Although this has strong points to be made for film usage, to me it had ties to a variety of digital archiving processes that are now causing issues over the long haul.
I know over the past several years directors like Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, and several other directors and producers were making a big deal about film vs digital.
To be honest I thought it was all about personal taste and aesthetics, but apparently there is a lot more to it in life expectancy and storage costs. Interesting article.
Posted by John Launstein on February 13, 2015 at 11:52 PM
That's a great article, Paul. Interesting read and certainly thought-provoking. As a photographer that made my living during the end of the film era in the '90's, I often wondered aloud to digital proponents as the technology was in its infancy about such things. And I wonder again how to preserve my work and more importantly the "early" work of my kids for future decades or even generations. I do the important stuff like redundant backups, but one has to wonder about changing technologies and formats. I surely offer no answers, but do appreciate the reminder to consider such things in this digital world!
John, in reading your comment I can tell you obviously fully understood the point the article was trying to convey. This was not a film vs digital thing as much as a solid previous standard to a now changing and moving target as to how best to deal with longevity & storage of ANY photographic & audio media.
Thanks for your comment.
Posted by Ed Cordes on February 14, 2015 at 9:37 PM
Very interesting and thought provoking article. I do try to make it a habit to run my backup drives from time to time, but probably not often enough. Next techie step will be much less expensive SSDs for back up, but I cant afford a few 2 TB SSD drives now! Even then the technology will change again and even those will outdated. Thanks for sharing this great article.
Interesting article, Paul. Do I feel smug with an ever growing archive of negatives? And talking of cost, do I also feel smug when I see people going through the iterations of upgrading cameras and lenses (Canon 5D, Nikon 800, Nikon 810, Canon 5Ds R ... etc), when the old kit (mainly a 1981 Hasselblad 500c/m) is what I am using for all my photography?
But I do scan and digitally process and so I, too, worry and face the issue of digital archiving and a mess of external hard disks. But I am happy to have those negatives in the corner of the room (albeit not in a salt mine in Kansas!).
Interesting article, Paul. Do I feel smug with an ever growing archive of negatives? And talking of cost, do I also feel smug when I see people going through the iterations of upgrading cameras and lenses (Canon 5D, Nikon 800, Nikon 810, Canon 5Ds R ... etc), when the old kit (mainly a 1981 Hasselblad 500c/m) is what I am using for all my photography?
But I do scan and digitally process and so I, too, worry and face the issue of digital archiving and a mess of external hard disks. But I am happy to have those negatives in the corner of the room (albeit not in a salt mine in Kansas!).
I hear you, Stuart. All my work is in 35-120-4x5. It's all stored in cool, dark, & dry area in protective sleeves. All my scanned files are duplicated on 3 external hard drives. Although I've rescanned work it was more about improved thoughts on a original scan then a lost digital image. So, I've not had to go back to the "film shot" too many times.
Discussion
6 repliesI know over the past several years directors like Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, and several other directors and producers were making a big deal about film vs digital.
To be honest I thought it was all about personal taste and aesthetics, but apparently there is a lot more to it in life expectancy and storage costs. Interesting article.
Elephant in Digital Darkroom
Thanks for your comment.
No doubt in these ever changing times, Ed.......thanks for the comment.
But I do scan and digitally process and so I, too, worry and face the issue of digital archiving and a mess of external hard disks. But I am happy to have those negatives in the corner of the room (albeit not in a salt mine in Kansas!).
I hear you, Stuart. All my work is in 35-120-4x5. It's all stored in cool, dark, & dry area in protective sleeves. All my scanned files are duplicated on 3 external hard drives. Although I've rescanned work it was more about improved thoughts on a original scan then a lost digital image. So, I've not had to go back to the "film shot" too many times.