Are dark rooms becomming a distant memory

[johnstownwildfire]

Our kids in school asked this question, with digital cameras being found all over the place, what if any use is needed for dark rooms? Are darkrooms no longer needed, are they a thing of the past?
And another question was asked, can a digital camera match skills with the best dark room in the world? Well it come sdown to asking is their a person alive who can match up with a digital camera, using a dark room?:)

[ryant35]

I think there isn't anything you can do in a dark room that you can't do with a computer. But there a people who still use medium & large format film. I'm not a fan of 35mm film once I got my DSLR.

I'm sure schools will keep their darkrooms for a while. A school can't expect students to show up with DSLR cameras, but film SLR's are pretty reasonable.

[Anke]

<thinking aloud> Perhaps manually developing film helps people to understand the process of photography more, and this in turn helps their digital post processing.

[ryant35]

<thinking aloud> Perhaps manually developing film helps people to understand the process of photography more, and this in turn helps their digital post processing.

That makes sense to me.

[ryant35]

I've been thinking about taking a photography class at my local junior college, but most of the classes require a film SLR. I do have an old Minolta that still works great, but I don't want to use it, nor do I care to learn how to use a dark room. I just want a little structure with some assignments, that could be fun.

[Perry Ge]

they aren't dead. They're really important in photography classes and it's really enjoyable to develop your own photos. I don't print nearly as many of my digital photos as my film shots, and I still find myself in the darkroom at least once a week.

[strmrdr]

b&w, digital cant match up with the best film can do.
It doesn't have enough dynamic range and the mid-tones are too compressed.

[johnstownwildfire]

b&w, digital cant match up with the best film can do.
It doesn't have enough dynamic range and the mid-tones are too compressed.
This is my thoughts as well. I have my dark room and I tell my students, if you take a negative and exp to your subject that image will be a direct link to the film. SLR you have a sensor that is trying to figure out what it is that it sees. Take one object and take a picture of same with each camera, then look at the difference with each one. Sure SLR are fast easy and cheap, the old way is slow, costly but the picture itself without touch ups on computer have so much more range and depth. My thoughts are, dark rooms are needed in many cases, the goverment still releys on film when covering certain projects.

[theflyingkiwi]

I think you will find that the nature of dark rooms change over time. I have never used film and always been a digital fan. Since I am 33 I am still new to photography and don't have any idea what can be done with in a darkroom to film to get the best out of it.

However my darkroom is my computer room. I close the door and windows and have no lights on. My computer is turned on and photoshop takes up the full screen size of my 24" monitor. This is my darkroom. yes it's a different darkroom but it's the only one that I have ever known.

[JWright]

There's just something about slipping that piece of exposed paper into the developer and watching the image appear, almost as if by magic. Digital processing is never going to be able to match that.

[RedHot]

It really needs to be stated for digital: dSLR or a P&S because there's a big difference between the 2.

You can get excellent results from dSLRs consistently, but consistent good results from a P&S is unlikely. Here's my experience:

I was just looking at a photo album at my parents' place of a big vacation we all went on. The majority were film prints that looked great. Accurate colors, good contrast, sharp pictures, good detail. Then there were digital prints from other family members at the end. The digital prints (from P&S's) easily did not look good as the film prints. A couple looked fairly good but the others were clearly digital. Horrible colors, focus was off, images not sharp, detail was mushy. Ugh.

And my parents use a Minolta 35mm SLR that is used 100% in full auto mode with its standard kit lens and the cameras shooting the digital prints were also in full auto mode. I wonder when digital P&S users will wake up and realize that shooting film gives much better results and prints when taken to a camera store, not walmart or a discount/drug store. Yes you can do things with digital pictures on a computer, but I'd really like to see a poll of average digital P&S users doing anything beyond resizing so they can email or upload to a website with their pictures. The average user isn't going to do anything more than an autofix button in a photo program. So where's the advantage of digital to the average user if the are only letting people see pictures faster via web/email? Unfortunately they rarely print which will come back to haunt them in about 10 years.

Oh and that Minolta SLR is probably 10 years old or so. You wouldn't be using a 10 year old digital camera today.

[Karl C]

There will always be situations/scenarios when film is the preferred method such as medium/large format and B&W. We're still a ways off from digital matching/exceeding the tonal and dynamic range of film.

Film/darkrooms will continue to evolve into niche categories.

