Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 8, 2013.

  1. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > I think nospam is trying to refer to the negative (which is indeed subject to
    > fading, water damage, and other physical degradation), but doesn't remember
    > what it was called.


    bad attempt at a jab.

    apparently you don't remember slides, which are also film and also
    subject to the same problems.

    it's not just negatives.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2013
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > For that matter, how many people make multiple back-ups of their
    > digital files?


    not enough.

    > Mine are on my hard drive, on both of my external
    > drives, and some (but not all) are on disks in my safety deposit box.
    > Also, disks of the best of each year's family photos are sent to my
    > son and daughter. Then, some are up on Dropbox.


    that's more than most people do.

    > I would say, though, that the majority of amateur photographers have -
    > at most - one backup set and most don't even have one backup set.
    > While it is easy, it's not done all that much.


    yes, that's unfortunate.

    > >> >however, a print might, depending on the printer and ink, in which case
    > >> >you print another identical copy. can't do that with film.
    > >>
    > >> You can't? I have a drawer full of negatives from my film days. I
    > >> can't make a print from one of those negatives? The image on the
    > >> negative has faded?

    > >
    > >yes, it has faded. you could make a print but it won't be as good as
    > >the original you had back in your film days.
    > >
    > >also, depending on the film, it might have faded a lot. look at colour
    > >prints from the 70s. blech.

    >
    > But isn't that "twisting" and changing the subject? The issue isn't
    > prints. Prints from digital may fade in time.


    they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will be
    identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due to
    advancements in printer and inks.

    which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    they used to.

    with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2013
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:36:22 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    >old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    >instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    >they used to.
    >
    >with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.


    That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 18, 2013
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    > >old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    > >instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    > >they used to.
    > >
    > >with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.

    >
    > That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    > family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    > like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.


    you can't add what was never there.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2013
  5. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <201305181538569530-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    > >>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    > >>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    > >>> they used to.
    > >>>
    > >>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    > >>
    > >> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    > >> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    > >> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.

    > >
    > > you can't add what was never there.

    >
    > ...but you can fix damage.
    > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >


    you can but it's not exactly what was originally there, however, it's
    probably close enough not to matter.

    don't forget, retouching that took time, and in some cases, it can be a
    *lot* of time.

    for digital, you get new algorithms in raw processing without any extra
    work. just click the checkbox to use the new algorithm versus the old
    and you get the benefits. no additional effort, other than a one time
    checkbox.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2013 12:03 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <5197a24d$0$10782$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".
    >>>
    >>> what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    >>> at risk for fire, mold, etc.

    >>
    >> See
    >>
    >> <http://fht.byu.edu/prev_workshops/workshop07/papers/3/Digital-Preservation.pd
    >> f>
    >>
    >> Digital doesn't degrade.

    >
    > exactly the point.
    >
    >> the media does.

    >
    > who cares. it's not an issue.
    >
    > since you can make unlimited identical copies of anything digital, you
    > simply migrate to new media every couple of years, something which
    > likely happens without even thinking about it when you upgrade
    > hardware.
    >
    > and since there are multiple backups, if one fails, you have redundant
    > copies.
    >
    > with film, fire, flood, mold, improper storage conditions, etc., can
    > (and has) caused total loss.
    >


    Congratulations. I hereby nominate that comment, for the MACY award.
    (Most Asinine Comment of the Year.)


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 19, 2013
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2013 5:36 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Tony Cooper
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> For that matter, how many people make multiple back-ups of their
    >> digital files?

    >
    > not enough.
    >
    >> Mine are on my hard drive, on both of my external
    >> drives, and some (but not all) are on disks in my safety deposit box.
    >> Also, disks of the best of each year's family photos are sent to my
    >> son and daughter. Then, some are up on Dropbox.

    >
    > that's more than most people do.
    >
    >> I would say, though, that the majority of amateur photographers have -
    >> at most - one backup set and most don't even have one backup set.
    >> While it is easy, it's not done all that much.

    >
    > yes, that's unfortunate.
    >
    >>>>> however, a print might, depending on the printer and ink, in which case
    >>>>> you print another identical copy. can't do that with film.
    >>>>
    >>>> You can't? I have a drawer full of negatives from my film days. I
    >>>> can't make a print from one of those negatives? The image on the
    >>>> negative has faded?
    >>>
    >>> yes, it has faded. you could make a print but it won't be as good as
    >>> the original you had back in your film days.
    >>>
    >>> also, depending on the film, it might have faded a lot. look at colour
    >>> prints from the 70s. blech.

    >>
    >> But isn't that "twisting" and changing the subject? The issue isn't
    >> prints. Prints from digital may fade in time.

