rondo
Established
I would think so! But wonder if the rangefinder aficionados have a preferred hard disk brand.
Chris101
summicronia
Well, I've read every post, several more than once! 
People are lazy, and will only do diligent backing up for a short time after some loss has occurred. As for myself, I usually have copies on 2 hard drives as well as on two different disks, stored in different locations. Should be secure enough. But then I treat all my photography as flash art. I'll love it while it's current, and especially if I print it, but for the most part, once I'm done with it, I'll never look at it again.
I have found that my nominally 900x600 pixel images that I post on various fora print ok at 4.5x7 inches or so. Therefore I am now thinking that the everlastingness of the internet is all the security I really need. Perhaps I can let the rest of those backups go, and not keep anything I don't print within a few weeks.
People are lazy, and will only do diligent backing up for a short time after some loss has occurred. As for myself, I usually have copies on 2 hard drives as well as on two different disks, stored in different locations. Should be secure enough. But then I treat all my photography as flash art. I'll love it while it's current, and especially if I print it, but for the most part, once I'm done with it, I'll never look at it again.
I have found that my nominally 900x600 pixel images that I post on various fora print ok at 4.5x7 inches or so. Therefore I am now thinking that the everlastingness of the internet is all the security I really need. Perhaps I can let the rest of those backups go, and not keep anything I don't print within a few weeks.
jfretless
Established
My view is that there are two camps. The "Seagate" camp and then the "Others" camp. In GENERAL, Seagate drives are considered "better" than say, Western Digital, etc. Seagate drive have five year warranties. That doesn't mean your data is safer, but it shows a bit more confindence on the part of Seagate. If given a choice with similar pricing, I will always choose Seagate.
John
sepiareverb
genius and moron
If both are sitting in your house, NO. Off site storage of a second backup is needed, because if the house goes, all your backups go with it.
rondo
Established
Thanks, just checked them on Amazon. Seagate is slightly cheaper than WD. But for some reason WD much more popular. It could be the styling.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
........Probably.....but WHY?
Al Kaplan
Veteran
It would take more years than I'll have on the planet to scan my negative files as it is. If they go they go.
jfretless
Established
The pricing difference may be do the different interfaces available for external drives;
USB2.0, Firewire400, Firewire800 or eSATA.
eSATA is fastest, up to 3.0Gbps second, but more than likely require you to purchase a eSATA PCI expansion card. ...which will add about $60 to the cost. USB2.0 is fine for incremental backups.
John
noimmunity
scratch my niche
involvement and experience
involvement and experience
I've been reading through this thread wondering when somebody would put their finger on the crux of the transformation: experiential involvement.
The transformation wrought by digital is surely accelerated by social media, but what is so interesting is that it is producing new forms of 'experience', some of which are virtual, some of which are much less 'involved' than any concept of experience we've known before.
The rise of digital is accompanied by a new sense of distance and a greater lack of involvement in the ways it has been conventionally defined, with an explosion of 'involvements' in things that redefine the meaning of the word (blurring the line between active and passive).
involvement and experience
I've been reading through this thread wondering when somebody would put their finger on the crux of the transformation: experiential involvement.
The transformation wrought by digital is surely accelerated by social media, but what is so interesting is that it is producing new forms of 'experience', some of which are virtual, some of which are much less 'involved' than any concept of experience we've known before.
The rise of digital is accompanied by a new sense of distance and a greater lack of involvement in the ways it has been conventionally defined, with an explosion of 'involvements' in things that redefine the meaning of the word (blurring the line between active and passive).
Mephiloco
Well-known
Why would the 'digital imaging wave' end? That's like saying 'what will happen when the film wave ends and people return to silver nitrate?'
The reason to continue using film decreases almost by the day. Film makers every year are discontinuing production of film stock due to film not being a viable business platform anymore. Digital is cheaper, and to a lot of people, more 'accurate' (ie no characteristic film grain). It's very similar to the Vinyl vs Digital/Compact Disc argument. Digital is too 'sterile' to the older generation because they're accustomed to the media imprinting it's own personality on the product while the younger generation is more accustomed to better mastered recordings that are more enginereed and 'perfect' if you will.
