jamesf99 wrote:
Some people just don't get it and can't be made to understand. They lack the understanding that this problem goes far beyond what we may be discussing here. There is the very real problem that studios with digital movies, costing $100 million to produce, are facing these same issues and dilemmas. They too have realized that "digital" storage today is a sham, and the cost to maintain their digital work is 10-20x more than a comparable film movie in many cases.
Time for some here to wake up. Digital storage, with todays solutions/schemes, is not a safe bet. Be sure to back up multiple times, keep your files rotated onto new media every couple of years, make sure you keep a PC with the right software/OS around that can read the old files or convert them as necessary.
Adobe realized this too (they had a self interest of course) and began promoting DNG as part of the solution. Camera companies balked at standards and want to maintain proprietary information (Nikon is the worst and should be clubbed). There is no camera mfg today that can guarantee we will be able to read or view our files in 10 years. As a small example, MS released Vista and Canon has NOT released a codec allowing us to view any CRW file (pre-20d). That alone should give many a cause to look closer at what's happening, and possibly realize it will not only continue happening, but will do so at an accelerating rate. ...Show more →
Much faulty info in this post. Who cares about viewing a thumbnail in Vista, really? To claim that one will not be able to use a camera file recorded in a modern file format in the future is ridiculous. I can personally guarantee that you will be able to read any modern file format in ten years. If it's a Macintosh proprietary format you will likely want to do so on a Mac, etc. but that doesn't apply to photo files. In addition there are even emulators that let one access a file written by one operating system in the same way by another operating system.
Digital storage a sham? Hardly. There is no software runnable on a modern computer today that won't be runnable ten years from now. You can easily copy all your important digital files onto a redundant file server, with perfect data protection. You can then easily copy the same files to a remote server and have perfect protection from any damage to a single location. You can't do this with film.
The best way to protect your film-based information today is to digitize it, then store it in multiple locations in fault-tolerant storage solutions such as a redundant-disk file servers.
I am not surprised that there is someone on the web who is insistent that film is superior to digital for storing data. I will be surprised if you go on like this for long despite the obvious. Store your data properly as digital files and you will be free from worry.
jvarszegi wrote:
Much faulty info in this post. Who cares about viewing a thumbnail in Vista, really? To claim that one will not be able to use a camera file recorded in a modern file format in the future is ridiculous. I can personally guarantee that you will be able to read any modern file format in ten years. If it's a Macintosh proprietary format you will likely want to do so on a Mac, etc. but that doesn't apply to photo files. In addition there are even emulators that let one access a file written by one operating system in the same way by another operating system.
Digital storage a sham? Hardly. There is no software runnable on a modern computer today that won't be runnable ten years from now. You can easily copy all your important digital files onto a redundant file server, with perfect data protection. You can then easily copy the same files to a remote server and have perfect protection from any damage to a single location. You can't do this with film.
The best way to protect your film-based information today is to digitize it, then store it in multiple locations in fault-tolerant storage solutions such as a redundant-disk file servers.
I am not surprised that there is someone on the web who is insistent that film is superior to digital for storing data. I will be surprised if you go on like this for long despite the obvious. Store your data properly as digital files and you will be free from worry....Show more →
That's a large statement with your personal guarantee attached. How can you, or anyone else for that matter make this statement. Canon couldn't even make this statement regarding their FD line of lenses and you can make it for something as fluid as a file format.
There are digital archives around the world right now in shambles and scrambling because of deteriorating media and unsupported formats. I'm sure they all originally thought the same as you.
I actually went from shooting digital (Canon 5D) to shooting exclusively film. I really did love the images produced by the 5D, but there is a certain feel to film that I couldn't replicate with a digital camera.
As others have mentioned, shooting film allows me to slow down and really observe my surroundings. To digital photogs that can do this, I am jealous! I can't help but machine gun fire my camera some times because I want to capture everything around me.
Hopefully in the next few years, I'll be able to refine my "eye" and maybe I'll move back to digital. However, shooting film right now is just too fun. I'm glad there is no more instant gratification (except when I use my Polaroid Land camera). It's teaching me to be patient
chez wrote:
That's a large statement with your personal guarantee attached. How can you, or anyone else for that matter make this statement. Canon couldn't even make this statement regarding their FD line of lenses and you can make it for something as fluid as a file format.
I can't think of a more inappropriate comparison than the compatibility of a lens line to camera bodies, versus the readability of digital files. I know that you are mistaken here because you are a better photographer than techie, which is understandable.
