A thought about how film fits in our world.

[clayne]

Your 99.99% theory is absolutely ridiculous relative to the facts provided (on data loss by business into the billions) in the 2 links given in my previous post. This is hard to dispute, but of course you can ignore it, and everything will be just right if you wish for it.

I'd have to agree here as well. It's more the exception, than the norm, that end-users actually back up their data (in the correct manner at that).

[nolanr66]

I googled around about archival of photos and came across an article on the Vatican. The Vatican wants everything saved basically forever. Currently Tiff lossless files are the thing in addition to archiving existing photos and documents and books and such. The article mentioned a letter by Michelangelo that in spite of best efforts it is continually deterioating due to corrosive metals in the ink. The day will come when that letter will only exist in a digital file and hard copies of the digital file. The methods and equipment mentioned in the article sounded expensive. Here is the link if it may interest someone out there. For what it's worth I am using two external hard drives to hold on to my photos. I also hang onto my negs but I shoot digital more and more these days since there are no longer any labs around.

http://www.vaticanlibrary.va/home.php?pag=ufficio_fotografico&ling=eng&BC=11

[Van Camper]

What the Vatican uses was an interesting read. But what meets their needs vs my own or the average person are two different things I feel. They have a dept, with paid professionals. On the other hand, I do landscapes, and if I could afford film before, I certainly can now. So I rather have film, and not worry about migration, etc. The fact that it is scanned for printing adds an extra level of protection (digital copy gives me a second method of protection...so I have the best of both worlds), and I forget about it. I file once and don't go back or worry about it. For the average person not into photography, who just wants party, wedding, family, holiday photos....their is a lack of understanding regarding archiving. They store disks thinking they are safe as their DVD movies which are manufactured differently (stamped). It's tossed into a box, and forgotten. I feel sorry for the day people will be disappointed, say 20-30 yrs from now. Like I said before, Bill Gates doesn't care about archival issues like the printer industry, he only wants to advance the science of computers.....can't stop progress.

When professionals fail, then I can't help but worry about the average person.... from the link I gave earlier on the Doomsday book....." It was meant to be a showcase for Britain's electronic prowess - a computer-based, multimedia version of the Domesday Book. But 16 years after it was created, the £2.5 million BBC Domesday Project has achieved an unexpected and unwelcome status: it is now unreadable. " The special computers developed to play the 12in video discs of text, photographs, maps and archive footage of British life are - quite simply - obsolete."The book survived, the digital copy didn't...end of story.

I've had the same experience with BASICA data files, Word, and a number of other DVD disks (one failed a week later, on its first use). Even losing one important image for Ken Duncan is worth $350k in lost sales in an edition. Film isn't perfect, but it lasts at least 80 years (I have many to prove it).

Interestingly, the Vatican uses a P45 (39mp). For most of us this is not sufficient quality for pro landscape work (if priting large....at 300ppi output this is only a 27 inch print, not nearly enough)....so large format film (4x5 and up) solves that problem, and at 1/20th the cost.

The key is a high quality scanner when using film. I now use roll film backs (612) for my Horseman 45FA, and also Fotoman 617. The Nikon 9000 scanner gives amazing results when you scan the two halves of 617 film and stitch (very easy and automatic in CS3/4). When I need a more square format, I shoot twice with 612 giving me 4x5 once stitched (then scan 4 times total for both negs). When I use 617 and shoot twice, I get 4x7 format (that's 5x7 after I would crop anyways). . Using roll film means no more loading sheet film, no extra weight (a days supply fits in your shirt pocket), easier to process on reels, and at least 50% cheaper for film/processing costs, and multiple bracketing is fast (wind lever or knob).

[nolanr66]

I am glad you liked the article Van Camper. I thought it was pretty amazing all the stuff they are doing. The world is a funny place because last night my #3 daughter said she was going to apply for a Master's Program at UCLA and major in Library and Archival Science. I just told her to go for it and I got your back. (That means I will pay for it). So in a few years I will have an Archivist in the family. I kind of wanted a Police Officer to arrest my neighbors when they bug me. (LOL) just kidding.