Vinyl and Film are already both niche markets. How many companies will still be producing film after the bulk of movie productions have gone digital? Fuji has only produced one new film stock in the last 3 years while discontinuing several. Kodak is only still afloat because of their motion stocks. They're still releasing new lines of stock every few years (Vision2 for example) and discontinuing the old, but unfortunately their film developments are meager when compared to the progress of digital sensors (and the rest of the camera outfit as well). In brief, Digital is developing at a great pace while film is (for the most part) remaining stagnant. The reason to shoot film is essentially for nostalgia reasons.
I shoot film because a good low light digital (Nikon D3) is much too bulky (and expensive) for me for merely a hobby. The only thing keeping me from going completely digital is the lack of a compact high speed interchangable lens system.
Also, I think it's unfair to say it's easier to lose digital files. If you don't care about your negatives and throw them in a drawer or in a box and put them in the attic they won't hold up well, and if you just put your files on a cd and throw it in a drawer it won't do much good either. To keep pictures in either medium you need to be responsible.
The reason to continue using film decreases almost by the day. Film makers every year are discontinuing production of film stock due to film not being a viable business platform anymore. Digital is cheaper, and to a lot of people, more 'accurate' (ie no characteristic film grain). It's very similar to the Vinyl vs Digital/Compact Disc argument. Digital is too 'sterile' to the older generation because they're accustomed to the media imprinting it's own personality on the product while the younger generation is more accustomed to better mastered recordings that are more enginereed and 'perfect' if you will.
Vinyl and Film are already both niche markets. How many companies will still be producing film after the bulk of movie productions have gone digital? Fuji has only produced one new film stock in the last 3 years while discontinuing several. Kodak is only still afloat because of their motion stocks. They're still releasing new lines of stock every few years (Vision2 for example) and discontinuing the old, but unfortunately their film developments are meager when compared to the progress of digital sensors (and the rest of the camera outfit as well). In brief, Digital is developing at a great pace while film is (for the most part) remaining stagnant. The reason to shoot film is essentially for nostalgia reasons.
I shoot film because a good low light digital (Nikon D3) is much too bulky (and expensive) for me for merely a hobby. The only thing keeping me from going completely digital is the lack of a compact high speed interchangable lens system.
Also, I think it's unfair to say it's easier to lose digital files. If you don't care about your negatives and throw them in a drawer or in a box and put them in the attic they won't hold up well, and if you just put your files on a cd and throw it in a drawer it won't do much good either. To keep pictures in either medium you need to be responsible.
NickTrop
Veteran
Another one of "these" threads. Okay... Camera manufactures have been trying to make cheap consumer cameras that have good output that anyone can use since forever. For most people, film was frustrating to use and disappointing. Set your shutter too slow, blurry picture. Forget to set the film speed, under/over exposed. Forget to turn on the flash - no picture. Using a rangefinder? Don't forget to take off the lens cap. Oops, out of focus. Aww... ran out of film. Damn - couldn't focus fast enough. #&#*(!!! I didn't thread the film right, now it's stuck and I lose 1/2 a roll! Camera jammed! Now explain to me how I'm supposed to set this flash?
Camera manufactures responded - first there was "shutter priority", then aperture priority, then full auto, auto advance/rewind, auto focus, auto flash... auto, auto, auto. Things got somewhat better but you still needed to know how to use all the "auto" stuff, ironically. But that didn't solve the other issue with film - expense. You had to buy film then process it - and let's face it, to many consumers it wasn't cheap. Then the hassle of going to a lab to get it processed, having to wait, spending good money, full of anticipation for that one and only "Kodak moment" didn't "come out".