I can make this statement because there is no danger today that software runnable on a modern computer will not be runnable on future computers. You can still run old 16-bit software on either 32-bit or 64-bit Windows, for instance; you can run 32-bit software on 64-bit; you can even run Windows software on Macintosh or Linux computers, run Linux software on Macintosh and Windows, etc. You can even play old Nintendo games on your desktop computer, along with Palm software, and use scads of other seemingly unrelated file formats and software using emulators. Hence you would mainly need to keep a copy of the software needed to access a proprietary file format handy with the files if you were really worried.
However, the safety doesn't end there. You have the ability to transfer your data easily into multiple file formats that will be read by common image editors for the rest of your life, and your children's, including JPEG, TIFF, DNG, etc. etc. etc. or the next big thing. If you are truly worried that you will misplace some editing software needed to access a particular format, you need transfer it but once. But it is a dead certainty, for instance, that any successful software written to process photographic images in the future will read and write TIFF files, even long after that format has been discarded by the majority of users.
The "fluidity" of file formats and software is the strength of long-term digital storage. You cannot always make an optical adapter for every situation that works well, but you can always write software that works perfectly well for manipulating image files, and store and use it forever. That is why your comparison is not apt.
There are digital archives around the world right now in shambles and scrambling because of deteriorating media and unsupported formats. I'm sure they all originally thought the same as you.
This sort of vague statement is basically worthless in the discussion. First, you should discard any discussion of deteriorating media. I am not talking about keeping a single set of data on crappy-quality optical discs. In any event one could easily design fault-tolerant digital storage using even crappy optical disks.
What you cannot do is guarantee perfect storage of every last iota of film information, with no loss of data over time and no worries of destruction at a single or even multiple locations, which you can with digital information.
BTW I never said perfect digital storage was cheaper than film storage-- just that it offers guaranteed safety for your important information. So for someone with scads of old film negatives where some protection is good enough and they don't need to last forever, I think it's fine to keep the negatives in a fireproof safe in a safe location. For images that need to be perfectly safe, scan them.
I have no problems reading image files I created over 13 years ago using Photoshop 3.0.
Back then I quite wisely saved the original files, but also saved exported files. I feel confident that in another 13 years I will still be able to read those original proprietary photoshop files, but am certain that JPEG, BMP, TIFF, etc will still open without any problems.
I feel the same way about my RAW files. I am confident that I will be able to open them, but certain that the files I export will open.
If the negatives were vital to my livelihood ( which they are not ), I would have some disaster proof safe for their safe keeping.
There is no such thing as "disaster proof." We learned in the military that no amount of armor is superior to redundancy and dispersal. Redundancy and dispersal was the very core concept of Arpanet.
That's also why we still have cockroaches but not Tyrannasaurus Rex.
I've shot 12000 frames in two years on my 5D, probably more than photos then all the other 28 years I've been taking photographs. So could somebody please explain why almost all of my best shots were taken using Kodachrome? I've started using film again, if only to try to re-teach myself whatever it is about film that trained my eye to take great photographs.
It sounds to me that what changed was your methodolgy. There is no necessary reason inherent in the digital process for you to take pictures with any less contemplation than you did with film.
mh2000 wrote:
"far safer?" Not if you backup your negatives with film scans... that the safest of all.
Hmmm, just to expand the survey:
Who is backing up all important images on separate remoter servers?
(I am not, dual external HDs only).
I am. But even if not - with digital you have the OPTION to keep your ORIGINALS at as many locations as you can afford, or as your paranoia requires. You CAN store your originals in every single country on earth, if you so please. With film, you can not. Period.
The fact that digital originals may be more prone to degradation or total loss is in my opinion far outweighed by the fact that they can be replicated at will, under your own control, to your own extent. You just need to invest the time and money. With film all you need is your house to burn down, and you are done. Or your bank to be struck by an 8.0 EQ (which is quite possible where I live). In short, with digital you have choice.
huh If you are scanning your film to make your final prints it is debatable if you even need to keep your negatives once you are finished (your processed scan becomes your source for print), so digitally backing up your scans just as you would digital sensor source images is identical... only you have the added safety of an analog backup in the negative. So "Period" to what?
