What will Save Film?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Oct 4, 2005.

  1. Annika1980

    Mike Berger Guest

    Technology didn't change as fast 70 years ago as it does now.
    I'd go for a new estimate.
    Mike Berger, Oct 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    Doesn't matter.
    CD-Rs can be copied with no loss of quality.
    Three CDs, one every 33 years, is as good as one lasting 99 years.
    That makes the problem of, "How long will a CD-R last?" irrelevant.
    Just as the question of, "Will there be CD readers in 100 years?" is
    Bill Funk, Oct 8, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    Not a problem.
    Most photographs aren't worth archiving.
    Bill Funk, Oct 8, 2005
  4. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    This is one of the misconceptions of this discussion.
    Film is *not* indestructable. Ask the victims of Katrina about their
    film/print collections or albums. They are gone. Forever.
    See above.
    There are risks. Risk is an inherent part of existance. It is up to
    those involved to reduce the risk involved in any endeavor.
    Ignoring the risks in the archiving of film is dishonest in this
    Unless there's a fire or flood. And these things happen. All too
    That person gets fired. :)
    Seriously, digital has advantages that make it worthwhile to do the
    extra work.
    It sure sounds nice that all those old books are preserved. But, who's
    allowed to read them? Not you or me.
    But, digital files? If I want one, a quick, inexpensive copy is made,
    and I get a duplicate of the original. Where do I get a duplicate of a
    Gutenberg Bible?
    Attics? We go from the Natuional Archives to attics, and the
    comparison is supposed to be valid?
    The photos of Aunt Mabel ar ehardly of national historical interest.
    Gee, Kodak recommends prints. Why am I not surprised? :)
    And a print in a box in the attic is "well-stored?" I don't think so.

    Both formats have risks. That's reality. For most of us, digital is a
    more *reliable* storage method than prints.
    Extra copies of prints are far more costly than CDs. Try sending a box
    of printys to a family member for off-site storage.
    I can store far more images on CD (or, more recently, DVD) in a far
    smaller space than using prints. I can also make more *duplicate*
    copies and store tham in different places far more conveniently than I
    can with prints. I can share those images on CD or online far more
    easily than with prints (and that's the real reason for taking the
    pictures in the first place, isn't it?).
    The more widely the digital images are spread around, the more
    indestructible they become. The cost of dispersing digital images is a
    small fraction of the same practice using prints.

    Whilke some archives worry about the need to do upkeep of digital
    files, they end up keeping only the analog originals, running the
    risks of losing them in one catastrophe, while at the same time
    limiting access. With digital, a little planning obviates the upkeep
    problem, while, at the same time, making the archived documents
    actually available to one and all.
    Bill Funk, Oct 8, 2005
  5. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    Actually, this tells me instead that the Archives, like most
    Governmental entities, lives by rules. Those rules are (according to
    Rule #1) to be followed under all circumstances.
    (Rule #2, BTW, is that changes to the rules must take several years
    and many studies and meetings to accomplish.)
    Printing and microfilming is a tried and true method of archiving that
    has stood the terst of time. It also ignores advances in archiving,
    such as digital trechnologies. Not because such advances are bad, but
    because it simply doesn't acknowledge that such other technologies
    exist. Thta takes people. People who follow the rules (see above).

    IOW, that older, inefficient ways are still used by beaurocracies
    doesn't mean those ways are the best, only that they are entrenched.
    Bill Funk, Oct 8, 2005
  6. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    And if those negatives had been tossed earlier, they wouldn't be
    around at all.
    I'm glad you found them. Are they of national historical significance?
    Would their loss have been noticed? What are the chances that they
    survived? A fire would have destroyed them.
    Now, of course, you can make many copies of them, pass them around,
    put them on a website for many to enjoy. And, by doing these things,
    the images become virtually indestructible. Something that certainly
    can't be done with the originals.
    Bill Funk, Oct 8, 2005
  7. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    Not relevant for your own files.
    Bill Funk, Oct 8, 2005
  8. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    Of course, *most* people still have their prints in a box or drawer.
    Hardly a viable secure storage method.
    You are pointing out a failure of *people*, not the technology.
    People will always be the weak point in any security plan, whether
    it's in the CIA or my own storage solution for my files.
    Bill Funk, Oct 8, 2005
  9. Annika1980

