Digital to film

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pop said:

If not even the heirs are interested, I don't think it's much of an issue.

Correct. Seen it with many slide boxes of my grandfather - nobody wanted even to dig into all of them. Nicely sorted over many years all gone in a blink of an eye. Reason for it was simply that nobody else in the family had space to put up with all of them. 

[IkarusJohn]

I doubt anyone will want my images, but I live in the vain hope.

Once data is in digital format, it’s not about the storage media; it’s about keeping it up to date.  I still have documents I drafted for the Hong Kong airport development in 1990.  It’s just another file in my system which moved from floppy disk to CD, to DVD, to hard drives, then onto the cloud.

[pop]

4 hours ago, adan said:

You may have more faith in the longevity of tech companies than I do.  

I don't understand what you're saying. I have a copy of Adobe's Digital Negative (DNG) Specification on my disk. Even if Adobe should dissolve into thin air one day the specifications are still here and many makers of fine software have implemented software which can process DNG files. Yes, it takes tech companies to make the disks or other media both the specifications and the pictures are stored on, other companies to make the computers using said disks, still other companies to make the software to use it all. But I could not possibly make films or photographic paper by myself, so I depend on suppliers there, too.

[Anbaric]

DNG is probably the best-documented raw format, with published specs as mentioned above, but the others are all well enough understood for open source software to read them, and that code will be available indefinitely. I would be concerned if my camera had a raw format that could only be read by proprietary software (the manufacturer's own, or third party software that uses the manufacturer's closed source software development kit), but I don't think that's the case for any common raw format in use today.

The real issue, as others have said, is whether your images will survive in any format. I suppose the best way to ensure their longevity is to get them published or uploaded to picture libraries! Failing that, how about compiling your best work into an attractive self-published book and having multiple copies printed, some of which might not get thrown out by your heirs? Then upload a copy of the ebook to archive.org, and leave individual images on Google Photos, Instagram, Wikimedia and Flickr, etc. The more copies there are, there more likely they are to survive. If they are any good, they'll probably get ripped off a lot, but perhaps that is the price of visual immortality.

[williamj]

16 hours ago, Anbaric said:

That's why anything important needs to be actively curated and transferred to the latest storage medium as required.

Exactly, I agree with what you say. As others have said, if it's not on a working computer but only on storage media then it is effectively dead data, if not now, then pretty soon.

However, that's not my point. Any diligent person can shift all their images forward to new computers and update their software and change formats, etc. Rather, it is the notion that if you make sure that you've saved your work to disk it will be available for others to examine in a 100 years time. You know, the old pile of photos in a shoe box at the back of the cupboard. Someone will figure it out. Well, they won't. 

[williamj]

11 hours ago, adan said:

Yes - but ClarisWorks was a proprietary Apple format. ".CWK"

For archival purposes, as I mentioned, they needed to be saved in a universal format (.txt or .rtf for words, .xls or .ods for spreadsheets, .xml or .json for data bases, .jpg or .tif for images).

It is quite possible that "raw" images in proprietary manufacturers' formats (.IMG, .NEF, .RW2) will require specialized translators to read in the future. As might Adobe's .DNG and .PSD formats, if Adobe ever vanishes. I would avoid those for archive copies, and "simplify" images to be preserved to .jpg or .tif.

And of course, migrate important files to new devices as storage formats and device-connection formats change.

I can still read files originally saved on floppy disks with a SCSI drive in 1988 - because I moved them again and again to hard drives with USB/USB-C/Firewire/Lightning connections, as those became the norm.

 

Sure, I can say the same. I transferred data from scuzzy tape drives to other media when it was clear the format was going to die, more that twenty years ago. I'm not sure why you're picking on me since my comment wasn't on your post. My comment was not for the choir. Most people I know don't back up their files. Most people I know don't think of their photos in any particular way, although they're devastated when they lose them due to device failure or there's a problem with device upgrades. So one should expect that in general most digital photos will be lost in 100 years time (cf my comment above to anbaric). Cheers.

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I expect posterity to have and cherish my work, it's up to me that they actually can access it. If nobody knows my work and I didn't store it in robust and obvious way, then nobody will give a hoot. Nobody will find it, either.

If I thought my photographs were important enough for posterity at large, I'd make sure they are aware of them and have access to them. Where I live, the best option would be to donate them to one of two of the nearest state's archives, both of which accept private collections and are able to handle photographs. If it all has to make any sense, I'd order both the physical and the digital original in a meaningful way and I'd add an indexed catalog.

Come to think of it: even if my own photographs don't matter, those of my grandfather may. After all, some are more than a century old and document parts of a life not known any more.

[willeica]

1 hour ago, pop said:

 

If I thought my photographs were important enough for posterity at large, I'd make sure they are aware of them and have access to them. Where I live, the best option would be to donate them to one of two of the nearest state's archives, both of which accept private collections and are able to handle photographs. If it all has to make any sense, I'd order both the physical and the digital original in a meaningful way and I'd add an indexed catalog.

 

That is the right thing to do. The archives will, of course, check for proper title. They will not accept anything which might be disputed. I have written collection policies for photographic organisations and I know there are many angles to this. 

William