Digital technology ruined photography for me, or did people ruin it? (or both)

[tirediron]

Okay folks, we're teetering on a slippery slope here. I think we can all agree that digital files and physical negatives are different and require different techniques for preserving, and at the same time, represent the same thing, and that both require maintenance and preservation.

 

[Buckster]

"Feel free to enlighten me. I'm always open to learning."

Buckster: Let's start with this statement, "So, you're saying that having multiple prints from your slides and negs is the same as having the original slides and negs if they were lost or destroyed? If that's true, then why hang onto the slides and negs at all?"

Where is the logic here. Explain ... maybe I can learn something new.

We were talking about the possibility of losing boxes of slides and negs, and you said that you had multiple prints of them anyway. I assumed you meant prints as in the things people hold in their hands or hang on their walls and look at.

If that's the case, then... apply my questions.

 

[Village Idiot]

Completely ignoring the cogent part, "How about the wee fact that data is continually changing the format that is is written in, and on. Do those backups also store the OS's, and Apps used to create the data? " Try again.

Explain how exactly that matters?

Why does it matter what kind of media a TIF or JPG is written on, as long as it can be copied to other media when the time comes?

Why does the backup have to store the program the TIF or JPG was created with, as long as other programs can read the files?

Why does the backup have to store the OS, as long as other OS's can read the data?

This ain't the wild west of the very early days of computer systems, where we might need to get our hands on an Altair to read the files that were written by one. Do you really think that suddenly overnight, no browsers will be able to read JPGs anymore? Do you really think that suddenly overnight, no programs will be able to read RAW files anymore? Or TIFs, or PNGs, or any other common image format?

Be serious for a moment and explain why we should panic about how we might all lose our digital images per your warnings. Spell out a realistic scenario.

Ok, last time. First I have a question for you. Have you ever tried to open a Linux partition in Windows? How about an early Apple? To recover that data requires someone to not only have all the old OS's, converters etc, but in many cases they also must have the hardware with the proper chips in order to do anything. That is hugely expensive. Some companies do that, but let me ask you this, Do you believe companies do not go out of business?

Those are trivial examples, but you have descended into the trivial with your ignoring the fundamentals behind technological data usage. Go study up, or simply continue as you have been, but try and ease up on disseminating half-baked info about technology.

Hmmm. We get 3.5" & 5.25" floppies in at work and can still read the data on them with Windows 8. They were probably created with Win 3.1 or Win 2000.

A file format is a file format. My OS X install can read the same .NEF .CR2. and .JPG files that my Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows Home Server can read. Chips and hardware don't have anything to do with that. And if by some extreme example the .JPG standard totally disintegrates, then the files can probably be converted. Even old .EXE files from programs 20 years old can be read by new OS's.

 

[robbins.photo]

Umm.. folks, just sort of wondering here. Do you think that any troubles involved in backing up files are really going to get people to switch from digital photography back to film? Or that difficulties with lost/damaged slides, negatives or prints is going to convince anyone to switch from film to digital?

Ok, don't get me wrong, normally I'm all for a good holy war - but I have to admit this one just seems a bit silly for my tastes. I'm also still trying to figure out why Mexico felt the need to get involved and why they are apparently just standing there staring at each other. So yup, very confusing thread all the way around.

 

[photoguy99]

Okay folks, we're teetering on a slippery slope here. I think we can all agree that digital files and physical negatives are different and require different techniques for preserving, and at the same time, represent the same thing, and that both require maintenance and preservation.

Yep. I can agree with this. Not sure we all can, but I'll sign the petition!

 

[Buckster]

I suspect a a hard drive and negatives caught up in a firestorm or in a flood would fair no better.

Here's the BIG difference: The box of analog is the ONLY copy of those negs and transparencies. The hard drive is likely just one of possibly MANY copies, all exactly the same, of those DIGITAL equivalents of negs and transparencies.

One is easily recoverable by simply pulling up one of the copies. The other has no copies to pull up.

Maybe ... maybe not. That is all speculation. I have multiple prints of the same thing, it isn't hard to copy slides or negatives. (Think about movies.)

So, you're saying that having multiple prints from your slides and negs is the same as having the original slides and negs if they were lost or destroyed? If that's true, then why hang onto the slides and negs at all?

You know Buckster ... with no disrespect ... your arguments really are silly. There isn't any difference between sending a box of negatives to the landfill or a box of hard drives. The only difference is upon discovery, negs and photos are immediately recognizable for what they are ... while a hard drive may not be. It is the element of hiddenness and the effort to discover what is hidden that may spell the difference between life and death of your images.

You can take every hard drive I possess, right now, drill holes in them and send them to the landfill.

Tomorrow, I will have recovered ALL of my images, EVERY ONE OF THEM. And by that, I mean, EVERY scan, EVERY RAW, EVERY JPG, TIF, PSD, PNG. Every. All. The whole enchilada.

Do you get it YET?

 

[photoguy99]

This is a serious question, answer it or not as you choose:

Why do you care about the longevity of your photos?

It is certainly tradition, since Ansel Adams wrote his books, that photos should be made as permanent as possible. But why? And why, particularly, do you care about your photos?

There are probably many excellent answers. It's worth thinking it through though.

 

[Microbois]

Not to mention that we've gone totally off topic with this discussion...

 

[tirediron]

Not to mention that we've gone totally off topic with this discussion...

Yep, and since some people don't seem to get that, I think this thread will begin its Christmas holiday right about now.