pop Posted February 23, 2016 Share #21 Posted February 23, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...Talking about hard drive storage, SATA standard to connect devices already changed, too. In 50 years from now? ... That's probably the most marked difference between storing negatives and digital images for any length of time. You put negatives into a box, preferably climatized or at least dry and cool, and forget them. Your children will find them in the attic and it's immediately evident what they are. Not so with electronic media. To start with, be prepared to copy the medium every ten years or so onto the next generation medium. Long term storage is a long term process. If it comes to a halt at any time, media will become obsolete and unrecoverable after a rather short time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Hi pop, Take a look here Do you keep your negatives after scanning?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
otto.f Posted February 23, 2016 Share #22 Posted February 23, 2016 Yes of course. Any time in the future I'll have a better scanner or even a darkroom and I'll do it better than now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted February 23, 2016 Share #23 Posted February 23, 2016 Good examples - but who still uses the GIF format? The JPG 2000 standard is the one I referred in my post above - demonstrates nicely how quickly digital standards come out and disappear even after a short time. Talking about hard drive storage, SATA standard to connect devices already changed, too. In 50 years from now? Best of luck finding a hardware connection - think about how hard it is now to load saved data from 5.25" floppy discs or from formerly very often used Zip-drives! My point is just that what we perceive as common and standard now does not mean that the same holds true in decades after. This includes TIFF and DNG. I believe one of the safest ways to store photo data is microfilm. Devices to read microfilm are very simple - even if outdated. The film lasts in controlled climate chambers in archives and only needs simple equipment to read it - simple and efficient. Chemicals for film development are basically fairly simple ones, too (and I am a chemist, so I know well about this stuff). Developers are formulations with several ingredients, but those organic components and salts wouldn't be hard to find or to synthesize. Looks like that the film development comes back quite a bit because many younger photographers want to differentiate from the digital mainstream - it still will remain a niche though. You touch another point at the end - printing. Prints are not indestructible either but they guarantee better long-term livability. Silver gelatin is still the best since it won't fade as long as the paper support is not decomposing. How long inkjet will last - this still remains to be seen no matter what any manufacturer promises. Actually the gif format is increasing rapidly in popularity thanks mostly to social media But I agree with you on your other points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldwino Posted February 23, 2016 Share #24 Posted February 23, 2016 Always keep your negatives. They are originals, and the ultimate backup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellup Posted February 23, 2016 Share #25 Posted February 23, 2016 Over the years I've learnt differing methods and styles to produce prints from my negatives and i'm sure that it will continue in the future with upgrades of scanner, softwear etc.......I can only profit from these potentially improvements if i still have the original negs to hand! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotoklaus Posted February 24, 2016 Share #26 Posted February 24, 2016 Actually the gif format is increasing rapidly in popularity thanks mostly to social media But I agree with you on your other points. That´s true. Here are some examples for the gif- format: Hope those smileys won´t fade a away too fast .. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted February 24, 2016 Share #27 Posted February 24, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not sure my photos will matter to anyone in 100 years. Certainly not all of them. Those that do? The silly family ones where people can look back and see who we where. The rest? No one will care. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnymoondog Posted February 24, 2016 Share #28 Posted February 24, 2016 YES. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted February 24, 2016 Share #29 Posted February 24, 2016 Not sure my photos will matter to anyone in 100 years. Certainly not all of them. Those that do? The silly family ones where people can look back and see who we where. The rest? No one will care. Good point in general, but sometimes you can't foresee the importance/relevance of a photo in the future. I can still beat myself by not having taken a photo of a situation which was very common in the US in 2005 - car stickers with pro Iraq war slogans. It was so common at the time but now - I wish I had a photo with those because they prove a certain mainstream at the time. Those stickers are long gone by now of course and times have changed. Other example: Before 2001 a photo of the world trade center in NYC wouldn't be seen as "important" amateur photo - but now since those buildings are gone, photos with them would be more valuable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnymoondog Posted February 24, 2016 Share #30 Posted February 24, 2016 Digital files will evolve as digital technology advances. Our current digital files may be rendered obsolete before too long--and our current digital images may be inaccessible on future technology. Keep the negatives for when that happens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted February 24, 2016 Share #31 Posted February 24, 2016 Good point in general, but sometimes you can't foresee the importance/relevance of a photo in the future. I can still beat myself by not having taken a photo of a situation which was very common in the US in 2005 - car stickers with pro Iraq war slogans. It was so common at the time but now - I wish I had a photo with those because they prove a certain mainstream at the time. Those stickers are long gone by now of course and times have changed. Other example: Before 2001 a photo of the world trade center in NYC wouldn't be seen as "important" amateur photo - but now since those buildings are gone, photos with them would be more valuable. True. Time makes images valuable. Note the amount of throwaway images from the early parts of this century that we cherish now. The folks taking them at the time thought the same thing about their photos as we do..."it's nothing special...it's just my brother standing in front of his new automobile..." