It's interesting, to think of film as long lasting. In my family, growing up, nobody owned a decent camera. Not even my father, whose photographic interest sparked my interest, post-mortem. He died when I was five.

I recall a photo that stayed on my mother's nightstand until she died, in 2002. It was a photo of my dad, my mom, and me as an infant. It was B&W and hand colored, because nobody could afford real color in 1962, but over the years that photo faded and faded. When we went to clear out my mom's house after she died, nobody wanted that photo. It was that badly faded. And of course, the studio was long gone, the negative thrown in the trash no doubt.

I took as many photos as I could in the 70's, 80's, but the cheaper lab processing I sometimes used resulted in bad prints and bad negatives. When I could afford it I went with the lab's premium service, and many of those prints and negatives are with me to this day, but I have lots of garbage prints and faded negatives.

I wonder, if, just a bit, the fading of these low-cost (and maybe cheaply and improperly fixed?) photos people used to hold dear helped spark the near-hatred of film-based imaging that lead to the digital revolution.