>>...with digital you have the OPTION to keep your ORIGINALS at as many locations as you can afford, or as your paranoia requires. You CAN store your originals in every single country on earth, if you so please. With film, you can not. Period.
mh2000 wrote:
huh If you are scanning your film to make your final prints it is debatable if you even need to keep your negatives once you are finished (your processed scan becomes your source for print), so digitally backing up your scans just as you would digital sensor source images is identical... only you have the added safety of an analog backup in the negative. So "Period" to what?
>>...with digital you have the OPTION to keep your ORIGINALS at as many locations as you can afford, or as your paranoia requires. You CAN store your originals in every single country on earth, if you so please. With film, you can not. Period....Show more →
To me, a digital scan of a negative isn't the original. Just like even the best copy of a Picasso isn't the original. But a copy of a CR2 file is exactly the same regardless how many of them I make. Makes sense? Besides, chances are my scanner (or yours, or "theirs" whoever they are who are making a scan for me) won't capture this or that nuance of the film I used. The CR2 file once again contains it all.
The many strips of negatives I have proves that FILM is more "real";
However, I'm positive that DIGITAL technology is currently....
better, faster, easier, and probably a lot cheaper now, too!
Before the 5D, my EOS A2 was occasionally used along with a P&S Yashica/Kyocera T-4. Then I got my 5D and there is no more looking back at film SLRs. A few weeks ago, I got the Canon G9 P&S and it replaced the Yashica/Kyocera T-4, which wasn't being used and was collecting dust.
I still have 18 rolls of Fuji color ISO 400-36 exposure film and I still love the old EOS A2 and Yashica T-4. I'd like to sell both of these, but I doubt I'd get much for them. Even in the developing world people want digicams over film.
I starting shooting with 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 and 35mm and printing (B&W) in 1964-that's 43 years ago. Yes I have kept my old Nikons and lenses and even bought a 1vHS (love it and have, as yet, never exposed a frame).
Today I shoot 1000+ frame available light sessions at a (virtually) noiseless ISO 3200. These are images which could never existed until a few years ago. I know I tried decades ago with film. I'm as nostalgic as the next guy but can barely contain my excitement about this digital age.
Yes I did "develop" (no pun intended) framing, MF and exposure skills that stand me in good stead today. I'm also very grateful for my Mk III's AF (and no I don't expect each and every shot to be in focus). Ten fps is dandy too expecially when you have a 1000 frame 'load" about an inch square. (my 1vHS' 10 fps was unknown in the good old Ftn days where the crude accessory motor drive was a 2/3 fps and cost more than a good DSLR today).
So there's still some argument about the capture media? As far as I know the "Film Look" is just one more (Digital) step which can be dependent on the skill and software of the various emulation programs.
So can we all agree that whether we scan film or capture digitally that digital processing is far superior than the old chemical darkroom? I have been scanning some legacy negatives of famous classical musicians taken by my friend some 50 years old (the negatives-the friend is about 85). I am using a cheap $700 scanner and routinely delight him with prints that he could never achieve in his (or other's) darkrooms of the age (my own few legacy negative benefit similarly). And we can do color too!
During the day when I recorded "Production" sound with the best possible Swiss and German equipment I could hear playback while recording, The motion picture guys had to wait for next days "Dailies" with bated breath. I (or they) never thought there was any (creative or other) advantage of waiting for film to be developed.
As to archival permanence: If film is better than digital for archival storage where are those to are protecting their treasured digital files by "storing" them on a 4x5 or 8x10" copy negatives (positives)?
I started my photography with Canon D60 and I've been shooting digital until about a year ago, when I tried film for the first time. Now my DSLR is rarely being used, mostly for some not important snap shots when I don't want to waste money on film and processing. The feel of medium format film is amazing, so natural and beautiful..................as opposed to sterile "oh so perfect" look of digital. And I'm not talking about ultimate resolution, color reproduction or any other technical aspect but simply about the feel of film, this immeasurable highly subjective quality..............I fell in love with photography, thanks to film.
PS. I acknowledge that with the right postprocessing digital images can be amazing, but it's rare..........................YMMV
Ok, what is the "original?" Why the importance on the "original?" Do you ever view the original negative in a Museum? No, you view the artist's final print, which includes all the decisions as to how it should be printed, not a negative. A negative has nothing to do with an original Picasso.
Yes, a film scan was the starting point for all my current film image prints, but nothing more. Yes, there is more on the film than I can get off it, but there is also more data coming through my lens than my digital sensor records too... you get what you get and use the equipment you use because you feel it is good enough for producing work that meets your expectations (film or digital). Your final image is your full interpretation of how the image should be executed... and even if you feel you have to go back later, as long as you haven't clipped your data, a 16-bit/channel scan is the equal of any RAW file for further editing IMO.
