>From: Per Ohstrom <poo@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>As I see it there are two ways of going digital: (1) shooting film and scan
>it (or the prints) or (2) shooting with a digital camera.
>
>... (1) it is very non-OM
>because of the way digicams work--very AF, very auto-everything...
It doesn't have to be that way. About 900f the digital I do is
manual-everything!
And "auto-everything" is not a characteristic of digicams. Almost any "new"
film camera you buy will have auto-everything. At least the Oly E-20 lets you
turn all that auto stuff off!
>and (2)
>the issue of the preservation of the pictures.
Yea, this can be a big issue.
>the
>film originals will always be there for keeps, probably at least for 50
>years for colour film...
I wouldn't count on it! I have slides from the 70's that are already quite
faded. (But I've seen Kodachromes from the 50's that still look vibrant.)
In particular, certain digital output far surpasses photochemistry output in
terms of longevity.
>you should be aware of the issue of preservation and have a strategy
>for that (if it is at all important, of course).
>
>You have to be aware of the following issues:
>1. Media
>2. File format
>3. Software
>
>Of these, the first is probably the one with the longest life span.
Yea, I get a big kick out of people who boast that "digital is forever." I
invite them to get some of that "forever" off the 8" floppies in my garage that
I've been saving for some reason... :-)
That said, it *is* possible to maintain a lossless digital archive, but it
takes some work, as you move your collection through different formats. About a
year ago, I moved my imagebase from some ~260 CD-ROMs onto 34 DVDs. But that in
some ways puts more at risk -- if I ruined one CD-ROM, I lost 0.40f my
collection; if I ruin one DVD, I've lost 3%!
But the bottom line is that people who make hysterical noises about such issues
usually are comparing worst-case digital with best-case photochemistry. A lot
of my Dad's slides from the 50's have been spoiled by mold. You need to
"maintain" an analog archive, too!
That said, perhaps one defining characteristic difference between the two is
failure mode. Photochemistry degrades gracefully: it may have a fungus spot or
a scratch, or be faded, but you can sort-of imagine what the image must have
looked like. Digital degrades absolutely: it will either look exactly like the
original, or it won't be readable at all. (With uncompressed raster images,
there are ways of recovering portions of a damaged file, though.)
>the software used to
>create or manipulate the files is the most short-lived.
I advise people to save archives in uncompressed TIFF format. It will be around
a long time, but more importantly, it is a fairly simple format, and I believe
software of the future will be able to "figure out" TIFF files without much
help.
>if you think that it would be nice if your grandchildren (or
>someone else) would be able to look at your pictures in the future...
... then you should print them out in an archival manner, and put them in cold,
dark storage! Many better ink/paper sets will surpass 100 years, whereas the
best photochemistry (Fuji Crystal Archive) is only rated 65 years.
>If these things are taken care of in a planned way, digital filing may
>actually be better and even more reliable than film, but if it is not done,
>the opposite is probably the case.
But don't get trapped into the "worst case for digital vs best case for
photochemistry" way of thinking. If you don't take good care of your
photochemical media, it can fail you just as surely as digital might!
>And I think that many family pictures
>taken with digicams will disappear into the digital void in one way or the
>other, often because of not knowing or bothering about this...
My out-laws just went to New Zealand and Australia for holiday. Now he can't
get the pictures off his camera! He tried Win 98, ME, and XP -- none of them
would read the Sony mini-disks, nor communicate with the camera! He downloaded
and installed drivers from Sony -- still no luck. My Mac wouldn't even look at
them, which is very unusual, since it normally reads just about anything.
But he can enjoy them on the dinky LCD screen on the back of the camera, and if
that breaks, they're gone, I guess!
>... what strategies you may
>have for your digital photos, especially those working professionally.
I put uncompressed TIFF copies on two DVDs, and store one off-site. I index and
keyword them with Extensis Portfolio, which caches a screen-res image, so if
both DVDs are damaged, at least I can view what I can no longer print... :-)
Bottom line: digital is not so much "better" or "worse" than film, but it is
"different." That leads to misunderstanding and prejudice, and whining and
moaning that the square peg doesn't fit the round hole.
--
: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: Bytesmiths -- artists' services: <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Services>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|