Re: The future of 35mm film

chrlz@xxxxxx apparently said,on my timestamp of 1/11/2005 8:30 PM:

Sigh. Does anyone really care? 

Actually, being in IT myself I do.

I can easily read 8" floppy disks, or even a cassette tape for a Vic20,
if I *really* need to.  It's not that hard to dig up old equipment if


Good luck.  Three things: finding the equipment, getting the drivers
for said equipment, getting the software to talk to the drivers.


But hey, guess what? I don't
NEED to. Because anything I want/ed is already transferred over. 

Agreed.

> And
as new technologies appear, they will get transferred again, with a bit
of culling of the rubbish.. 

The previous does not authorize you to assume this as a given.

> Can you point to *anyone* whining yet 
about how they have lost data/images because the technology to read it
is gone?


Yes.  I can't read my backups from OS2 in the Syquest 40Mb
SCSI disks.  There are some images there from old friends.
But I can see my marriage photos.  As simple as flipping through
the albums or the negative storage folders.

Yes, *of course*, sometimes stuff will be lost.  A LOTof stuff.  Gee,
that sort of thing never happened with film and negatives, did it..
(O;


Very good point.  It's all to do with how much care
one wants to put into it, isn't it?

And don't you think, given the huge increase of the number of pictures
being taken as we move to digital, that the loss of a lot of images
might actually be a good thing?  (O;  Most of those images will be
crap, because the owners of the good ones will, generally, be a bit
more careful about backups.


Don't agree with you here.  The images of my marriage
party taken > 30 years ago are total artistic crap but
I'll keep and cherish them until the day I die or divorce.
Same goes for all the B&W snapshots I've inherited from
my grand-parents and parents. And I know that sooner or
later my kids will want them as well to add to their lot.
That's what we amateurs use photos for, regardless of
the art in evidence.

survive.  And, unlike film, if the image survives, it survives
*perfectly* - or at least as good as it was when captured.


That, remains to be proven.

This whole "we won't be able to read the files in the future" thing is
all pretty daft, IMNSHO.  Of course you will.  And most likely, you
won't need to.  I've already moved my floppy disk stuff to HD, from HD
to CD, from CD to DVD, and so it goes..


No, not daft.  Just good common sense.  I'd rather
prevent an "accident" than pay the price later on.
That's why my digital backups get re-done every once
in a while.  And my film stuff is kept in the best archival
storage I can afford.


--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
wizofoz2k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: D-Mac, Im calling you out!
    ... using equipment that I can relatively easily ... not equal the clean and sharp look of *that* shot when printed at 13 x ... macros and of course soft focus images, ... Unless of course you have Douglas' magic wand.... ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: D-Mac, Im calling you out!
    ... using equipment that I can relatively easily ... to a good enlargement than simply pixels, ... macros and of course soft focus images, ... Doug proved it to him, that's all the proof I need. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Print report sections on different pages
    ... then any equipment at that address prints ... the second page, and if there are any images, that this prints on a 3rd ... control and have a problem? ... The ForceNewPage property sounds like it would work better though, ...
    (microsoft.public.access.reports)
  • Photo confessions
    ... I've been exposing film, on and off, for 35 years. ... people like some of my images that I thought were crap and I've had people ... have burned in disgust and wish I burned other keepers. ... I'm not an equipment freak and own just serviceable, ...
    (rec.photo.darkroom)