Reading mode: Light Dark

The "Achilles heel" of digital photography is

Go to last post
O

OM Fan

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
For the professional...the long term storage of images shot on digital media compared to those shot on emulsion film. The archival properties of the latter is proven to last for many decades ...and the media can be re-recorded digitally .. or onto more emulsion film. All movies (including entirely computer generated ones) are copied onto "master" rolls of emulsion film..enough said. DVDs and CDs "rot" due to (e.g.) atmospheric pollution, scratching, changes in temperature etc. .... the sort of thing that (apart from possibly humidity) emulsion film is highly resistant to. Am I correct?

For the amateur ...the sheer cost of backing up and viewing your cherished images (cds, computer, software etc.)...the sheer cost of printing them out....the sheer cost (in time spent) manipulating your digital images so that (when printed) they look as good as those taken with your old (confined to the attic) film camera.

Cheers
 
I will only speak for the amateur part of your comments.

Cost of computer is not a factor as I would have it anyway, and I don't need a "more powerful" one.

Storage costs - My primary backup is to hard disk - I have 2 hard identical hard disks with mirrors of my digital data, including the photographs. I am at 50% capacity on two 200GB hard drives, purchase price $75 each. That is enough room for 40,000 photographs taking up 5MB each (I am using base 10 numbers for quick calculation). I take on average 200 photographs per month, so that is 200 months of storage or over 16 years. All of this fits in a space smaller than a shoe box. Storage costs (simplified) 1/3 of 1 cent per photograph. Change the hard drives 3 times in that 16 year period, and you still got 1 cent per photograph. How much room would it take to store 40,000 photographs and negatives?

Printing - I print less than when I used film, and printing costs are no more than they are with film. So this is not a factor, and probably a savings if it is insisted it is a factor.

Pictures out of the camera look as good as film, if not better. When I want make it look even better, I'll spend some quality time with Photoshop. Again digital wins.

For me the contest isn't even close. Especially when I look at some of my 20 year old prints and slides. Scratches, color shifts, grain. Side to side of a digital, which will look the same in 100 years is no comparison.

Film days are over.
OM Fan said:
For the amateur ...the sheer cost of backing up and viewing your
cherished images (cds, computer, software etc.)...the sheer cost of
printing them out....the sheer cost (in time spent) manipulating
your digital images so that (when printed) they look as good as
those taken with your old (confined to the attic) film camera.
Click to expand...
 
My computer and digital camera cost about the same and I'm not sure I'd have a computer if I didn't have a digital camera.

The real benefit I find is in my ability to take alot of pictures, which increases my skills with the camera. Depending on what I'm editing that can certainly take time but if I had to pay someone to do it I couldn't afford it nor could I get someone to do just what I want. When you take into account the cost of film and developing when taking hundreds of photos per week there is no comparison. I do alot of my own printing and that can be costly but there are zillions of places to get cheap printing done, and with a digital camera you are printing only the ones you really want to keep or frame. In the past slides have been the reasonable way to go but even they take up more room than my external HD plus the stacks of cd's or dvd's.
For me digital is just the way to go and I'm certainly happy with it.

Suzan
--
A libertarian and amoral society is enticing you to excess. Enjoy
http://www.ImKayd1pics.Flowersv2.photoshare.co.nz

http://community.webshots.com/user/imkayd1-date
 
Film just ain't permanent. Year ago, a broken water pipe cost me a twenty year accumulation of negatives and slides. Al negativs can get scratched, color negaitves and slides stain and discolor over the years rendering them useless. My two six month old puppies got hold of several "archival" sleeves of B&W negatives, chewing them into scrap. Had all of those been digital images, they would have been stored in at least two locations and would not have been lost.

No storage media is permanent!