[theflyingkiwi]

I didn't know that digital can't do B&W

there will be a time in the future that darkrooms will be apart of history.

just as removing the cap and using a watch to measure the exposure is apart of history. They used to do that and now we don't even think about it.

[Jon Foster]

If I remember correctly, the last time I did any work in a darkroom it was the summer of 1985. After that I sent out my film. Then digital became a reality for me in the mid 90's.

Jon.

[tonylong]

Heh! This discussion has been going on for years! Back when the 10D came out is when the 35mm film enthusiast began losing their bluster. And, digital keeps advancing, and tests I've seen show that current DSLRs have a noticeably greater dynamic range than film. I'm not talking about saturation or contrast -- these are things that are fixed by the film you use but with digital are adjustable. But things like highlights and shadows are with DSLRs outperforming film. I have books by fine art photographers who in their books shot film but who now are 100% digital. Are they compromising their art? When I see their output, I don't think so.

I don't want to disparage film photography, because it is an honorable craft, but that really doesn't make it "better". And, if you want to talk about MF, don't compare it with the EOS digital system, compare with digital MF systems! Hasselblad, anyone?

[NathanJK]

Ugh, I do NOT miss the darkroom! You can't surf the net while pretending to work in there...speaking of, I SHOULD be editing pictures right now!

[Mike]

I've just been given an old pentax slr and, being a complete novice when it comes to film, am really looking forward to shooting film and was just this morning chatting with a colleague about how you set up your own darkroom.

[SkipD]

I still have all my darkroom equipment, but since we moved to a home with a septic system for sewage disposal, I don't want to dump the waste chemicals down the drain like I used to. Thus, I have permanently put my film stuff and the darkroom equipment onto a storage shelf. I sometimes show it to folks, sort of like a museum display, but don't expect to use it any more.

[johnstownwildfire]

Oh and that Minolta SLR is probably 10 years old or so. You wouldn't be using a 10 year old digital camera today.[/quote]

This is so true, no jok my 35MM Vivatar yea they made cameras back in the hay days of whatever.. anyway it is over 30 years old and still works great, it has been dropped from trees, kicked, run over, droped in a lake, and it works great to this day.

[johnstownwildfire]

I still have all my darkroom equipment, but since we moved to a home with a septic system for sewage disposal, I don't want to dump the waste chemicals down the drain like I used to. Thus, I have permanently put my film stuff and the darkroom equipment onto a storage shelf. I sometimes show it to folks, sort of like a museum display, but don't expect to use it any more.
Hey skip you can dump your checicals down the drain, I do I just use emzyes to eat the suff. I thik in a wa maybe like you I should leave my dark room supplies on the shelf. But I still enjoy the whole processing realm.

[aussieskier]

I think they will still remain around for some.

Personally I love working in them occasionally. There is something fun about the work you put into getting the image on the page. Rather than just dumping hundreds of files on to you computer. There is something more magical about developing the film and wet printing when the image just appears on the paper in the bath.

Then again, maybe I am just a nostalgic history geek ;)

[Picture North Carolina]

About 3 months ago I was cleaning house and put my Omega enlarger complete with its custom cold light head at the curb for the trashman to take. It had sat, unused, for about 20+ years and had rusted and rotted beyond use. I saved the schneider-compenar lens (for what purpose, I do not know).

Brought a tear to my eye seeing it sit out there. /Dan

[Wilt]

If you have seen results from medium and large format film cameras, digital FF still runs a trailing race! The dynamic range of the displayed image is horribly limited by paper and computer monitors. Digital projectors are a pathetic 1280x1024 resolution image at the very best, and we are shooting 12+ MPixel images with the high end cameras, with NO suitable means of displaying what is captured!

Heh! This discussion has been going on for years! Back when the 10D came out is when the 35mm film enthusiast began losing their bluster. And, digital keeps advancing, and tests I've seen show that current DSLRs have a noticeably greater dynamic range than film. I'm not talking about saturation or contrast -- these are things that are fixed by the film you use but with digital are adjustable. But things like highlights and shadows are with DSLRs outperforming film.