Digital changed all that. Set the camera to "P" - shoot. That's it. Small cameras you can take anywhere, many with image stabilization, and guess what? The output ain't bad. Finally, camera manufacturers were able to satisfy consumer demand for what they wanted in a camera - and then some. Mom, your 85 year old granny, your 4 year old can now all take pics that "come out". No more trips to the lab, no more waiting, and if you do what most do load them on to your PC or a website, it doesn't cost you a dime. Hell - they'll even take video clips...
Of course digital took over! 35mm is dead as the medium for average consumers who just want pics of their kids and vacation to share, which is the majority of the market. Film will never make a come-back in this regard It is already relegated to "hobbiest" status mostly - and "some" professionals still use it.
Know what? I don't care about any of that. Hell, I own and regularly use two digitals. I love'em. But not as much as my film cameras - or film. I enjoy shooting film more. There is obviously enough of us hobbiests in the world for manufacturers to keep producing film. You'll get Tri-X for the rest of your life. I promise. You won't be in the mainstream - so what? Who cares? 35mm film died in this regard 5 years ago. Guess what? You can get all you want. Only some fringe stocks have perished. Sad. But I see things continuing as they are for a long time to come. Embrace your non-mainstreamness, your classic film cameras and lenses, your D76, Dektol, and scanner - enjoy and quit worrying!
Camera manufactures responded - first there was "shutter priority", then aperture priority, then full auto, auto advance/rewind, auto focus, auto flash... auto, auto, auto. Things got somewhat better but you still needed to know how to use all the "auto" stuff, ironically. But that didn't solve the other issue with film - expense. You had to buy film then process it - and let's face it, to many consumers it wasn't cheap. Then the hassle of going to a lab to get it processed, having to wait, spending good money, full of anticipation for that one and only "Kodak moment" didn't "come out".
Digital changed all that. Set the camera to "P" - shoot. That's it. Small cameras you can take anywhere, many with image stabilization, and guess what? The output ain't bad. Finally, camera manufacturers were able to satisfy consumer demand for what they wanted in a camera - and then some. Mom, your 85 year old granny, your 4 year old can now all take pics that "come out". No more trips to the lab, no more waiting, and if you do what most do load them on to your PC or a website, it doesn't cost you a dime. Hell - they'll even take video clips...
Of course digital took over! 35mm is dead as the medium for average consumers who just want pics of their kids and vacation to share, which is the majority of the market. Film will never make a come-back in this regard It is already relegated to "hobbiest" status mostly - and "some" professionals still use it.
Know what? I don't care about any of that. Hell, I own and regularly use two digitals. I love'em. But not as much as my film cameras - or film. I enjoy shooting film more. There is obviously enough of us hobbiests in the world for manufacturers to keep producing film. You'll get Tri-X for the rest of your life. I promise. You won't be in the mainstream - so what? Who cares? 35mm film died in this regard 5 years ago. Guess what? You can get all you want. Only some fringe stocks have perished. Sad. But I see things continuing as they are for a long time to come. Embrace your non-mainstreamness, your classic film cameras and lenses, your D76, Dektol, and scanner - enjoy and quit worrying!
pmun
Established
A well written and perceptive post. Thanks.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I quite agree.
Just as an addendum, however, to Nick's perceptive comments, I'd like to add an additional thought.
The "low end" of the digital SLR market has, I believe, been driven at least in part by people noticing that the quality they get from their digital P&S cameras isn't up to the mark either as compared with their "old" film P&S cameras or compared to their friends who use digital SLRs.
I think that something like the Olympus EP-1, with the convenience and operational characteristics of a P&S yet the quality of film/SLRs (especially as regards DOF characteristics seen as a "3D" versus "flat" look) as being a potentially very popular compromise between convenience and the overall look of photographs.
If, as I suspect, this segment of the market takes off (taking a chunk of the high-end P&S and low-end DSLR market with it) then that will complete the "digital revolution". Before digital came along, most people used a 35mm P&S as the "family camera" (with brief inroads made by APS film P&S cameras). I can see the family camera ending up as a descendant of the EP-1/G-1 and the enthusiast market being DSLRs.