    >
    > they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will be
    > identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due to
    > advancements in printer and inks.


    Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 19, 2013
  8. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <51981778$0$10766$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".
    > >>>
    > >>> what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    > >>> at risk for fire, mold, etc.
    > >>
    > >> See
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> <http://fht.byu.edu/prev_workshops/workshop07/papers/3/Digital-Preservation.
    > >> pdf>
    > >>
    > >> Digital doesn't degrade.

    > >
    > > exactly the point.
    > >
    > >> the media does.

    > >
    > > who cares. it's not an issue.
    > >
    > > since you can make unlimited identical copies of anything digital, you
    > > simply migrate to new media every couple of years, something which
    > > likely happens without even thinking about it when you upgrade
    > > hardware.
    > >
    > > and since there are multiple backups, if one fails, you have redundant
    > > copies.
    > >
    > > with film, fire, flood, mold, improper storage conditions, etc., can
    > > (and has) caused total loss.

    >
    > Congratulations. I hereby nominate that comment, for the MACY award.
    > (Most Asinine Comment of the Year.)


    more of your usual insults and nothing whatsoever to refute anything i
    said.

    my point stands.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <51981a67$0$10837$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>> however, a print might, depending on the printer and ink, in which case
    > >>>>> you print another identical copy. can't do that with film.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> You can't? I have a drawer full of negatives from my film days. I
    > >>>> can't make a print from one of those negatives? The image on the
    > >>>> negative has faded?
    > >>>
    > >>> yes, it has faded. you could make a print but it won't be as good as
    > >>> the original you had back in your film days.
    > >>>
    > >>> also, depending on the film, it might have faded a lot. look at colour
    > >>> prints from the 70s. blech.
    > >>
    > >> But isn't that "twisting" and changing the subject? The issue isn't
    > >> prints. Prints from digital may fade in time.

    > >
    > > they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will be
    > > identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due to
    > > advancements in printer and inks.

    >
    > Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.


    doesn't matter if it has or not. go learn about colour management
    before you say more stupid things.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
  10. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:38:56 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2013-05-18 15:11:18 -0700, nospam <> said:
    >
    >> In article <>, Tony Cooper
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    >>>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    >>>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    >>>> they used to.
    >>>>
    >>>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    >>>
    >>> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    >>> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    >>> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.

    >>
    >> you can't add what was never there.

    >
    >...but you can fix damage.
    >< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >


    Evidently, nospam is not proficient in Photoshop if he thinks you
    can't improve, or even add what wasn't there, in Photoshop.

    I could replace those gloves in her hand with an iPad, and I imagine
    you could too.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 19, 2013
  11. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:07:27 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <201305181538569530-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> >>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    >> >>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    >> >>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    >> >>> they used to.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    >> >>
    >> >> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    >> >> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    >> >> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.
    >> >
    >> > you can't add what was never there.

    >>
    >> ...but you can fix damage.
    >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >

    >
    >you can but it's not exactly what was originally there, however, it's
    >probably close enough not to matter.
    >
    >don't forget, retouching that took time, and in some cases, it can be a
    >*lot* of time.
    >
    >for digital, you get new algorithms in raw processing without any extra
    >work. just click the checkbox to use the new algorithm versus the old
    >and you get the benefits. no additional effort, other than a one time
    >checkbox.


    How does that apply to restoring old family photographs such as the
    one the Duck provided?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 19, 2013
  12. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:30:28 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2013-05-18 21:58:15 -0700, Tony Cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:38:56 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2013-05-18 15:11:18 -0700, nospam <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <>, Tony Cooper
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    >>>>>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    >>>>>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    >>>>>> they used to.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    >>>>> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    >>>>> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.
    >>>>
    >>>> you can't add what was never there.
    >>>
    >>> ...but you can fix damage.
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >

    >>
    >> Evidently, nospam is not proficient in Photoshop if he thinks you
    >> can't improve, or even add what wasn't there, in Photoshop.
    >>
    >> I could replace those gloves in her hand with an iPad, and I imagine
    >> you could too.

    >
    >Oh! You mean something like this?
    ><
    >https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Evans-05AACV1920E1.jpg
    >>

    And nospam said a project like this takes a lot of time.

    Unfortunately, you have used a photograph of Melinda Gates'
    grandmother. The resulting turning over in her grave because she's
    seen here endorsing an Apple product will cause shockwaves all down
    the west coast. I suggest you spend the night in a doorway.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 19, 2013
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    > >>>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    > >>>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    > >>>> they used to.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    > >>>
    > >>> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    > >>> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    > >>> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.
    > >>
    > >> you can't add what was never there.