Any statement you may have read about the above is ONLY true for SLIDE FILM! Slide films are nowhere as broad in dynamic range as color neg film, nor anywhere as forgiving in exposure error as color neg film...8 stop range! And the ability to carry highlight and shadow detail via custom processing of black and white films is hard to match, as well...the Zone System

[DrPablo]

Digital projectors are a pathetic 1280x1024 resolution image at the very best
This is one thing that gets lost in the predictions of film's imminent demise.

More than 90% of Kodak's film production is for the motion picture industry (I think it's actually more than 95% -- and Kodak has a near monopoly on movie film). Movies are almost exclusively shot on film, and it will probably be a generation (or longer) before movies become entirely digital -- if ever. For sure they're processed digitally. Some are shot digitally, but then they're put down on film for projection in the theater. It would cost movie theaters tens of thousands of dollars per projector to be able to project a digital movie -- and there's just no advantage to doing it with the resolution limitations of most projectors. Storage and security are also huge issues for digital movies. So there's very little movement at all to make the film industry digital.

And because of that, the minority of the film production that goes to photography is easily supported by the very stable movie film production runs, even though the emulsions and the film base (and obviously the cuts) are different.

Slide films are nowhere as broad in dynamic range as color neg film, nor anywhere as forgiving in exposure error as color neg film...8 stop range! And the ability to carry highlight and shadow detail via custom processing of black and white films is hard to match, as well...the Zone System
Some slide films like Astia have a true 8 stop dynamic range with +/- 2 stops latitude. Velvia, of course, squeezes you into a 5 stop box, but no one who knows what they're doing would choose Velvia for a high DR scene anyway, it makes no sense.

But the DR of neg films is ridiculous. My friend was shooting some ISO 400 Rollei IR film which he exposed at EI 1/2 (to account for the filter factor) -- but he forgot to put on the filter! So his film was overexposed by something like 8 stops. And it was still perfectly printable -- you'd never have known that there was an exposure error. HP5+ can be overexposed by 6 stops and still won't blow highlights. And some of the low contrast color neg films like 160NC and NPS are the same.

[johnstownwildfire]

Glad to see we have some debate here. I think the bottom line is, digital allows more people to become involed in photography, more so then in the past. It cost less, it's easy to point and shoot, and you don't have to pay for or process your film, which both took time.

[tonylong]

If you have seen results from medium and large format film cameras, digital FF still runs a trailing race! The dynamic range of the displayed image is horribly limited by paper and computer monitors. Digital projectors are a pathetic 1280x1024 resolution image at the very best, and we are shooting 12+ MPixel images with the high end cameras, with NO suitable means of displaying what is captured!

I think you missed the last part of my post. I don't pit ff dSLRs against mf or lf cameras. That's just silly. Read the rest of my post and you'll see the real comparisons -- digital backs and the recent integrated digital mf cameras by companies like the veverabe Hasselblad -- with images with incredible detail. I pay attention when mf fine art photographers have switched, first to digital backs, now to integrated mf digital cameras.

Any statement you may have read about the above is ONLY true for SLIDE FILM! Slide films are nowhere as broad in dynamic range as color neg film, nor anywhere as forgiving in exposure error as color neg film...8 stop range! And the ability to carry highlight and shadow detail via custom processing of black and white films is hard to match, as well...the Zone System

As I said in my earlier post I have great respect and admiration for the tradition of film photography -- the art and craft that goes into producing a great image, whether from film or digital, is wonderful. What's the argument? If you want to say "film is better", I'll debate the issue. If you want to say "film is a great contribution" I'll agree.

[Wilt]

I think you missed the last part of my post. I don't pit ff dSLRs against mf or lf cameras. That's just silly. Read the rest of my post and you'll see the real comparisons -- digital backs and the recent integrated digital mf cameras by companies like the veverabe Hasselblad -- with images with incredible detail. I pay attention when mf fine art photographers have switched, first to digital backs, now to integrated mf digital cameras.e.

In any digital vs. film argument, my key point is always 'NOT RESOLUTION', but conveying the fact that film carries virtually infinite gradations of tonality and color that cannot be captured with the 8-bit per color (RBG) capture of today's digital format. 24 million colors is 'a lot' but not what the world is seen by our eyes with, and we use 'shoot to the right' to overcome the limitations of 4096 levels of tonality!

