Legacy format decision

[Stevejack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, RQ44 said:

I have a family photo drive that my family has access to but all my other work, my personal work is on drives put away. There are far too many photos to print.

I think this is probably an opportunity to curate your non-family work before you're gone. Get a collection together of what you consider to be only your best work and either print those or put them somewhere where others will have easy access after you're gone. You might have thousands of images which you're fond of, but surely if you're being hyper selective you could get this down to a few dozen examples?

36 minutes ago, prioritet said:

Everyone knows the story Vivian Maier?

This also reminds me of what happened with Winogrand's undeveloped rolls after his death though. I think it was John Szarkowski (?) who was hyper critical of Winogrand's late work but also argued that undeveloped film which wasn't curated by the photographer cannot be considered representative of their work. The same argument was made with Maier's work, she never selected / approved them for public consumption, though I do really like a lot of her stuff.  

And to go back to my previous point, undeveloped work is essentially what a hard drive full of RAW files are. Sure you hit the shutter, but why? Were you testing a new lens, or checking exposure, or just going through the motions to keep up your eye? Bill Jay wrote about Joseph Koudelka: 

Joseph Koudelka was shooting pictures around my cabin. I couldn’t understand what he was seeing, as the images seemed to have no connection with his known work. He said: “I have to shoot three cassettes of film a day, even when not “photographing”, in order to keep the eye in practice”. That made sense. An athlete has to train every day although the actual event occurs only occasionally.

Koudelka would likely never intend anyone to see those negatives, they were just a part of his process. 

[WvE]

"[...] yet all shall be forgot]"* 

For most of us, we just photograph for ourselves.  

*Henry V, Act IV Scene iii 18–67.

[Photoworks]

Don't worry, they probably go through your photos for the funeral memorial.

After that, it is a mystery! if you didn't put in the effort to publish some, they probably will be dust!

[DadDadDaddyo]

It's a striking kind of reverse arrogance to assert that no one will care about our photographs in the future.

Those who are convinced of the worthlessness of their photographs could save us all a lot of time by simply not taking them. 

But, if take them they must, no worries!

Because they assume their photographs hold no lasting importance, they will treat them accordingly. 

The result? No one in the future will know that their photographs existed. 

Problem solved. 

[roydonian]

On 2/3/2025 at 6:22 AM, Deeetona said:

Does anyone use a computer + software that is 20 years old today?

I built my late wife's computer in 2004, and she used it until around three years ago. it was still operating OK when I turned it on recently.

I built my main computer in 2014, and it runs an operating system that dates back to 2009. My laptop was purchased in 2008, and I still do my professional writing with Office 2000.  I'm in my early 80s, and hope that my current equipment and software will 'see me off the planet'. I no longer need the laptop, and I have a spare motherboard for my main computer just in case the original fails.

[DadDadDaddyo]

One thing that's not been mentioned:

If you'd like your photographs to have a chance at lasting, invest in a printer that uses pigment-based inks rather than dye-based inks, and on archival-grade paper. 

Dye-based ink prints cannot be counted on to remain colorfast over time, indeed, they can be counted on to fade. Aging tests give such prints a lifespan in the range of a couple of decades, at best. 

Pigment-based ink is basically paint. Aging tests give such prints a lifespan expected more likely to be measured in centuries, rather than in decades, with proper storage and handling. 

But, they're your photos. So print them with whatever you'd like on whatever you'd like...

[Deeetona]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

41 minutes ago, roydonian said:

I built my late wife's computer in 2004, and she used it until around three years ago. it was still operating OK when I turned it on recently.

I built my main computer in 2014, and it runs an operating system that dates back to 2009. My laptop was purchased in 2008, and I still do my professional writing with Office 2000.  I'm in my early 80s, and hope that my current equipment and software will 'see me off the planet'. I no longer need the laptop, and I have a spare motherboard for my main computer just in case the original fails.

Thanks for sharing, its in many ways an exception and not the norm, or what do you think

[roydonian]

I can't speak for other users, but can only cite my own experience. I have the advantage of having written my first program in 1962, and started using personal computers in 1981. So I am fairly experienced user. My anti-virus software is kept up to date and my firewall rules are very draconian. My system is installed in a big tower case with lots of cooling fans and has a power supply unit with planty of spare capacity. In the event of problems, I can revert to my latest backups. But I wonder how many users don't do regular backups, and buy a replacement computer when faced with a hardware failure or a slow-running machine.

Edited February 4 by roydonian

[Stevejack]

6 hours ago, roydonian said:

I can't speak for other users, but can only cite my own experience. I have the advantage of having written my first program in 1962, and started using personal computers in 1981. So I am fairly experienced user. My anti-virus software is kept up to date and my firewall rules are very draconian. My system is installed in a big tower case with lots of cooling fans and has a power supply unit with planty of spare capacity. In the event of problems, I can revert to my latest backups. But I wonder how many users don't do regular backups, and buy a replacement computer when faced with a hardware failure or a slow-running machine.

It's funny now, when you think back to just how risky it was when a negative existed in only one place and if there was a major incident your whole life's work could be lost. These days so many people rely on cloud storage, especially for something like their iphone photos - but if there's a major tech incident or global conflict etc., it's still possible to lose it all if they haven't been downloaded and stored offline. 

I've moved more and more towards the belief that if an image is not printed, it doesn't really exist in any tangible (lasting) form.