Sadly Pertinent

What's really sad is there's a possibility that all the digital files being created these days will not be "viewable" by generations to come, with the constant changes in hardware and software being developed some things we take for granted tend to get lost in the shuffle. Instant gratification is the driving force behind what's being produced. I believe most of the images being produced are expendable, it doesn't matter if they are lost, but when I think of weddings and family portraits I believe there should be negatives produced and stored somewhere "just in case". At least with negatives there's a physical product that can be kept and stored away regardless of the latest and greatest camera, software, computer, etc.........
 
Negatives also contain data encoded in their emulsion as chemical transformations caused by light. This is one of the numerous forms analog data. There are billions of file cabinets andvshelves full of purely analog data from purely analog sources.

Analog images are superior to digital models of our analog world. The transformation from continuous information to discrete information relies on models and these models are fundimentally flawed. Spatial aliasing is one example of the problem. At the same time, the convenience and versatility of digital images often outweighs their flaws.

Just as the audio CD and other compressed digital-music formats did not end analog music recording, digital imaging will not replace analog image recording. Of course as film usage declines, film photographers will eventually face increased cost and inconvenience.
 
Clint Troy said:
Yes, the modern photographer is more of a Data manager then a photographer.

Digital photography = Datagraphy
Click to expand...

I didn't know I was managing data when I was out using my camera. I didn't notice this when switching between film and digital cameras... they both seemed to have a shutter speed dial, an aperture ring, and were capable of capturing an image. I learned something new today.

In all fairness, binders full of negatives and boxes full of prints can be considered data management too no?
 
Today's Wall Street Journal has a piece about one-third of the Kodak HQ building in Rochester is slated to be sold to the local community college.
 
Despite the subject matter being a sad loss, the project looks like a very interesting and quite comprehensive look at the 'last days' of film technology/production.
 
Bill, this was discussed a while back in another thread - but thanks for bringing it up again, it is a fascinating project.

However, it is only about the "end of film" if film = Kodak.

Randy
 
Bob T said:
What's really sad is there's a possibility that all the digital files being created these days will not be "viewable" by generations to come, with the constant changes in hardware and software being developed some things we take for granted tend to get lost in the shuffle. Instant gratification is the driving force behind what's being produced. I believe most of the images being produced are expendable, it doesn't matter if they are lost, but when I think of weddings and family portraits I believe there should be negatives produced and stored somewhere "just in case". At least with negatives there's a physical product that can be kept and stored away regardless of the latest and greatest camera, software, computer, etc.........
Click to expand...

You know I have heard this arument many times before but I really think this fear is over rated, with respect.

If there is a need and a demand there will be software that will convert old formats to new formats. When people raise this as a concern I always am inclined to think of all the images I took in film which have never been published anywhere, and now reside in cardboard boxes in the shed - one day to be thrown out because my need to spring clean and gain space is greater. To be brutally honest many images I have made have neevr even been developed.

How many times has this been repeated across the world and throughout the 20th century.

By comparison we now have billions of photos on sites like Flickr and across the web, probably trillions. Some of those may be lost but I doubt that they all will be - or even most of them. These images constitute a remarkable source of historical information for future social historians.

But hard copy images sitting in someone's shed and deteriorating there will never be seen - no one will ever know they existed. But with digital not only are they easily stored, they are easily backed up for added security. Not so with hard images and negatives.

So while we may be sad at the passing of an iconic company I really am optimistic that digital is much safer way of storing and transimitting precious (and not so precious) images to future generations.
 
well on the Bright Side...I'm still a hardcore User :eek:
and will continue to be
till The supposed 'End'
 
These days it is the film industry, the next change of similar impact might be individual transportation with a switch from gasoline to electric powered vehicles.

Kudos to companies like Ilford, ADOX, and Agfa. Keeping the spirit alive is good thing, IMO.:)
 
Forget for a moment what this piece means for us as individuals -- whether we're pros or hobbyists -- and think about what the photo essay from the link says about the dislocations -- real, serious, disruptive, bankrupting, community-destroying dislocations -- that the changing of technology wrought.

Now look, there's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to pointing the finger at the misguided and mismanaged behavior of Kodak, but think what Kodak's implosion has done to some major cities and the their citizens. Kodak largely did itself in by doing dumb things with its business. No question.

If this was only about how we twiddle our aperture rings and shutter speed dials and how we many of us now (and ever more of us in the future) manage our image data instead of handling emulsion and silver halides, the photo essay wouldn't be as important as it is. But think about what life must have become for folks in places like Rochester. Just plain awful.

I enjoy my digital and love my film. But really, this story, as told in the link Bill shared with us, isn't just about how we practice our photography. It's about something much bigger. Cultural, societal, economic, global. Now, if that thought doesn't grab you, look 20, 30 years into the future and imagine that we're talking about Apple. That some new, as-yet-unimagined disruptive technology (and marketing) unhorses Apple. If you have trouble imagining that, think about all those folks displaced by this era's disruption.

If you're of at least a certain age, you must remember that grip that Kodak had on us as culture. A real life-changing kind of a grip. And, then, it just vanished. Frightening really to absorb this. The photo essay does a pretty job of capturing that ethos. Think about all those ubiquitous Kodak signs. Where could you go that was civilized, that had a population and some kind of a market and not see a Kodak sign somewhere nearby?

Even for those of us who are enamored with digital and its possibilities (which for all we know may yet surprise us with new wonders), you have to admit that we've lost something by watching film slowly, inexorably slip away. I don't think it will disappear completely, anymore than painting disappeared with the advent of photography.

Anyway, that's what struck me about the piece. Bill, thanks for drawing my attention to it.

By the way, I'm no Luddite. I crave an M9-P and I have an M8. I scan my film and I print on an Epson.
 
zauhar said:
However, it is only about the "end of film" if film = Kodak.

Randy
Click to expand...

No, the he photographed Polaroid and Agfa factories too.

Anyway, for some reason, none of this makes me feel the least bit sentimental or nostalgic for the film days, and I like film...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top