    Jer Guest

    A friend with a law practice near the shore of Lake Pontchartrain was
    flooded out, thought he'd lost everything. Yup, all the furniture was
    toast, all the papers in file cabinets and desks were toast, all the
    framed family snapshots on desks were shot, everything was under for
    more than a week, yet the CD-ROM library containing the encrypted
    archives of client paperwork survived. After a thorough professional
    cleaning, every CD was completely readable - virtually no damage
    whatsoever. Yes, he's contracted to have all CDs duplicated just to
    hedge the latent damage bet. As far as flood is concerned, this is an
    example of a clear winner in the analog v. digital archive war.
    That may depend on whether I'm Aunt Mabel or not. :)

    Even Kodak may have seen the light....
    (see story hot off today's presses at the bottom)

    /Fair Use Doctrine fully claimed/

    *A clearer picture*

    Kodak missed a shot at early digital cameras, but now it sees the light

    12:00 AM CDT on Saturday, October 8, 2005

    By CRAYTON HARRISON / The Dallas Morning News Business Section

    NEW YORK – George Eastman, who in 1888 founded the company that would
    become Eastman Kodak Co., said his goal was to make photography "as
    convenient as the pencil."

    [Click image for a larger version] GUY REYNOLDS/DMN
    Kodak has seen the world of photography progress from its No. 2 Folding
    Automatic to its latest EasyShare P850 digital model.

    But thanks to digital technology, photography has become a little too
    convenient for Kodak's own good.

    Executives acknowledge that they repeatedly miscalculated how quickly
    the world would embrace digital cameras. Kodak let other companies take
    an early lead in a field that it could have pioneered in the same way
    its $1 Brownie camera brought film photography to the masses.

    Now executives are trying to catch up, using the treasured Kodak brand
    name to hype a suite of cameras, printers and services. The question is
    whether they've waited too long.

    "We knew from the beginning that film was going away. It is going away
    faster than we thought," said Kodak chief executive Antonio Perez at a
    September meeting with institutional investors in New York.

    In that meeting, Kodak lowered its projections for this year's operating
    profit, citing a slowing economy and setbacks in the company's
    health-imaging unit. That marked the fourth time in a year the company
    has lowered its financial forecasts.

    The company has also announced up to 25,000 layoffs since 2004, leaving
    it with a workforce of about 50,000.

    Shares of Kodak inched up 8 cents to close at $23.58 on Friday, but
    still down 26.2 percent from the beginning of 2005.

    "They're doing what they can in the situation," said Mark Lanyon, an
    analyst with Morningstar.

    "It's a miserable situation no manager would want to be a part of."

    Digital camera sales surpassed those of film cameras beginning in 2003,
    according to Photo Marketing Association International.

    Kodak had been experimenting with digital photography technology since
    the 1970s, and it introduced its first pocket-sized digital camera, the
    DC20, in 1996.

    But executives continued to pour investments into the film business.
    Like razor blades and printer cartridges, silver-halide film has long
    been seen as a "cash cow," an item consumers constantly had to replace,
    creating a steady stream of income.

    *Keep the cash coming*

    Film might eventually go away, Kodak executives reasoned, but it would
    generate plenty of cash before it disappeared. That money could be used
    to invest in digital technology.

    "They were trying to protect their turf in film when they could have
    been more forthcoming and aggressive in digital technology," said
    Ulysses Yannas, a broker at Buckman, Buckman & Reid.

    By 2003, though, the company was acknowledging that it wouldn't be able
    to rely on cash from film much longer. Then-chief executive Daniel Carp,
    who is now chairman, aggressively cut costs and investments in the
    traditional film business, a process that continues today.

    Mr. Perez, who joined Kodak from Hewlett-Packard Co. in 2003, took over
    as CEO this year. At a company that has retained some executives for
    decades, he is seen as a relative outsider, an executive steeped in
    consumer electronics instead of chemical processing.