I made the statement about medium format and seeing the results only because I have first hand experience in showing medium format slides projected on the same screen at the same final height as 35mm slides, that the audience oooh'd and aaah'd at the visual impact of the images, not because of any perceived difference in image resolution -- and that was showing medium format film images vs. 35mm mm film images! So medium format film images will certainly impress viewers vs. dSLR images which compete only on the basis of detail resolution-- but not at all on the basis of dynamic range and tonality and color gradations of the final image.

Today all the comparisons are always only on the basis of pixel count vs. resolution of film, which is like comparing automobile performance solely on the basis of top speed (and ignoring cornering ability, acceleration, and stopping ability). And the comparisons digitally covert medium format film images in order to compare...duh. Reduce the better image to the lowest common denominator for the comparison?! That is like taking a color slide and printing it on paper, before comparing it to a color neg image on paper...the paper does NOT have the visual impact of a projected slide, so we are again reducing to the lowest common denominator and saying "color neg image does not lose hightlight details like slides do"...duh, wrong conclusion! a valid conclusion to make but the comparison on the wrong parameter!

[airfrogusmc]

There are still going to be photographers that will work in film and process and print their own work. In fact I can see things like hand coated papers (platinum, cyanotype van dyke brown, etc) becoming even more precious because less people will be doing it and theres nothing in the digital world that looks like that.

[cdifoto]

the paper does NOT have the visual impact of a projected slide

I dunno. I don't see too many slide projectors being set up in living rooms anymore. Reality: people look at images on paper, and they look at images on computer screen. To hell with the details that are only seen through a loupe or dad's vintage projector.

[Wilt]

Glad to see we have some debate here. I think the bottom line is, digital allows more people to become involed in photography, more so then in the past. It cost less, it's easy to point and shoot, and you don't have to pay for or process your film, which both took time.

Wait, you used to be able to enter into photography with the purchase of a new $300 film SLR, and then pay as you go for the film and processing.

Now you have to invest $700-800 up front (and pay the 18% financing charges on the credit card bill until you slowly work down the balance!).

I'd say that film is the cheaper entry cost, but the longer overall investment. And everyone is ignoring the costs of replacing batteries when they wear out, and buying chargers, and memory!

OTOH, with the digital camera, people view it as outdated and it has no residual value (unlike a 20 year old film camera!). And you have to have a computer, and a printer, and storage media, and the cost of moving that data and keeping it accessible over the years if you want any of those images to continue to be retrievable 20 years from now when the computers and peripherals and storage devices have evolved 4 generations!

[cdifoto]

And you have to have a computer, and a printer, and storage media, and the cost of moving that data and keeping it accessible over the years if you want any of those images to continue to be retrievable 20 years from now when the computers and peripherals and storage devices have evolved 4 generations!

Sure beats a shoe box. Can't surf POTN's G&N on one of those.

[Wilt]

I dunno. I don't see too many slide projectors being set up in living rooms anymore. Reality: people look at images on paper, and they look at images on computer screen. To hell with the details that are only seen through a loupe or dad's vintage projector.

Yes, you have a new generation that thinks MP3 (compressed) music sounds good coming out of Bose speakers (with no published specs on frequency response), too!!! True audio enthusiasts are horrified with the cr*p that the X and Y generations tolerate!

Photographic enthusiasts used to gather and ONLY compare slide images. Today's photographic enthusiasts now share images on the most dynamic range-limited devices (monitors) you can find, and print them with inks on paper.

If it is OK for you to accept less than you could have, then we might as well go back to the 1950's and the bland unimaginative food that used to be served everywhere in America, or (shudder) the really horrid and terrible things they used to call food in the UK 30 years ago!

[cdifoto]

Photographic enthusiasts used to gather and ONLY compare slide images.

Fun times.

Today's photographic enthusiasts now share images on the most dynamic range-limited devices (monitors) you can find, and print them with inks on paper.

Ink on paper - so naughty.

[Wilt]

Fun times.



Ink on paper - so naughty.

Yes, indeed. The world of print journalism has known for decades that the ink press has less dynamic range on the printed page, even when compared to what is easily captured in film and reproduced with photographic paper imaging. Our commercial processing labs still use our digital files to image with lasers on photographic paper, not using inks on paper, for a reason. And Fuji Crystal photographic paper has archival preservation quality that ink on paper could only dream about!

[cdifoto]

And Fuji Crystal photographic paper has archival preservation quality that ink on paper could only dream about!

