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

[pgriz]

I don't understand where this idea comes from that suddenly, practically overnight, technology will change so drastically that the files, media, machines, formats, etc., etc., etc., will change so drastically that we will lose all our digital images. Similarly, that it's so difficult or expensive to just copy them over to new systems whenever we upgrade.

Can someone name an image file format from the past that can't be read or converted in any way today?

If the stuff was copied using one of the older backup programs, then sometimes you cannot access them, as the backup formats (depending on the compression algorithm used) are not all forward compatible. However if one is doing file-to-file copies, I can access stuff that has been created under MS/DOS. CP/M, however is out of reach.

 

[Ysarex]

I'm going to agree with Joe. Over the years, I've had stuff on 8" floppies, then on 5-1/4" floppies, then 3" floppies, then tape, then ZIP discs, and now on various capacity HDD external drives. As long as I take the time to backup up the digital stuff onto newer media, I'm good (oh, and as long as the programs can read the legacy file formats). The analog stuff is not so portable. I've been looking through my slides and negatives (stored in a dry, cool place, in sealed boxes), and yet, some of them have been supporting fungus growth despite the precautions. The photo albums are all changing colours and fading, despite being supposedly "archival" in terms of the backing paper and the covering acetate. Interestingly, I've a lot of paper prints from the 1890-1915 period, and another batch from the 1930-1950 period that have aged rather gracefully. My solution is to digitize everything (well, as I have time, which is another issue), and to copy the digital copies onto CD's and DVD's although these too are not "permanent", and pass them on to various family members.

Yep, it's a bit of a paradox, but if it's analog, no matter what form it's in, it's deteriorating. Once it's numbers you at least have the potential of duplication and media/format transfer without loss and without limit. Both require maintenance but in the case of analog no matter what you do the end will come whereas with digital there is at least the possibility of no end.

The yellow dye layer of color film shows measurable fading in less than 3 years. It shows visible fading in 5. No matter how carefully stored, a color film original will have faded enough within 10 years so that the original print image can not be recreated using analog methods. At that point digital restoration is required. In 20 years the required digital restoration job may be quite demanding -- in 50 years it will be demanding and only for some select film stock as others will be too far gone.

I started shooting color film seriously in the 1960s. I continued to shoot large amounts of color film through the 1990s. I have now survived in better condition (left knee is going) every color film image I ever took except the ones I was able to scan. You want to see a near impossible, tedious and expensive maintenance job start scanning a few thousand rolls of film.

Joe

 

[photoguy99]

I don't know the names of the formats but NASA has either lost imagery or come very very close to it in the past. This was of course due to a failure of diligence in copying things forward. But that's the point, absent diligence, digital is terrible whereas film can be pretty good.

Note the Joe spoke about color only, and stuck to impractical ways to preserve it. So his argument was rigged.

B&W media are quite stable, which is why color separations of color photos is the gold standard for preservation.

Or you can just embrace the ephemeral nature of art and life. It's not at all clear to me why people care if it lasts forever. I blame Ansel Adams.

 

[Didereaux]

Gary how is not looking after your bits and different from not looking after your negs?

A house fire will kill your negs, just like a lightning strike will kill your harddisk. If anything it is easier to now ensure your photos will last longer than ever before. Just use open standard formats, and use redundancy + backup + checksumming to store them, and diversify their locations to protect them from weather and environment.

Oh yeah? Tried to get data off a 8" floppy lately? 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?

Oh wait you said keep it backed up on the latest, so in effect to preserve your data it will cost you a small fortune, be a constant effort to convert it to the latest formats, and rely solely on the 'warehouse' to remain accessible. That is the fallacy of the digital age...the belief that data is immortal.

True enough that paper burns, but have you considered the odds of your house burning down vs computer failure? I respect your knowledge of photography, but in all honesty your grasp of technology sucks!

Numbers (digital) can be copied with zero loss. Analog data can not. This is the one crucial difference.

Assuming you're like 99 plus % of film photographers, you have color film and prints. Your color film is fading. You can't stop it from fading. You can freeze dry it (can't imagine that will cost too much to do and maintain right) and that still won't ultimately stop it from deteriorating. Your color prints are fading. You can't stop them from fading. You can freeze dry those and enjoy them in your walk-in freezer gallery -- well not really because if you open the door you'll let in moisture. If you have a color film original and print from that film then that image has a fixed and short life and it's demise is guaranteed. The only way you can potentially extend it's life would be to digitize it.

If I had data previously stored on an 8 inch floppy I would have transferred it by now to other media with no loss to the data. Something impossible to do with film. Yes, that's a maintenance job but at least it's possible and at a fraction of the cost involved in just trying to extend the life of a color film image. Your color film and prints come with an expiration date and they start to fade the minute they're created.

Joe

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.

 

[bribrius]

The biggest change in photography I think may have had nothing to do with digital but more on perceptions. Like if you post a simple photo of a street now you will get comments like "what is the subject?" " what are you taking a photo of?" "this photo doesn't hold any interest" "this lacks compositional elements"

much of this thinking I believed may have started out in the seventies and basically blossomed to a ridiculous level today.People basically looking for entertainment value in photos like it is video game. The "art " side of it taken to such a stupidity of proportions half the stuff in museums if posted fresh on here or many sites people would discount it as unworthy and lacking interest. But pre seventies expecially early nineteen hundreds a notable photographer could plomp down his camera on some generic street photographing the cars, buildings (or horses if early enough) and no one even questioned the legitimacy of it as a photo because that was much of what photography was. I was reading about some more serious work with large format requirements (museum level) and I found it hilarious that some would discount it as not interesting if they saw it by "todays standards" yet the reality is that their best buy interesting, artistic dslr photo would see the inside of a museum when it is a cold day in hell. I equivocate this to being a poser (much like my 500px photo) and probably myself included to a extent in that. As we kind of got polluted with entertainment value and a billion semi artistic worthless shots.