    At the meeting in an auditorium in Manhattan, he predicted that Kodak
    would no longer rely on film by 2008, when it would generate $3 billion
    to $4 billion in sales compared to about $14 billion in digital sales.
    Last year, about $5.5 billion of Kodak's $13.5 billion in revenue came
    from digital photography.

    "There are lot of experts out there in the decline of film," and Kodak
    isn't going to try to predict when it will disappear, Mr. Perez said.
    But by 2008, "we either have a truly successful digital company, or it
    doesn't matter how long film is going to last."

    Consumers are a big part of Kodak's digital plans, along with commercial
    printing and the health-care industry. This year, the company introduced
    its most ambitious digital camera, the EasyShare One. The device can
    wirelessly transmit pictures to a computer or printer over a Wi-Fi network.

    *Network enhancements*

    The company's line of printers is tied closely to its cameras, allowing
    users to dock the cameras on top of the printers to print out photos.

    The company also believes consumers will gravitate to its photo-printing
    kiosks in drugstores. And the digital products have the same name as
    Kodak's online photo-sharing service, EasyShare.

    The strategy gives Kodak a new "cash cow," Mr. Yannas said. Printer
    cartridges replace film, while consumers buy photographic paper to print
    at home or buy prints through the kiosks or the Web site.

    But digital camera owners don't print every photo they shoot, noted Ron
    Glaz, an analyst at International Data Corp. And as technology evolves,
    they may be even less compelled to print, he said.

    "There will be networks in the home and digital frames," he said.
    "You're going to be constantly viewing pictures."

    Notwithstanding Mr. Perez's experience in the consumer electronics
    industry, Kodak is fairly new to the gadget world. Consumers trust the
    quality of its film, and the company has high rankings in brand
    awareness studies. But it's unclear whether that will transfer to
    technology products.

    "When you're coming into things that have traditionally been the domain
    of H-P and Lexmark, can you shift this powerful, resonant brand on a
    dime in consumer consciousness?" Mr. Lanyon asked.
    Jer, Oct 8, 2005
  10. Annika1980

    Jer Guest

    Agreed. The attorney friend I posted about a moment ago, determines
    whether the object to be archived is a data object (word processing
    files such as forms with a Document ID), or an appearance object
    (pictures and signatured items that have been scanned to a digital file
    set). My own film contributions to the image library were scanned from
    the prints, but are now stored in jpg format.
    Jer, Oct 8, 2005
  11. There is no evidence a CD-R will last 33 years...

    Remember CD-R technology is not true optical WORM technology. A WORM
    disk might but a dye based CD-R very unlikely.


    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    John A. Stovall, Oct 8, 2005
  12. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    Wrong. Today we have Sony's ATRAC format audio files. Excellent
    quality, but a real pain to use compared to MP3 because of its DRM.
    Computers, with their S.N.'s embedded within the CPU, have been
    moving in that direction for years. Many binary files (Word, Excel,
    etc.) have embedded information that can identify the computers that
    were used to create the files, even if old CPUs lacking S.N.'s were
    used. If Microsoft determines that it is advantageous to add DRM to
    all files its products create (or is forced to do so by a Homeland
    Security Czar) it will happen, and quickly. Why do you think XP
    stops working after a short while if it isn't "registered"?

    There's no need to criminalize the use of non-DRM'ed products if
    future hardware mandates its use, as some Sony products do today.
    ASAAR, Oct 8, 2005
  13. Annika1980

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Distributed storage is my answer. I have data duplicated on 4 HDs
    across three computers. Many of my pictures are stored on Webshots
    servers. I also have pictures on many other computers around my family.
    I am really not concerned with long-term availability at my age. I am
    sure future generations will be able to read any format we have now, and
    adapt them to their newest technology.
    Ron Hunter, Oct 9, 2005
  14. Annika1980

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Now WHERE did you get that idea? Grin.
    Ron Hunter, Oct 9, 2005
  15. Annika1980

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I recall looking at some slides from the 60's, and the reds were orange.
    Ron Hunter, Oct 9, 2005
  16. Annika1980

    kashe Guest

    If you're that concerned about your personal Gutenberg Bible,
    stash it in your bank's vault and get the one that's now available on
    CD. :)
    kashe, Oct 9, 2005
  17. Annika1980

    Roger Guest

    I can't find the post containing the above statement, but although it
    might be true in some instances, it's not in many cases.

