| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2007 07:18:35 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
>DOC is just an extension the file format has changed alot. A .Doc from Office 2007 using backwards compatibility measures will not read in Office 6.0. |
Right, I understand that (and I thought I put it in my post). But can you take an Office 6.0 file and open it up on Office 03 or even 07? Yes, I know you can. It has to go through a converter, but it is still possible and easy to do. I doubt Microsoft would stop putting this converter in it's programs. |
I had just noticed and redeidted after i saw you covered that part already.
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 19:18:58. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 07:31:16 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by yann:
No offense but saying that there's a chance that your digital information won't be transferable to the next tech is ridiculous. |
I'm not as concerned that it won't be transferable as that it won't be transferred. For example, an Edison Bakelite platter can still be played, but the equipment to do so is pretty rare. If you found a stack of those in your basement and wanted to convert them to CDs, you probably wouldn't be able to with only your current equipment.
In 50 or 100 years, someone finding your box of CD backups may be in the same position, especially if you never got around to transferring it the 4 or 5 more times that the preferred storage medium changes. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 07:37:40 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Jpeg group formed 20 years ago. Released a spec 15 years ago. Which was approved and standardized 13 years ago. |
True. Though it has it's roots in the '80s, it did not receive mainstream use until the mid-'90s. JPEG was, however, in use by the scientific community even prior to the ratification of the standard, and thus is well into its second decade. It will almost certainly not be overtaken in the remainder of this decade, and perhaps not the first part of the next decade. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 07:44:24 PM · #104 |
| Cuniform tablets have a proven shelf-life of 4000+ years, and are perfectly-suited to storage of digital information, albeit at a somewhat lower data density than a CD. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 07:45:28 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Cuniform tablets have a proven shelf-life of 4000+ years, and are perfectly-suited to storage of digital information, albeit at a somewhat lower data density than a CD. |
:-D
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 07:53:46 PM · #106 |
I'm not entirely sure, but can we classify cuniform tablets as photographic images? If so, sign me up for a C SLR...
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Cuniform tablets have a proven shelf-life of 4000+ years, and are perfectly-suited to storage of digital information, albeit at a somewhat lower data density than a CD. |
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 08:13:23 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The damage may not be as fast, nor as complete as is loss of electronic data, but it surely has resulted in the loss of photographic memories for many, many people.
|
Well, good to know digital is accelerating this process and making it more efficient at the same time!
Originally posted by kirbic:
Part of the solution relies on us being good editors. Is there really a need to archive 100% of what we shoot? Probably 10-15% of what we shoot will find its way into print or onto electronic display media. Why do we persist in archiving the good, the bad and the ugly? I'm guilty of this myself. |
That's a great notion, if you have the time and courage to delete what may or may not be interesting files in the future. Even assuming they are all just trash, or 90% trash, it still requires more discipline than I currently have to delete enough.
I don't particularly want my shooting style or process to be dictated to by the limits of current storage technology though. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 08:14:29 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by soup:
oddly enough - so far - knock on wood - the only data i have 'lost' has been a backup CD that got tossed by accident. i tend to back up everything - but with negatives it wasn't any different. unfortunately it contained photos from a very productive day of shooting...
sometimes people worry too much. |
How many of your backup CDs still work ? When did you last check ?
;) |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 08:37:48 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Not only are files much larger, but the amount of files generated is tremendous. Part of the solution relies on us being good editors. Is there really a need to archive 100% of what we shoot? Probably 10-15% of what we shoot will find its way into print or onto electronic display media. Why do we persist in archiving the good, the bad and the ugly? I'm guilty of this myself. |
That is exactly what I do. When I shoot a bunch of images, I make an initial run through and trash all the blurry, bad focus, bad exposure, blown out, etc images right away. I then go through a second time and pick the best or two best images that I captured in a burst and delete the rest. In a day where I shot 500 images, I trashed 400 on the spot because they were bad. Now this is probably the reason I don't have nearly as many images as most of you out there (that and this crazy thing called school) but I keep what I think is good and trash the rest. I can understand that if you are a professional and you need all this stuff, but for an ametuer(sp?) like myself, it doesn't matter much to keep all the trash.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 08:41:57 PM · #110 |
i check random discs periodically, and have yet to find one that doesn't work. i'm not trying to argue the security of optical discs - or any backup method for that matter. at the same time, i'm not going to consider every single thing that my camera and i capture to be valuable.
there is a balance. with any archival scenerio there has been issues. mold/mildew comes to mind with prints and negatives. nothing is perfect... as i metioned earlier.