--
Old fart, retired pro shooter
 
It takes the knowledge of a photographer to shoot a killer shot. A digitizer
can come close? and then fix it with software.==$$ It's like the old racers
axiem"How many $ fast do you want to go." Rewriten to ,"How many
software $ = a good enough photo?Gray
 
--

15 years as a freelancer,(news,magazine, wedding photography) camera equip. over the years: Practica MLT, Canon A1, Minolta 9xi, 7xi, Dimage Z1(see my Z1 shots at http://www.photobucket.com ALBUM NAME: buckl the COMMUNITY album was done with the Z1, and most of the photos in the album:Other were w/the Z1)
 
OM Fan said:
For the professional...the long term storage of images shot on> digital media compared to those shot on emulsion film. The archival> properties of the latter is proven to last for many decades ...and> the media can be re-recorded digitally .. or onto more emulsion> film. All movies (including entirely computer generated ones) are> copied onto "master" rolls of emulsion film..enough said.
Click to expand...
Baloney. Already, megamiles of Eastmancolour has gone down the tubes and a quiet browse through your family slide collection will serve as a handy reality check. Storage issues are the same for both media. I submit that at least with digital it will always be possible to transfer to a new medium without any loss
 
Wine didn't age. If your furniture didn't age, then there wouldn't be such a thing as antique furniture. Anything you purchase ages, wears etc...All things age and in time, as they become fewer in number, increase in value. So, I say, don't worry about digital. Keep your images on CD and don't bother to transfer them to new media. 20, 40, 60 & 80 years down the road when people look at the deteriorated files, they will appreciate them in the same way they view them as an old art work on canvas. So, relax, digital is OK,
jules
 
OM Fan said:
For the amateur ...the sheer cost of backing up and viewing your
cherished images (cds, computer, software etc.)...the sheer cost of
printing them out....the sheer cost (in time spent) manipulating
your digital images so that (when printed) they look as good as
those taken with your old (confined to the attic) film camera.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Well for me the cost of new storage hd's is minute compared to the cost of my Zuiko 50-200mm lens or to the cost of film and developing when I had my film camera. I can get a 200BGF HD for $140 CDN here in Vancouver. For another $140 I get a second one put it into a removable chassis, backup my images and store it away. I used to spend about $100-125 per month on film and developing. Then came the pain in the as* (at least for me ) or keeping the prints and negatives cataloged.

The cost of the computer doesnt count as I already had them when I bought my camera.

Manipulating my images is not part of my cost as its the same as me shooting and learning photography. I spend tons of time on my computer designing websites and graphics and its what I like doing.

Really I dont worry about the cost as I'll go out to a club few times per month and spend $80-100 each time in drinking. If were at it I might as well count in the cost of gas/car payments/food/parking/ etc when I go out shooting.

So here are some damaging events

Prints/Negative - Fire/floods/pets/thieves/earthquakes/aliens/FBI/etc

Digital - solar flares/fire/floods/electricity spikes/EMP/ray guns/etc

--
http://www.evolver.ca
http://www.aperture.ca
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/14506.html
 
if the drives are internal and fixed, you run the risk of an internal power supply failure blowing both at the same time. consider mounting fixed disks in slide-out frames (and sliding out the backup most of the time) -- or get external drives with separate power supplies for each one, to eliminate the possibility of burning out 2 drives at the same time & losing all...

-bruce
Weth said:
...I have 2 hard identical hard disks with mirrors of my digital data, including the photographs.
Click to expand...
 
bruce komusin said:
if the drives are internal and fixed, you run the risk of an
internal power supply failure blowing both at the same time.
consider mounting fixed disks in slide-out frames (and sliding out
the backup most of the time) -- or get external drives with
separate power supplies for each one, to eliminate the possibility
of burning out 2 drives at the same time & losing all...
Click to expand...
Yep, I'm there too. I sleep little bit better now that I have two disks with mirrored data. Next step is to add external disk at work and mirror my stuff there.
I think that method is a good balance between security and convenience.
bruce komusin said:
-bruce
Weth said:
...I have 2 hard identical hard disks with mirrors of my digital data, including the photographs.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.4-3system.com/
http://jonr.light.is/
http://getfirefox.com/
 
The cost of digital archiving, CD/DVD Rot its achilles heel bah!!!