    I may have said this earlier in this thread.
    I know of many instances where there were data losses in a number of
    corporations but, I can cite a specific case. I received a phone call
    from a very worried person (a sys admin). They had been working in
    the root directory of one of those systems where you can type del
    *.*[...] which means delete every thing in the current directory and
    all sub directories.

    The system had been stopped almost immediately, but this system for a
    very large corporation was last backed up at midnight. It was now 2:00
    PM. They were able to restore the system to the last backup point,
    but all data entered after that had to be re-entered *by hand* by the
    lab people who were not at all thrilled. However they knew enough
    about computers to realize that does happen.

    How big a problem was this. I said it was a large corporation. I
    figure it took close to 120 man hours to re-enter that data for 14
    hours of operation. The admin did not even get their paddies slapped.

    No matter how good the system, sooner of later some important data is
    going to be lost. If this had been one of those places foolish enough
    to even attempt a paperless operation the testing would have to have
    been redone and literally millions of dollars worth of material would
    have been held up until it had been retested and we'd have had to pay
    penalties for late delivery.
    I had to have one system FDA validated. We started with an inch thick
    stack of tests. When we finished the stack was well over 3 feet tall.
    In operation, *everything* had to be backed up on paper. However the
    computer system allowed them to retrieve information in seconds that
    could have taken hours prior to the system.

    It depends on how knowledgeable the people above and just how bad they
    need you. Our salaries were indirectly based on how expensive a
    mistake we could make and how many people at what level we had working
    for us.

    I had my retirement points for some time and they were still helping
    me with career advancement. I enjoyed the job (project manager), had
    unbelievable autonomy, came in at 10:00 AM, and went home at 4:30 or
    5:00 PM. (The bottom line was, I got the job done and most times I
    knew what they were going to ask for so I was already prepared when
    they asked)

    I once received a nasty note about my hours from the plant manager's
    secretary. I made a few calls, said I'd be glad to come in at 7:00 if
    they really wanted me to, but the work done from home was going to
    stop if I didn't get my sleep. (I was basically putting in 12 to 16
    hour days) Next morning I got a nice smile from her on the way by his
    office on the way to mine at 10:00 AM. No one ever questioned my odd
    hours again.

    No method of storage is without flaws, no medial is permanent, and no
    method of backup is failsafe. The more data, the more secure, the
    better the data integrity the more people it takes. The more people
    involved and the more elaborate the backup the more places for errors
    to creep in.

    Some where there is a point where loss of data integrity beomces more
    likely than loss of data. Now days, either one is more likely to be
    caused by human error than mechanical or software failure.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    Roger, Oct 9, 2005
  18. Annika1980

    Ron Hunter Guest

    All very true. I have seen servers lose a HD and then it was found that
    the backups weren't correctly set up and some essential files (OS files)
    hadn't been backed up so when restored, the system didn't work. That
    one took several people a couple of weeks to fix....
    Stuff happens. People make mistakes, hardware fails, software become
    corrupt, hackers attack. Nothing is perfect. You do what you can with
    the facilities at your disposal, and when it hits the fan, you clean up,
    and go on.
    Ron Hunter, Oct 9, 2005
  19. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    Bill Funk, Oct 9, 2005
  20. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    It seems that you're not speaking of your own fuiles here, but rather
    music files you've downloaded. They may be *yours* in the sense that
    you downloaded trhem legally, but they aren't *your own* files. If you
    actually recorded those msic pieces, they'd be your own, and DRM rules
    won't be applied by a studio.
    Agreed. But why would DRM have any adverse affect on, for example, the
    photos that you take yourself?
    Bill Funk, Oct 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.