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 24, 2016 Share #32 Posted February 24, 2016 And why are National Archives still using microfilm? Because digital standards change all the time. JPG has become one of the most common digital standards - but the JPG format has evolved quite a bit in the last 10-15 years, too. I have a hard time believing that in 50 years from now people would be even easily able to read most common RAW standards from today. I also doubt that JPG will still be a standard at this point. Are the National Archives using microfilm to preserve images? JPEG has only added capabilities, it has not removed anything. JPEG standards are public, as is DNG. Free software will fill any unlikely commercial failure. Oh, and RAW is not a standard, and raw is not DNG. Subtle differences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted February 24, 2016 Share #33 Posted February 24, 2016 Digital files will evolve as digital technology advances. Our current digital files may be rendered obsolete before too long--and our current digital images may be inaccessible on future technology. Keep the negatives for when that happens Scanners and scanning software to scan the negatives are also being phased out. Basically there has been zero real innovation and improvements on scanners in the last 10 years! What's the use of negatives if you can't print them or scan them? Jpeg is an open standard. Tiff is an open standard. DNG is an open standard. If Adobe, or whomever, goes bankrupt, guess what, any corporation or privat person can create a way to decode these files. But better yet, print your important digital files and archive them, and you basically have the same security as you do with a negative... Plus the digital content. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 24, 2016 Share #34 Posted February 24, 2016 One aspect which frequently gets ignored in that kind of discussions: Even if our digital images manage to be conserved for the next few centuries, the information about their meaning may not. So what's posterity to do with the image of my in-law with his new oldtimer when all they can see is a bloke with a motorcar of undetermined age? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted February 24, 2016 Share #35 Posted February 24, 2016 I keep everything - my negatives are the originals. I also scan everything - for cataloguing and searching purposes, and for playing and testing before making a silver print. I think that current best practice for document preservation is to keep microfilm or similar physical film-based artifact. B&W film archivally processed is still the best long-life choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColColt Posted February 25, 2016 Share #36 Posted February 25, 2016 I remember when I was a kid my Mom would take film to the drug store and have it developed. Upon picking it up she would keep the prints and throw the negatives away!! I managed to salvage some of them after I got older and found the ones she just put back-most on 620 format and reprinted some priceless family photos. Never through away negatives unless they're a huge development mistake(like pouring in fixer first you thought was developer!). You never know how priceless they may be to you or someone else years down the road. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 25, 2016 Share #37 Posted February 25, 2016 I love film photographs but I'm not sentimental about the media at all. After twenty years of scanning negatives, I now feel I get as much data as I'll ever get off the film when I scan it. And I'll never again print in a wet darkroom with an enlarger. So: After I scan my negatives and archive the data, I shred the negatives. I may not do it immediately, but ultimately it's just more stuff to clutter up my workroom and more stuff to file and manage. I can file and manage an order of magnitude more digital images (at least!) in a tenth the time, and they don't take up any closet, file drawer, or cabinet space. That leaves more space to archive prints, which as finished work is FAR more valuable to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted February 26, 2016 Share #38 Posted February 26, 2016 Not sure my photos will matter to anyone in 100 years. Certainly not all of them. Those that do? The silly family ones where people can look back and see who we where. The rest? No one will care. One name alone would tend to be an exception, and probably not the only one but the current vogue in "found" work: Vivian Maier Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted February 26, 2016 Share #39 Posted February 26, 2016 That leaves more space to archive prints, which as finished work is FAR more valuable to me. You must have some concern for archive to use the word strange then to shred the proven most archival l material, the negative, and not the print. HCB buried away his "selects" as negatives not as prints, I think you are making a mistake given the room they occupy but it's your call. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted February 26, 2016 Share #40 Posted February 26, 2016 One aspect which frequently gets ignored in that kind of discussions: Even if our digital images manage to be conserved for the next few centuries, the information about their meaning may not. So what's posterity to do with the image of my in-law with his new oldtimer when all they can see is a bloke with a motorcar of undetermined age? Tags in the metadata are your friend, but only later not at the tedious of time of writing/adding, but then the same as writing in pencil on print, I'm as guilty as anyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.