This is not more of a problem than storing with negatives or slides. I have several family members helping with restoring the family slide collectiong of slikdes that are 30-50 years old. They are by no means perfect, many of them have massive color loss, scratches, a bunch of them do not even have any dates as to when they were taken etc...

At least with digital and Exif info you have shooting dates, comments and if you simply transfer the files over to a new storage medium every once in a while you have zero data loss. Most people do a storage shift with every new computer which right there is a whole new backup and costs them nothing extra as most people would have a computer for reasons outside of digital photography anyways. And with blank DVD disks costing only around $.50 each its not like its excesivley expensive to backup files to DVD/CD.

The only real danger is that, which has always plauged digital medium and that is the tendency for average user to forget to backup the data.

Mr.Fixitx
 
Looking at my carefully stored old slides and negs, I realise just how poor the quality was from even the better labs. My 6 x 4 prints are far superior and my files don't have dust and bits of emulsion stuck to them. Also, I haven't lost several complete films since I stopped using photo labs.

If I scan a 6 x 4 lab print, then print a copy, mine is usually better, because I've corrected the colour. I have a 36" x 24" print done by the best Toronto lab about 25 years ago, but they had to do it several times before the colour was right and it cost $75 back then. Unless extreme care was taken in choice of film, processing and printing, results with film were not usually as good as you may think and I have the negatives and slides to prove it.

Skipper494.
 
Skipper494 said:
Unless extreme care was taken in choice of film, processing
and printing, results with film were not usually as good as you may
think and I have the negatives and slides to prove it.
Click to expand...
BINGO!!!

(and storing)

I've spent hundreds of hours turning nasty old slides into somewhat usable images.

I use to worry about loosing my images in a fire. Now I have multiple copies stored in separate physical locations.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Penny's Neighborhood - Thailand'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.
 
Jeeeez, are you telling me you have triplicates of your negative stored in nitrogen purged vaults? Have they been triple washed to remove all acid to achival standards? How many posts and tutorials are they on restoring old family pictures? How do those pictures look at after 50 years?

I have all my pictures back up twice, in separate physical locations, on different mediums. Do that with film!
 
Good point, but already taken care of. Both of the drives are external, with their own power supply, and each is behind a UPS for power. The the operating system and program files are on the local internal hard drive.

Their are not mirrored in a RAID sense. 1 drive is live all the time. The other is a once a week back up copy, done automatically every Monday night. Since I never erase the memory card right away, I always have 2 copies of each file, except for the period of time from when I take the photograph until it is uploaded to the drive. I do this to protect from virus.

Each photo at least once a month is copied to off site storage in case of local disaster. This offline storage is with dotphoto, and since I order from them several times a year, doesn't cost me anything extra for the offsite backup.

I should have been more specific in my original post, but didn't want to appear to be too nerdy about my process :-)
 
Gray jones said:
It takes the knowledge of a photographer to shoot a killer shot. A > digitizer can come close? and then fix it with software.==$$ It's like the > old racers axiem"How many $ fast do you want to go." Rewriten to > ,"How many software $ = a good enough photo?
Gray
Click to expand...
What, people who use film don't burn/dodge, push/pull, ect when developing? And how much does that cost? Can you "undo" a mistake with a click of a button? Can you make an exact copy of a print if you were making unmeasureable changes during the development process?

Software is somewhat more of a finite outlay... How much does developer, stop, fixer, excetera cost? How reuseable is it?

Just asking.

--
http://members.aol.com/deathriderpc/6flagsne/
http://members.aol.com/neonexpres/bfw2001.html
http://members.aol.com/deathriderpc/esb.html
http://members.aol.com/d70bites/pics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top