You are correct that the Vatican has money that we cannot have so we just all have to decide what we want to do. Currently I have my negatives and positives and I also have the family pictures which is mostly medium format from about 1900 to 1970 and my own stuff. These days everything I am interested in gets scanned. The 35mm is scanned to about 1.5mb (photo CD's or my V500) and my Nikon D200 is about 7mb and I keep the files in two external hard drives. Also family shots are printed. My landscape pictures hardly get printed anymore because my wife say's there is to much of my stuff hanging anyway.. My #2 daughter is an Artist and is graduating from UC Berkely (go Cal) later this month. My pictures are slowly coming down and the work she gives us is going up. However she is talented and I am just a snapper. She is giving her Mom a Lithograph (deckeld paper) for Mothers Day. I am honored because my daughter is going to let me frame it. That means she thinks I am good at it. I am off work tomorrow so that will be my project. Luckily it involves a trip to Santa Cruz, Ca and a few pictures of something.

[Van Camper]

I am glad you liked the article Van Camper. I thought it was pretty amazing all the stuff they are doing. The world is a funny place because last night my #3 daughter said she was going to apply for a Master's Program at UCLA and major in Library and Archival Science. I just told her to go for it and I got your back. (That means I will pay for it). So in a few years I will have an Archivist in the family. I kind of wanted a Police Officer to arrest my neighbors when they bug me. (LOL) just kidding.

You are correct that the Vatican has money that we cannot have so we just all have to decide what we want to do. Currently I have my negatives and positives and I also have the family pictures which is mostly medium format from about 1900 to 1970 and my own stuff. These days everything I am interested in gets scanned. The 35mm is scanned to about 1.5mb (photo CD's or my V500) and my Nikon D200 is about 7mb and I keep the files in two external hard drives. Also family shots are printed. My landscape pictures hardly get printed anymore because my wife say's there is to much of my stuff hanging anyway.. My #2 daughter is an Artist and is graduating from UC Berkely (go Cal) later this month. My pictures are slowly coming down and the work she gives us is going up. However she is talented and I am just a snapper. She is giving her Mom a Lithograph (deckeld paper) for Mothers Day. I am honored because my daughter is going to let me frame it. That means she thinks I am good at it. I am off work tomorrow so that will be my project. Luckily it involves a trip to Santa Cruz, Ca and a few pictures of something.

When she graduates, I hope she reports back here as to the best solution with respect to archiving. For me, I don't do snaps, my art is important to me, and a digital only solution isn't proven (besides, there is no high-end digital camera that can beat 4x5 or larger sheet film and do it affordably....so film is the ONLY CHOICE for some of us, while those happy with a Canon 5DII can depend on digital only for storage. So for me film is proven (no need to worry about data migration), and if it lasted 80 years before, then it can certainly last at least that long with even better products which we have today (inlcuding longer washing compared to the old days....a reason many b/w images yellowed). Film plus a DVD (stored elsewhere) is as safe as I want to get. I don't trust using only digital as a solution. I guess this is why the Vatican has two depts (film and digital) running at the same time.

When she graduates, I hope she reports back here on the topic of archiving. For me a digital solution isn't proven, so why take the risk. For many satisfied with the quality of a 5DII, digital only for storage is one solution. But if you're into high-end photography (P65 backs don't even match 4x5 just yet) , then there is no affordable choice...film is king (cheap, and superb quality starting from 4x5 to 8x10), and combined with a high end scan I am confident I got my basis covered. I don't need to worry about data migration each time a new digital format arrives, or operating systems change, nor do I need to test if all my files will open a few years from now (with film as my primary backup I can afford to forget migration). I don't need to worry about operating systems, or a virus transferring during migration (your computer could be infected during your data transfer). I got film. If my parents negs could last 80 yrs in a shoebox, then the newer film products today should last even longer, especially when you take into account how much more concerned we are today about this issue.

Commercial guys think short term, speed and low cost rule their thinking. On the other hand look around, most into pro landscape still use film (those who aren't usually are doing calenders, or just don't care). There doesn't have to be any logic, film is proven, and cost is not an issue because you could spend 3 days looking for a perfect shot and then only expose one sheet. If we could afford film before, we certainly can now (it's just that digital makes the expression "free is good" more desirable).Commercial guys on the other hand could end up doing 1000 shots in 3 days....so cost becomes an issue. We can't look at the commercial guy and think if it is good enough for them, then it is good enough for us. They aren't shooting family photos, or art...both needing long life. A hamburger photo a year from now will be erased off their hard drive because it is old, and has no personal value. You would have to be an idiot to shoot film in this environment, it would be throwing money away when it could pay an employees wages in the business.