Duh Copies of CR2 files are really all the same? I guess your just trying to paint me as an idiot, right? Or does rudeness just make you feel better about yourself?
Why do people get so nasty whenever film and digital get discussed? I guess humans are just bred to be sheep... and find something in everything to follow as absolute truth.
You can never get every nuance of your film in a print no matter how you print and process it... that is why it is your final interpretation of an image that matters and is an important part of what makes your photographs *yours. The same goes for RAW processing and PP for digital images.
>>To me, a digital scan of a negative isn't the original. Just like even the best copy of a Picasso isn't the original. But a copy of a CR2 file is exactly the same regardless how many of them I make. Makes sense? Besides, chances are my scanner (or yours, or "theirs" whoever they are who are making a scan for me) won't capture this or that nuance of the film I used. The CR2 file once again contains it all.
Well, for b&w and velvia, and basing quality on resolving power only, kind of... but there is still a difference and many people still prefer the look of fine film images.
For general color imaging, I agree that digital is "better" in most ways.
You can't make blanket statements.
>>I believe digital technology has reached the analog film quality.
Digital is the way to go now IMO.
I think it depends on your skill in the darkroom and as a photographer... I haven't seen anything printed digitally that can match the very best traditional b&w prints... but since very few of *my* prints ever came out that good... digital processing is far superior for *me.
>>So can we all agree that whether we scan film or capture digitally that digital processing is far superior than the old chemical darkroom?
mh2000 wrote:
Duh Copies of CR2 files are really all the same? I guess your just trying to paint me as an idiot, right? Or does rudeness just make you feel better about yourself?
Why do people get so nasty whenever film and digital get discussed? I guess humans are just bred to be sheep... and find something in everything to follow as absolute truth.
Oh my. I am just trying to explain. I am not aware that I ever attacked you, or anyone else for that matter. Sorry if you felt offended.
Let's take the example of the Apollo moon images, taken by the moon walkers with their 6x6 Hasselblads. I am sure you have seen a photo or two. When the astronauts came back, the film was copied and locked away. All prints and digital representations we've seen were made from these "master copies".
Then, in 2000, NASA let some folks at the original negatives. The result was Full Moon, a book published in 2002 (and if you are a space nut, I definitely recommend it, man I paid $50 for the hard cover when it came out...). Also, it was an exhibition that was going around museums around the country - I saw it at the SFMOMA. The difference between the 1970s prints and the 2000 prints from the original negatives was stunning.
My point is: if you scan your negs or slides with the best technology money can buy today, there will be something better tomorrow. Something will be able to "get more out of your negative". This is not about that a better capture would be possible - that, too. But you can get more out of your capture, too. Printing technology will also change. This is why I am talking about the original negative - if you scan it today, you're not giving it a proper representation that you maybe wish you had in 30 years. I am not saying that you *want* to have that detail, or if you'll even care in 30 years. Most people don't, but that's not the point. The original point was about backing up / keeping safe your images. All I am saying is that it is easier to preserve the full potential of a digital capture than an analog one.
People, the question was WHO STILL USES FILM? Who gives a crap how you store it? It seems that the people still playing with film love it, as do I. You can see by the responses that film has won one or to people back, and it will probibly continue to do so. I do use both, but for large wall protraits and high end weddings I use M/F film. As I have said before my 10 year old film cameras are still making me money. I spent approx. $11,000 for 2 Nikon D1's that you can now buy on EBay for $300. I think you digital guys have more money than brains. You spend more time sitting in front of a computer than trying to take the perfect photo. Ansel Adems wouldn't care if he had a digital or film camera as long as he has his eyes. Yes, his negs are still around. Stop talking about film and digital and go out and find the perfect photo.
There is no camera mfg today that can guarantee we will be able to read or view our files in 10 years. As a small example, MS released Vista and Canon has NOT released a codec allowing us to view any CRW file (pre-20d). That alone should give many a cause to look closer at what's happening, and possibly realize it will not only continue happening, but will do so at an accelerating rate.
If you are scanning your film to make your final prints it is debatable if you even need to keep your negatives once you are finished (your processed scan becomes your source for print), so digitally backing up your scans just as you would digital sensor source images is identical... only you have the added safety of an analog backup in the negative. So "Period" to what?