I know people who still use their old 35mm (and, yes, APS) cameras for their "serious" family snaps, even now. Because they produce results that look "better" to them than their digicams produce (and they all have digicams). They have such limited interest in the process of photography (and the size of most DSLRs) that they'll never go down that path. But something like the EP-1? Yes, I can see that working.
Which will reduce the market for film even more. Even so, though, it won't kill it. I'm not convinced Nick is right that Tri-X will be available 'till I die: I'm not real sure about Kodak and film. But I do have some confidence in Fujifilm and even more in Ilford.
...Mike
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
I don't allways agree with Nick Trop.....but this time he's summed-up absolutely spot-on!.
Dave.
Dave.
monkeypainter
Established
Digital imagery has a big handicap: the lack of the 'original'.
Artists & collectors do need the original to sell, store or exhibit. You can't do this with digital files. That's why film won't die completely, people who need originals, will keep it alive.
To make an analogy, I'm a computer 3D artist. Architects do use a lot of 3D, it's the main tool for designing buildings (CAD) or visualization (CGI).
But top end architects still use a lot of physical models and maquettes of their buildings, and hand drawn sketches. And this artifacts are veeeery expensive, and people that produce them, very well paid.
CAD files are more useful (better?) than maquettes, but aren't cultural artifacts, can't be exhibited in museums, nor form part of art collections.
'The Maquette Business' has dropped 95%, but the remaining 5% will not die, and is a very profitable business.
Artists & collectors do need the original to sell, store or exhibit. You can't do this with digital files. That's why film won't die completely, people who need originals, will keep it alive.
To make an analogy, I'm a computer 3D artist. Architects do use a lot of 3D, it's the main tool for designing buildings (CAD) or visualization (CGI).
But top end architects still use a lot of physical models and maquettes of their buildings, and hand drawn sketches. And this artifacts are veeeery expensive, and people that produce them, very well paid.
CAD files are more useful (better?) than maquettes, but aren't cultural artifacts, can't be exhibited in museums, nor form part of art collections.
'The Maquette Business' has dropped 95%, but the remaining 5% will not die, and is a very profitable business.
Last edited:
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
A RAW file (say) isn't an original? You can certainly store it. Sell it? Well, almost. You can sell the exclusive rights to it and all derivative works. Exhibit? Well, that doesn't work so well.
Still, who really looks at original negatives in an "exhibit" sense? A print from an original negative probably has more cachet than a print from an original RAW file, but I wonder how important that is.
[EDIT]I wasn't thinking about slides. Projected, they probably exhibit pretty well.[/EDIT]
...Mike
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I serve on a city advisory board that aproves (or denies) variances from the city codes for setbacks, building heights, the number of living units in a multi-family building, etc. We don't get many models of the proposed changes but we see everything from hand drawn sketches to architects drawings. For major projects some of these "sketches" are really artistic creations depicting proposed landscaping, new trees, etc. In some cases a building might be "restored" to what it looked like in 1920, which would violate current codes for some reason or another. Presenting the board with old sketches and photographs showing what it looked like back then can be the difference between approval and denial.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I've got a bunch of mid to late 60's color prints that look stunning. Well processed in fresh chems & well washed I guess. On fiber paper even! My first color prints were on fiber paper at RISD in maybe '82 or 3, I don't remember how they were processed (tray or machine?), but they were lovely.
I'd buy fiber based color paper in a heartbeat should it ever reappear. Best surfaces to my eye are on fiber- even those 60's machine(?) prints.
monkeypainter
Established
Well, no. It's a transcription from the data stored on the Camera's image processor. This data is an interpretation of the light that was captured by the sensor at a given moment.
With film, the negative is the original print of the light that fell on it. You can't have more than one negative of a photo, the original.
You can duplicate the RAW as many times as you want. There isn't an original one.
You can't do this with raw files:
The world's most famous negative. Korda used a Leica M2 with a 90 mm lens and Kodak Plus-X film. The famous image was captured on frame number 40.
Korda's Che negatives are valious cultural artifacts. To good he hadn't a dslr.