Originally posted by Gordon:
That's a great notion, if you have the time and courage to delete what may or may not be interesting files in the future. Even assuming they are all just trash, or 90% trash, it still requires more discipline than I currently have to delete enough.
I don't particularly want my shooting style or process to be dictated to by the limits of current storage technology though. |
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 09:17:00 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by r_vesper:
PS D-76 is film developer, Dektol is paper developer ; ) But you may have been referring to which one you preferred the smell of? |
Yes.
I'm very familiar with the difference.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 09:49:45 PM · #112 |
| Even if you can't find chemicals, it's possible to develop film with coffee. Not sure what you'd need for fixer, but people have mixed up their own from individual chemicals. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 10:03:56 PM · #113 |
So what?
Your pics as a kid from school...your wedding pics from 20 years ago...can you access any of these, other than the one hard copy you have? Can you go back the studio and get more printed? they were shot on film...but there's a 75% or better chance that studio's gone, and so are the negatives.
I have a lot of family albums from the past 40 or 50 years. All shot on film. Not one stinkin negative though.
So print what you want like you always did and don't worry about the rest. If you have a pile of favorites, then keep them on a media that you can replace and upgrade as needed.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 10:39:17 PM · #114 |
Good lord, people. As someone who shoots both film and digital I'm always amazed that this topic continues to be such a point of contention. If you're a pro, then the demands of the assignment will dictate the medium. If you're an artist or an amateur, the decision becomes essentially arbitrary, based upon your desire, time and money available, and personal preference.
I like shooting film - I enjoy the physical, tactile nature of shooting and processing my own film; love the anticipation and anxiety of having to wait to see what the results of a day's shooting might bring; I like learning the nuances of different emulsions, different developing methods and techniques; I like the way shooting film slows me down, makes me invest more in every shot; I love the sense of permanence (real or imagined, I don't care) of film--my best, my worst locked into those little strips of celluloid.
I like shooting film cameras - film cameras (especially older cameras) are fun, cheap, and can produce great pictures, but they make you work for it; I like how my film cameras don't do all the thinking for me, and remain silent on whether the exposure is "right" or not; I like the weight and the history of my film cameras, and how well made they are; I love that all my film cameras will still be going strong probably long after my digital ones are scrap, and I love the idea that a couple of them may even outlast me and be picked up by someone else down the line looking for a bright, brassy "new" toy.
I like shooting digital - the immediacy; the liberating feeling of the frames being "free" which prompts me to take risks and shoot things and attempt stuff that I wouldn't try if I had to commit it to film; I love not having to stop to reload film every 12, 24, or 36 frames; I love not having to pay the photomat guy an arm and a leg for my 4-6 keepers; I love the way my digital shots look when I open them up on my monitor (best light table ever!, and no kink in my back from hunching over with a loupe all afternoon).
I like shooting with my digital cameras - they are quick, responsive, and flashy; I love being able to go from ISO 100 to ISO 1600 and back again in three frames with only a few spins of a control dial; I can't believe how easy they are to use, and I a love how difficult they are to master.
Archiving film is a pain - how many filing cabinets full of film sleeves does one man need anyway?; sure 80-90 percent of those frames are crap that perhaps I should toss, but they're attached to the 10-20 percent that aren't; and besides they're real, solid, and they're mine all mine.
Archiving digital is a pain - how many external hard drives can one man fit on his desk anyway?; sure I can shoot all day for "free", but it starts to look a little less free when I'm rolling into Best Buy yet again to purchase another, "I-guess-the-last-one-wasn't-quite-big-enough-after-all-honey" hard drive; oh and don't forget the second hard drive to back the first one up, just in case; oh and also don't forget a new stack of DVD discs so that you can transfer all of your old CD offsite backups to the "new" format dujour.