I can't remember who it was at the largeformat forum, but he had a $5000 job he lost because none of his copies (including the one at the cottage) would open. I guess bad data got transferred to multiple copies. Unless you open each file from 1000's on your hard drive....how can you know if they open or not. Data verfication will just tell us that both copies are identical, but not tell us if it is a good or bad file. If it were film, it would have been located easily in a file cabinet. I'll always go for hard copy.

[nolanr66]

When she graduates, I hope she reports back here as to the best solution with respect to archiving. For me, I don't do snaps, my art is important to me, and a digital only solution isn't proven (besides, there is no high-end digital camera that can beat 4x5 or larger sheet film and do it affordably....so film is the ONLY CHOICE for some of us,

Well I doubt there is a best solution. Probably a current and evolving solution as methods, materials etc change. I think from what I have seen from the large format it can certainly be beautiful. In Monterey Ca there is a little museum (free to view) that has photo exhibits and other types of exhibits. When they show large format exhibits it's pretty amazing. Of course the photographers are very skilled. Luckily there is a fabric/sewing store across the street. My wife heads over there and I go check out the museum. If you are having a show for your Art in my area let us Bay area folks know and we will check it out. Or do you have a book at I could see at Barnes and Noble. I was heading up their today to order Nick Brandt's book.

[SilverGlow]

Your 99.99% theory is absolutely ridiculous relative to the facts provided (on data loss by business into the billions) in the 2 links given in my previous post. This is hard to dispute, but of course you can ignore it, and everything will be just right if you wish for it.

I've offered no theories. I only offered facts. If a person uses best practices to archive their digital data, it will far, far out last film negatives.

When a business loses their digital data, this does not prove digital archive is bad. It just proves that that business didn't follow best practices.

I think a lot of film lovers get emotional about film to the point of being subjective, bias, and unrealistic.

I'm not one of these. I shoot 40+ rolls of Tri-X each month, and I cannot remember the last time I picked up my 5D DSLR's, and as much as I love film I'm not going to (1) get subjective with it, (2) lose sight of the prime directive: The Print, and (3) going to turn my love of film into religion.

[SilverGlow]

Bullshit. You understanding nothing about non-linear curves and what makes analog mediums special. Digital cannot offer DR compression and is entirely limited by the raw input to the sensor (try exposing for the shadows and "developing" for the highlights with your silicon wafers). Seriously, look this sh*t up before you get back on here and refute everyone while stroking your 5D - because it's getting old.

Bullshit. I wrote "nearly" not actually? We all agree that film provides wide DR then anything digital. For now.

Seriously, read the posts before you get back on here and refute me, while you're stroking your self - because it's getting old.

[clayne]

Bullshit. I wrote "nearly" not actually? We all agree that film provides wide DR then anything digital. For now.

Seriously, read the posts before you get back on here and refute me, while you're stroking your self - because it's getting old.

It's not just "nearly" - which is a weasel word anyways. Read up on sensitometry to understand the importance of curves and how that can significantly affect the look and feel of an image or be used for utilitarian purposes (such as compressing dynamic range). It's not necessary to understand the exact science - but it is necessary to understand how to take advantage of it.

You still appear to be locked into the resolution/sharpness/pixel-density frame of mind and as such ignore all of the other important aspects of analog mediums.

It's like arguing with a sharpness freak.

[Van Camper]

I've offered no theories. I only offered facts. If a person uses best practices to archive their digital data, it will far, far out last film negatives.

When a business loses their digital data, this does not prove digital archive is bad. It just proves that that business didn't follow best practices.

I think a lot of film lovers get emotional about film to the point of being subjective, bias, and unrealistic.

I'm not one of these. I shoot 40+ rolls of Tri-X each month, and I cannot remember the last time I picked up my 5D DSLR's, and as much as I love film I'm not going to (1) get subjective with it, (2) lose sight of the prime directive: The Print, and (3) going to turn my love of film into religion.


"If a person uses best practices to archive their digital data, it will far, far out last film negatives."

