Re: Kodak Discontinues All B&W Paper
- From: "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSUCKS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 03:55:34 GMT
"Scott W" <biphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1119025995.502968.141800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> LR Kalajainen wrote:
>> I have nothing against prints made from a digitalized file, though
>> personally I like darkroom work and would not like to see the materials
>> disappear.
>>
>> However, my main concern is with images that begin their life as digital
>> images and have no film negative. Such images are as ephemeral as the
>> next software or hardware evolution. How will historians 200 years from
>> now access a visual record of our era? Even if the images still exist
>> (highly unlikely) on some more permanent storage media than what is now
>> available, how will future technology be able to access them? I may
>> make prints on an inkjet printer from a file that began as a real
>> negative and was scanned into Photoshop, but I will always insist on
>> having the negative to start with.
>
> Well to start with how many really old photos still have their
> negatives around? I have a few photos that are over 100 years old, but
> they are just prints, I have no idea of where the negatives for them
> would be. I think this is pretty normal, like it or not negatives tend
> to get thrown away and what we are left with 100 years from now is
> prints. So this being the case how will prints from digital photos be
> different then from negatives, I get mine done at Costco, on
> photographic paper.
>
> I am not worried about the long term storage, for now it is very easy
> to make mutable copies of the files and a snap to keep them on updated
> media, I used to have my photos on CDs, now they are on DVDs and
> external hard drives. But looking forward I notice a couple of things,
> when a format get used to a certain level is simply does not go away,
> take ASCII, is there anyone who believes it is going away, it has been
> extended but still a file that is coded with ASCII done in 1963 will
> read just fine on your home computer today. 200 years from now there
> will be lots of software that will be able to decode a jpeg file.
>
> As we move more and more do a digital world it is getting easier to
> keep up with new formats, not harder. Take 8mm movies, some of which I
> have to get transferred to DVD. It costs a fair bit to get this done
> but the film is beginning to fall apart and the movie are not viewable
> without getting them moved. The transfer process runs at about real
> time, an hour of film take at least an hour to transfer. I have the
> same issue with my videos shot on my old 8mm camcorder, I have to get
> these transferred or risk losing them if my old 8mm camcorder breaks
> down. And I lose a bit of quality every time I do a transfer. Now I
> have a digital DV format camcorder, with this I can easily make copies
> to DVD, and once on DVD keep the video up more up to date formats
> become much easier, in part because the transfer rate can be much
> higher then real time.
If you transfer your 8mm videotapes to MiniDV, or some other digital format
(e.g. DigiBeta), you will not lose any quality. Keep a DVD copy for easy
reference, but use the digital tape as your master.
Derek
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Tri-x, HP5 and XTOL
- Next by Date: Re: Tri-x, HP5 and XTOL
- Previous by thread: Static and threaded filter
- Next by thread: Re: Kodak Discontinues All B&W Paper
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
