was just being anal-retentive...

does anal-retentive have a hyphen in it? 😀

I am struggling with this as well:

I shoot film. I have a significant investment in Nikon AIS glass, plus my rangefinders. I dabble in digital... I have a small P&S digital camera. I have a scanner for negatives. My wife really likes the immediate results and feedback from digital.

I used to shoot a lot of landscape, panorama, and macro... F3, mirror lock-up, tripod, etc... I now have a 8 month old daughter, and I shoot a lot of her, and some travel when I go places for work.

Digital has some appeal to me. I, too, would like the immediate feedback. I know "chimping"(1) would significantly help my photography. And yes, I would probably delete lots of images. My wife likes the ability to transmit photos to friends and family (yes, I have the scanner, but the process is tedious. Yes, my one hour place can generate a CDROM with my developing, but I have to accumulate 5 rolls (the max amount that will fit on a CDROM) to make it cost-effective to have it done with each and every roll). But I also worry about longevity, the constant change in media, and the catastrophic loss that could occur if a hard drive goes south and I haven't been good about backing things up. I also agree with Seal's earlier comments. I like the fact that airport x-ray scanners don't effect it.

I'm thinking of starting a picture blog of my daughter now at 8 months, with more images than commentary, and not giving her the URL until her wedding day. Let someone else worry about the back-ups and the media. I think if I had to scan each negative or wait for 5 rolls to accumulate, I might not post as often, and my thoughts and images posted on the blog might be out of sync.

I like film, though. I like that it is a "constant" media. I like sharp images (I know, "sharp" does not make the photo a good photo, but all other things equal, I like sharp). I shoot primes on my Nikon. I shoot the G2 'cause it's sharp. I liked how much detail I could get into Velvia with a sharp lens. But now I hear that film may no longer have that going, either.

I also like the fact that if I continue to shoot film, I won't have to sell all my AIS Nikon lenses (and maybe the bodies -- just out of spite to Nikon for not supporting them in the latest and greatest DSLR bodies) to go digital. Have you seen the deals you can get on good AIS glass now? 😎 I'd rather not have "multiple" systems, but there may be no way to avoid it.

So... I'm going to Korea next week for work. Do I bring a G2 with a 28 and 45, or the digital P&S? 😀

Bill



(1) Chimping - v. to go back and look at your digital images on the display of your camera, usually accompanied by "ooo ooo ooo" grunts, like a chimpanzee.

 

[robertdfeinman]

About 95% of people shooting color negative snap shots throw the negatives away.
So, if inkjet prints are about as stable as conventional photos, that will be all most people will have anyway.

I often wonder about those buying a scanner so they can scan all their existing slides or negatives. How do they know these will last any better than the originals?

 

[jaapv]

Bill (Issy), I think a significant number of us shoot both film and digital; I do anyway. Anyhow medium- and high-level P&S digital camera's are so good at a more or less reasonable prices that there is no reason not to create your blog and your daughters web-site all digitally, whilst doing your thing on film. I often take two shots of one subject, once my Digilux 2 and once my M6. On the computer the D2 often gives as good or even better results. Prints are different, of course, especially B&W, especially chemical, especially large.......

 

[Bertram2]

About 95% of people shooting color negative snap shots throw the negatives away.

Where do you know THAT from !???

 

[nemjo]

I'm affraid, it is not necessary to take much care on long life-time of my pics.
I'm sure, at least 90 percent of the pictures made all over the world are not better than mines.
AFAIK canon alone produces monthly more than 100000 DSLRs.
Do you really think, there are so many "photographers"s out?
Do you really think, that those pictures made in the past century, (I don't dare to estimate the quantity) worthes the care - except less than 0.1 percent of them?
I'm sure there were plenty of(bad) painters, poets, musicians etc in the history, but only the best of them are remembered.
Somehow the real quality survives - no matter how. If it is really important, it will be solved. (Of course I'm sure a lot of values were lost however.)


This is not about digital photography, this is about commerce...

nemjo

 

[Socke]

😀


So... I'm going to Korea next week for work. Do I bring a G2 with a 28 and 45, or the digital P&S? 😀

Both!

My travel setup is a D60 with 24-85 and 70-300 (the last one for birding at the beach :angel: ), a G2 with 28, 45 and 90 and a Contax TVS

 

[Nikon Bob]

does anal-retentive have a hyphen in it? 😀



I also like the fact that if I continue to shoot film, I won't have to sell all my AIS Nikon lenses (and maybe the bodies -- just out of spite to Nikon for not supporting them in the latest and greatest DSLR bodies) to go digital. Have you seen the deals you can get on good AIS glass now? 😎 I'd rather not have "multiple" systems, but there may be no way to avoid it.



Bill



That is my complaint with Nikon too. They have lost me till they do something about it in their low end DSLRs.

Bob

 

[kiev4a]

does anal-retentive have a hyphen in it? 😀



I also like the fact that if I continue to shoot film, I won't have to sell all my AIS Nikon lenses (and maybe the bodies -- just out of spite to Nikon for not supporting them in the latest and greatest DSLR bodies) to go digital. Have you seen the deals you can get on good AIS glass now? 😎 I'd rather not have "multiple" systems, but there may be no way to avoid it.

I'm with you. I have an F3Hp and went on an ai glass collecting binge recently. Never thought I would see Nikkors at those prices. Since I refuse to pay a thousand dollars or more for a digital model that will be obsolete before I get it home, my new lenses should get plenty of use over the next few years.

 

[dmr]

I'm thinking of starting a picture blog of my daughter now at 8 months, with more images than commentary, and not giving her the URL until her wedding day.

Will the web as we know it still be viable 20 years from now?

Will a "blog" be just some relic of yesterday's generation?

🙂

 

[Poptart]

Whenever I see one of these contemporary CGI-special effects movies all I can do is marvel at how fake the visuals look. Weirdly, 2001 still looks great and it was old-fashioned scale models.

 

[nomade]

Digital shots can be printed and that what relly matters, u can preserve that.