------
Shoot what you want, print what you want, keep what you want. And as far as backups go, in the words of the always relevant John Mellencamp -- "Just keep yourself protected, keep a list..." ;)
Edited for grammar
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 23:01:47. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 10:46:10 PM · #115 |
| I would love to get an old K1000 and throw a roll of B&W in it, just to have with me in my bag. I don't see how it could hurt, and I'm sure it would only do good things for my photography. It would also give me an excuse to collect more of the many beautiful old Pentax lenses available... |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 10:47:21 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Part of the solution relies on us being good editors. Is there really a need to archive 100% of what we shoot? Probably 10-15% of what we shoot will find its way into print or onto electronic display media. Why do we persist in archiving the good, the bad and the ugly? |
This is a good point.
However, did you ever go looking through the old shots, and discover some frames that the former you (the editor) didn't like, but which you like a year or two later? This has happened to me, and I see this happening to others quite often. I prefer to keep everything I shoot, apart from the most obvious screw-ups. If anything, it's interesting to look back and to see how one's own shooting style changes over the years. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 11:16:43 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by pccjrose:
I'm not entirely sure, but can we classify cuniform tablets as photographic images? If so, sign me up for a C SLR... |
I meant to use them to store the digital data in a format not subject to degradation by light or magnetic fields -- ones and zeros are easily reproduced in clay without need for a laser ... |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 11:35:03 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Even if you can't find chemicals, it's possible to develop film with coffee. Not sure what you'd need for fixer, but people have mixed up their own from individual chemicals. |
I've mixed my own developer from basic chemicals, just to do it. It was surprisingly easy. In a pinch, vinegar can substitute for stop bath and fixer is easier to mix than developer. I've also mixed my own paper emulsions and coated them onto paper, then made prints. If film disappears, then there's always the wet plate collodion process. It's cumbersome, but entirely do able. In fact, some photographers are working with it today.
Never heard about using coffee as developer. Toner, sure, but not developer. Not to say it isn't possible. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 11:42:48 PM · #119 |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 11:50:22 PM · #120 |
Commercial stop-bath is usually just concentrated (glacial) acetic acid -- distilled white vinegar is a more dilute form of the same.
I've used coffee as a toner, but those rings look pretty ugly ... : ) |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 11:57:28 PM · #121 |
|
|
|
03/20/2007 12:02:45 AM · #122 |
| If you want to really get down and dirty, try this: "Roman Photography" |
|
|
|
03/20/2007 12:34:40 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
So print what you want like you always did and don't worry about the rest. |
Black and white selenium-toned prints will last MUCH longer than digital prints you're likely to be able to get (unless you do print them on black and white photo paper and do the processing and toning). If you're really serious about long-term archival you'd use sepia or gold or something, and be extra anal about developing and printing.
To make archival-quality prints with a traditional darkroom all you need is appropriate chemicals, paper, clean water and some care. It's not really a big deal. Lots of people tone with selenium just for the color change; the longevity is a nice side-effect (there's also the inherent better archival qualities of black and white paper when compared to color paper. And both are MUCH more stable than any ink-based method).
I suppose the same could be done with digital photos, the only extra ingredient you need is a digital enlarger. Of course you still need the rest of the darkroom equipment. Not saying it can't be done, but who's going to bother? |
|
|
|
03/20/2007 12:56:32 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by lament:
I suppose the same could be done with digital photos, the only extra ingredient you need is a digital enlarger. Of course you still need the rest of the darkroom equipment. Not saying it can't be done, but who's going to bother? |
You can order digital prints right now up to about 30x40 inches -- that's as big as most home enlargers would go anyway.
I can get a 12x18 inch print on Fuji Crystal Archive Lustre-finish paper for $3.00 USD. If the print comes out the way I saw it on the screen, then I consider that "I've printed it" even though I don't have to change the chemicals myself. |
|
|
|
03/20/2007 01:24:11 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You can order digital prints right now up to about 30x40 inches -- that's as big as most home enlargers would go anyway.
I can get a 12x18 inch print on Fuji Crystal Archive Lustre-finish paper for $3.00 USD. If the print comes out the way I saw it on the screen, then I consider that "I've printed it" even though I don't have to change the chemicals myself. |
I'm not saying digital prints don't exist; I'm saying they usually have poor archival properties. Can you order a print done on fiber-based black-and-white paper, carefully processed with excessive washing and toned with selenium? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 01:47:26 AM EDT.