    > >
    > >...but you can fix damage.
    > >< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >

    >
    > Evidently, nospam is not proficient in Photoshop if he thinks you
    > can't improve, or even add what wasn't there, in Photoshop.


    let's see you start with a blank document and create a photo.

    after all, you can add what wasn't there.

    and this isn't about compositing anyway. the original example above
    removed a tear, adding what looks like should have been where the tear
    was. you can only add what you *think* was there, not what really was
    there.

    but why am i not surprised you keep changing things.

    > I could replace those gloves in her hand with an iPad, and I imagine
    > you could too.


    which is done digitally, with photoshop.

    let's see you do it with film. good luck.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> >>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    > >> >>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    > >> >>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    > >> >>> they used to.
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    > >> >> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    > >> >> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.
    > >> >
    > >> > you can't add what was never there.
    > >>
    > >> ...but you can fix damage.
    > >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >

    > >
    > >you can but it's not exactly what was originally there, however, it's
    > >probably close enough not to matter.
    > >
    > >don't forget, retouching that took time, and in some cases, it can be a
    > >*lot* of time.
    > >
    > >for digital, you get new algorithms in raw processing without any extra
    > >work. just click the checkbox to use the new algorithm versus the old
    > >and you get the benefits. no additional effort, other than a one time
    > >checkbox.

    >
    > How does that apply to restoring old family photographs such as the
    > one the Duck provided?


    it takes time, versus a click to gain the benefits. that should be
    obvious.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
  15. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:16:24 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> >>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    >> >> >>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    >> >> >>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    >> >> >>> they used to.
    >> >> >>>
    >> >> >>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    >> >> >> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    >> >> >> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > you can't add what was never there.
    >> >>
    >> >> ...but you can fix damage.
    >> >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >
    >> >
    >> >you can but it's not exactly what was originally there, however, it's
    >> >probably close enough not to matter.
    >> >
    >> >don't forget, retouching that took time, and in some cases, it can be a
    >> >*lot* of time.
    >> >
    >> >for digital, you get new algorithms in raw processing without any extra
    >> >work. just click the checkbox to use the new algorithm versus the old
    >> >and you get the benefits. no additional effort, other than a one time
    >> >checkbox.

    >>
    >> How does that apply to restoring old family photographs such as the
    >> one the Duck provided?

    >
    >it takes time, versus a click to gain the benefits. that should be
    >obvious.


    The old family photograph is a scan of a print from film. It can be
    opened as a RAW file, but that is not the same as a RAW file created
    in-camera. No "one click" repairs or restores.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 19, 2013
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2013 10:35 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51981a67$0$10837$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>> however, a print might, depending on the printer and ink, in which case
    >>>>>>> you print another identical copy. can't do that with film.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You can't? I have a drawer full of negatives from my film days. I
    >>>>>> can't make a print from one of those negatives? The image on the
    >>>>>> negative has faded?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> yes, it has faded. you could make a print but it won't be as good as
    >>>>> the original you had back in your film days.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> also, depending on the film, it might have faded a lot. look at colour
    >>>>> prints from the 70s. blech.
    >>>>
    >>>> But isn't that "twisting" and changing the subject? The issue isn't
    >>>> prints. Prints from digital may fade in time.
    >>>
    >>> they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will be
    >>> identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due to
    >>> advancements in printer and inks.

    >>
    >> Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.

    >
    > doesn't matter if it has or not. go learn about colour management
    > before you say more stupid things.
    >


    Oh! So you know how do imbed, or mimic an ICC profile, without processing?
    Please tell us, or point to a website that will give us instructions.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 19, 2013
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2013 10:35 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51981778$0$10766$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    >>>>> at risk for fire, mold, etc.
    >>>>
    >>>> See
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://fht.byu.edu/prev_workshops/workshop07/papers/3/Digital-Preservation.
    >>>> pdf>
    >>>>
    >>>> Digital doesn't degrade.
    >>>
    >>> exactly the point.
    >>>
    >>>> the media does.
    >>>
    >>> who cares. it's not an issue.
    >>>
    >>> since you can make unlimited identical copies of anything digital, you
    >>> simply migrate to new media every couple of years, something which
    >>> likely happens without even thinking about it when you upgrade
    >>> hardware.
    >>>
    >>> and since there are multiple backups, if one fails, you have redundant
    >>> copies.
    >>>
    >>> with film, fire, flood, mold, improper storage conditions, etc., can
    >>> (and has) caused total loss.

    >>
    >> Congratulations. I hereby nominate that comment, for the MACY award.
    >> (Most Asinine Comment of the Year.)

