M8 Cost Recovery

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The odds of someone preserving your digital files after you are gone is about the same as someone preserving your negatives.

 

I doubt. Anything one puts on the Internet might well be lurking for centuries, who knows?

[hankg]

I doubt. Anything one puts on the Internet might well be lurking for centuries, who knows?

 

I was referring to the high resolution originals. However you have a point. Who knows 100 years from now some obscure photographers rediscovered Flickr photos might be proclaimed the work of a genius. So yes information once it gets online tends to be very persistent (for better or worse).

[sdai]

The odds of someone preserving your digital files after you are gone is about the same as someone preserving your negatives.

 

If you are having your negatives scanned you still need a computer and hard drives and printer and software same as if you shot everything digital. So unless you are committed to a 100% analogue work flow you get all the costs of film and all the costs of digital (except the Digicam body).

 

For shots that I really care about, mainly family stuff ... I always make necessary adjustment after scanning or RAW conversion then save them as TIFF, AND then make an archival print, either 13" wide or 17" wide ... Epson claims their paper and ink will last 220 years, right? that's enough ... then my kids and kids of kids may figure out something else and decide whether they want to keep it. LOL

 

My family albums consist of pictures taken from the beginning of 20th century, and they still look today by "my" standard. So analog is good ... proven to last for this long time. Anyway, my point is, the cost of shooting with film can be easily under your control ... with digital, it really is just a black hole ... and things change too fast.

 

Ironically, people are still after the "film look" even when digital takes it all over ... some still judge the noise pattern based on whether it's film grain like.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-digital at all ... it's just a different kind of fun.

 

Most people count every cent they paid others for the job and never had a clue to how much they've spent by themselves ... that's it.

[adan]

The problem with these digital vs. film debates is no matter how focused they are in the beginning, the subject always changes.

 

But since the question on longevity came up -

 

...presumably all those who think "hard copy" negatives are somehow more secure than "digital files" also keep their retirement savings in cash under the bed - rather than in a bank or investment account that is also actually "nothing but 1s and 0s". Right?

 

Somehow or other, my bank, my insurance company, my investment company (not to mention Social Security) have all figured out how to keep digital data secure and available for a lifetime or longer.

 

Digital pictures will vanish if one does not know proper archiving procedures, and will survive if one does.

 

Analog pictures will also vanish if one does not know proper archiving procedures, and will survive if one does.