Well, what do you think these guys were doing, monkey business. These were experts, and 15 years later the data was Goooone! Please read, or wake up. And further down the same article was mentioned.... "The space agency Nasa has already lost digital records sent back by its early probes (I'd say these were important enough to protect), and in 1995 the US government come close to losing a vast chunk of national census data, thanks to the obsolescence of its data retrieval technology. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning

[SilverGlow]

"If a person uses best practices to archive their digital data, it will far, far out last film negatives."

Well, what do you think these guys were doing, monkey business. These were experts, and 15 years later the data was Goooone! Please read, or wake up. And further down the same article was mentioned.... "The space agency Nasa has already lost digital records sent back by its early probes (I'd say these were important enough to protect), and in 1995 the US government come close to losing a vast chunk of national census data, thanks to the obsolescence of its data retrieval technology. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning

I am a digital content expert in archival, with 33 years experience.

I know much more about this issue then those that wrote that article, and those the article was written about.

In fact, those people that lost their data are stupid.

Don't be so quick to believe anything you read, that jabs digital....often people WANT to find bad about digital archival and the milli-second after they find "proof" in on the internet, they scream with glee "see, ah told ya so".

You assume wrongly that agencies with famous acrinyms like NASA, and the CIA, are experts and know what they're doing. Well, surprise, surprise, often they don't.

Don't be so gullible.

[clayne]

Jesus dude, you're really something else.

[Alex1994]

I know someone who works in a high-performance supercomputer facility, the largest, most powerful computer dedicated to medium-range weather forecasting in the world. Every day they get GB worth of data sent from satellites, which are crunched by the computer's weather model to make a workable weather forecast. All the data before and after has to be stored archivally. What they use is not some fancy solid-state drive, whose reliability is often trumpeted in tech press. Instead, they use huge analogue tapes, about as big as a VHS (a little wider), each carrying 1TB of data. These are kept in a robot which can access anything on there, anytime.

Goes to show that analogue technologies are still the most reliable in our world. Perhaps one day solid-states drives will catch up, but that day hasn't come yet.

[BetterSense]

Those aren't analog tapes. They are storing digital information on them just like they were hard drives.

[Alex1994]

The point is not the type of data stored on there but the medium - an age-old one rather than the brand new hard drives used to back up digital files, including pictures.

[Van Camper]

I am a digital content expert in archival, with 33 years experience.

I know much more about this issue then those that wrote that article, and those the article was written about.

In fact, those people that lost their data are stupid.

Don't be so quick to believe anything you read, that jabs digital....often people WANT to find bad about digital archival and the milli-second after they find "proof" in on the internet, they scream with glee "see, ah told ya so".

You assume wrongly that agencies with famous acrinyms like NASA, and the CIA, are experts and know what they're doing. Well, surprise, surprise, often they don't.

Don't be so gullible.

Yeah, we're all experts like yourself. Stupid is listening to your nonsense. Stupid is believing in one technology, when it is safer in the long term to have a film and digital backup (scan). Stupid is not accepting I already lost files in WORD, BASICA. Stupid is believing that technology, file formats, will never change. Sorry, I'll trust my own instincts. Stupid is promoting the benefits of digital, when digital has no affordable options to match the quality of large format film. Do you have a P65 digital back?

[SilverGlow]

Yeah, we're all experts like yourself. Stupid is listening to your nonsense. Stupid is believing in one technology, when it is safer in the long term to have a film and digital backup (scan). Stupid is not accepting I already lost files in WORD, BASICA. Stupid is believing that technology, file formats, will never change. Sorry, I'll trust my own instincts. Stupid is promoting the benefits of digital, when digital has no affordable options to match the quality of large format film. Do you have a P65 digital back?

Van Camper, you used the word "stupid" four times!

And do you use your large format at a sporting event such as basketball, soccor, baseball? Weddings? How stupid!

You lost WORD files so digital sucks? God forbid you take any blame, right? How stupid. You think it bad if file formats change? How stupid. You trust your own instincts? I prefer to go with science, reality, fact, objectivity, ....to go otherwise is stupid.

Film is great....and so are other mediums, and there is proof of this all over our world, in museums, millions of photo albums...to disrespect any other meduim is plain stupid.

[SuzanneR]

Closed per OP request.