 

[Buckster]

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.

 

[Gary A.]

Negatives survive sloppy housekeeping and carelessness better than digital media. Digital media, especially 'cloud', survive house fires and moves better.

Why, it's almost as if the two media have different strengths and weaknesses.

Me, I embrace the ephemeral nature of life and art.

A few years ago I discovered a box full of prints in the garage that was laying around for decades. I doubt I would have retrieved anything if it was a hard drive.

A few from the garage circa 1970's:

We can argue until the cows come home about hard drive versus prints/negs ... because it is all speculation ... but prints/negs worked for me.

Gary

 

[Buckster]

I don't know the names of the formats but NASA has either lost imagery or come very very close to it in the past. This was of course due to a failure of diligence in copying things forward. But that's the point, absent diligence, digital is terrible whereas film can be pretty good.

Tell that to the boxes of negs and transparencies I used to have that succumbed to water damage, humidity, mold, mildew, and an ex-wife who simply threw tons of them away while getting ready for a major move from Detroit to Boston, where I already had secured a job.

No, I'd say that absent diligence, film is no better off.

 

[Didereaux]

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.

 

[bribrius]

I don't know the names of the formats but NASA has either lost imagery or come very very close to it in the past. This was of course due to a failure of diligence in copying things forward. But that's the point, absent diligence, digital is terrible whereas film can be pretty good.

Tell that to the boxes of negs and transparencies I used to have that succumbed to water damage, humidity, mold, mildew, and an ex-wife who simply threw tons of them away while getting ready for a major move from Detroit to Boston, where I already had secured a job.

No, I'd say that absent diligence, film is no better off.

what is it with the wives tossing our photos out??????

 

[Didereaux]

I don't know the names of the formats but NASA has either lost imagery or come very very close to it in the past. This was of course due to a failure of diligence in copying things forward. But that's the point, absent diligence, digital is terrible whereas film can be pretty good.

Tell that to the boxes of negs and transparencies I used to have that succumbed to water damage, humidity, mold, mildew, and an ex-wife who simply threw tons of them away while getting ready for a major move from Detroit to Boston, where I already had secured a job.

No, I'd say that absent diligence, film is no better off.

On that point I agree. But the boxes require only the owners low tech diligence to preserve. On the other hand tech data requires a hugely expensive and complex operation to preserve its data.

 

[photoguy99]

Good ol' Buckster. Always ready with his industrial grade 500hp hair splitter!

Where's that positive attitude you were goin' on about? Turn that furious face upside down!

 

[Buckster]

A few years ago I discovered a box full of prints in the garage that was laying around for decades.

You "discovered" them, meaning you didn't even know they were there. They could have been in a landfill, for all you knew. How many that you haven't "discovered" might very well BE in a landfill or otherwise lost forever?

I doubt I would have retrieved anything if it was a hard drive.

Why?

Nine years ago, my daughter went to Italy with her Senior class. She took a TON of digital photos and stored them on a portable drive I gave her for the trip. When she got home she moved them from the portable drive to her computer, and gave me the portable drive, cleaned.

She never backed them up from there. (Insert ominous sound here).

A couple years went by, and then her hard drive crashed. HARD. Nothing retrievable. Her Italy photos were gone. FOREVER. She learned a lesson about backing up her files, but it was a lesson learned too late for her prized Italy photos.

More years passed, and occasionally, she would lament the loss of her Italy pictures.

One day, I ran across that old portable hard drive she used for the trip; The one she cleaned before returning it to me. I seldom ever used it myself, especially after Italy. I just didn't have a reason to. So, mostly on a whim, I ran a file recovery software on it, just to see if there were any Italy pics still recoverable on it.

It found every one of them. Thousands of them. And the videos also. All intact. I recovered them all. I backed them up on two hard drives, and a couple of DVDs. The next time I saw my daughter, I handed her one of the DVDs with a grin (not labelled), and told her to take a look. She plugged it in, and had one of the best days of her life.

True story.

 

[Gary A.]

I think we all to agree that tossing a box of prints or tossing a box of hard drives is no different. I suspect a hard drive and negatives caught up in a firestorm or in a flood would fair no better. But for me, I knew immediately what I had when I opened the box of old prints ... who know what a person would have thought or how would they have acted upon finding an old hard drive of other media which isn't easily and immediately readable.

 

[Buckster]

I don't know the names of the formats but NASA has either lost imagery or come very very close to it in the past. This was of course due to a failure of diligence in copying things forward. But that's the point, absent diligence, digital is terrible whereas film can be pretty good.

Tell that to the boxes of negs and transparencies I used to have that succumbed to water damage, humidity, mold, mildew, and an ex-wife who simply threw tons of them away while getting ready for a major move from Detroit to Boston, where I already had secured a job.

No, I'd say that absent diligence, film is no better off.

On that point I agree. But the boxes require only the owners low tech diligence to preserve. On the other hand tech data requires a hugely expensive and complex operation to preserve its data.

No sir, it doesn't.