    >
    > more of your usual insults and nothing whatsoever to refute anything i
    > said.
    >
    > my point stands.
    >


    You are really trying for the MACY award.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 19, 2013
  18. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/19/2013 9:56 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2013.05.18 20:06 , PeterN wrote:
    >> On 5/18/2013 12:03 PM, nospam wrote:
    >>> In article <5197a24d$0$10782$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is
    >>>>> also
    >>>>> at risk for fire, mold, etc.
    >>>>
    >>>> See
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://fht.byu.edu/prev_workshops/workshop07/papers/3/Digital-Preservation.pd
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> f>
    >>>>
    >>>> Digital doesn't degrade.
    >>>
    >>> exactly the point.
    >>>
    >>>> the media does.
    >>>
    >>> who cares. it's not an issue.
    >>>
    >>> since you can make unlimited identical copies of anything digital, you
    >>> simply migrate to new media every couple of years, something which
    >>> likely happens without even thinking about it when you upgrade
    >>> hardware.
    >>>
    >>> and since there are multiple backups, if one fails, you have redundant
    >>> copies.
    >>>
    >>> with film, fire, flood, mold, improper storage conditions, etc., can
    >>> (and has) caused total loss.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Congratulations. I hereby nominate that comment, for the MACY award.
    >> (Most Asinine Comment of the Year.)

    >
    > In context, nothing asinine about it.
    >


    If he said you can avoid the issue by making regular backups of the
    backups, and on some rational schedule change the media, you would be
    correct. Unfortunately he made a bald faced half statement.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 19, 2013
  19. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <51991e54$0$10811$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    > >>>>> at risk for fire, mold, etc.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> See
    > >>>>
    > >>>> <http://fht.byu.edu/prev_workshops/workshop07/papers/3/Digital-Preservati
    > >>>> on.
    > >>>> pdf>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Digital doesn't degrade.
    > >>>
    > >>> exactly the point.
    > >>>
    > >>>> the media does.
    > >>>
    > >>> who cares. it's not an issue.
    > >>>
    > >>> since you can make unlimited identical copies of anything digital, you
    > >>> simply migrate to new media every couple of years, something which
    > >>> likely happens without even thinking about it when you upgrade
    > >>> hardware.
    > >>>
    > >>> and since there are multiple backups, if one fails, you have redundant
    > >>> copies.
    > >>>
    > >>> with film, fire, flood, mold, improper storage conditions, etc., can
    > >>> (and has) caused total loss.
    > >>
    > >> Congratulations. I hereby nominate that comment, for the MACY award.
    > >> (Most Asinine Comment of the Year.)

    > >
    > > more of your usual insults and nothing whatsoever to refute anything i
    > > said.
    > >
    > > my point stands.

    >
    > You are really trying for the MACY award.


    you own that award. nobody could take it from you.

    if you think there's something incorrect with what i said, feel free to
    point it out and explain why.

    since you keep resorting to insults, i can only assume you have nothing
    to refute anything i said.

    once again, my point stands.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
  20. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <51992059$0$10771$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> Digital doesn't degrade.
    > >>>
    > >>> exactly the point.
    > >>>
    > >>>> the media does.
    > >>>
    > >>> who cares. it's not an issue.
    > >>>
    > >>> since you can make unlimited identical copies of anything digital, you
    > >>> simply migrate to new media every couple of years, something which
    > >>> likely happens without even thinking about it when you upgrade
    > >>> hardware.
    > >>>
    > >>> and since there are multiple backups, if one fails, you have redundant
    > >>> copies.
    > >>>
    > >>> with film, fire, flood, mold, improper storage conditions, etc., can
    > >>> (and has) caused total loss.
    > >>
    > >> Congratulations. I hereby nominate that comment, for the MACY award.
    > >> (Most Asinine Comment of the Year.)

    > >
    > > In context, nothing asinine about it.

    >
    > If he said you can avoid the issue by making regular backups of the
    > backups, and on some rational schedule change the media, you would be
    > correct.


    i did say that,

    > Unfortunately he made a bald faced half statement.


    no.

    that makes you the asinine one.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Zogby
    Replies:
    188
    Views:
    3,009
    Rowdy Yates
    Aug 15, 2004
  2. One-Shot Scot

    Rental DVDs: "Rental Only - Not For Resale."

    One-Shot Scot, Sep 11, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,521
    One-Shot Scot
    Sep 11, 2004
  3. Mikhail
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    384
    Stephen
    Jul 28, 2009
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    186
    Sandman
    Sep 2, 2013
  5. RichA

    Apple's foray into the "service/rental economy"

    RichA, Jun 3, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    59
    Views:
    628
    Whisky-dave
    Jun 17, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page