I dunno. Epson's Ultrachromes are supposed to last 70+ years according to...Henry Wilhelm Research. I have some traditional lab prints that are pretty faded...and they're only half as old as I am. Not to say Epson Ultrachromes have been around for 70 years, but he and his tests are pretty well respected.

[Wilt]

I dunno. Epson's Ultrachromes are supposed to last 70+ years according to...Henry Wilhelm Research. I have some traditional lab prints that are pretty faded...and they're only half as old as I am. Not to say Epson Ultrachromes have been around for 70 years, but he and his tests are pretty well respected.

'conventional lab prints' did not use the archival dyes found in Ilfochrome and Fuji Crystal prints!

As for the accelerated testing...I know what they say about longevity of CD and DVD, too. And I also know that many important articles and records stored on digital media like CD and DVD have become unreadable in a far shorter time than the longevity tests and claims would have you believe.

[cdifoto]

'conventional lab prints' did not use the archival dyes found in Ilfochrome and Fuji Crystal prints!

So, what does then? You're telling me they're falsely advertising their quality by using Fuji Crystal Archive paper? How do I know what's really a Fuji Crystal Archive Print then?

[airfrogusmc]

If any of your work was ever excepted to a museum they have a PH test the can do to see if your prints are indeed archival. I'm under the understanding that ciba-chore has now been found not to be and the dye transfer is the the only true achival color process.

[Wilt]

If any of your work was ever excepted to a museum they have a PH test the can do to see if your prints are indeed archival. I'm under the understanding that ciba-chore has now been found not to be and the dye transfer is the the only true achival color process.

Hmmm...I have some Cibachomes (aka Ilfochromes) which I printed myself 15 years ago and are on display, and some others that are in books. Both display prints and those in books look like new. In comparison, some same-age commercial prints made on normal Kodak color paper have deteriorated somewhat and do not have their new appearance in spite of not being openly displayed 24/7

Where have you heard about the AZO dye print longevity not being what was claimed? I'm interested to read it.

[johnstownwildfire]

Not being one who has a clue what you uys are talking about, in simple terms, if a person today has a good picture they want to preserve what do they do? Also my understanding is that if a picture placed on paper, no matter what kind of paper, it is going to degrade over time, unless it is placed in air tight container. I have prints and negatives from 25 years ago that are now fading, and some I have no idea why are crumbling away.

[DrPablo]

Ronald,

One can be sure that digital printing methods will become more archival with time. You can always print again as technology improves as long as you keep your digital archives up to date.

As for now, there are places that do lightjet printing, i.e. you can use a digital file to optically expose photo paper that is developed using RA4 chemistry (the same as typical color prints). I'd trust that over any type of ink-based printing, at least for the immediate appearance (if not longevity).

I don't place much credence in projected longevities of brand new digital products. The manufacturers don't know if something will last 70 years. Nor do they care. In 70 years they will have produced a million new product lines. All they care about is whether you buy it right now.

Finally, emulsions of color film have changed dramatically over 25 years (and they still change -- there are a bunch of new emulsion chemistries out that have been released in the last year or two). An exposed / developed print film from 2007 would certainly last longer than one from 1982. That said, our prints from back then haven't faded at all so long as they haven't been exposed to the sun, and the negatives are still perfect.

[Wilt]

Not being one who has a clue what you uys are talking about, in simple terms, if a person today has a good picture they want to preserve what do they do? Also my understanding is that if a picture placed on paper, no matter what kind of paper, it is going to degrade over time, unless it is placed in air tight container. I have prints and negatives from 25 years ago that are now fading, and some I have no idea why are crumbling away.

Go to a commercial process that has signs showing that Fuji Crystal is the paper they print on. That is about all that an ordinary consumer can do! Or pay horrendous amounts to the few artisans who can create dye transfer prints, if you have lots of money to throw at the problem.


Organic dyes fall into a number of dye families. Those used for ordinary commercial film and paper have no special archival quality. Some other dyes, such as those use in Ilfochrome color reversal paper, and those which are used in todays Fuji Crystal (if the claims are accurate representations of reality) are less subject to deterioration. And then there are the dye transfers. For films, dyes and process for Kodachrome film was especially stable, but environmental considerations caused the demise of Kodachrome films

And if the prints are not processed to neutralize the chemistry and are not thoroughly washed, the residual chemicals can harm the dyes of the image, and/or stain the media (paper or plastic) that the emulsion is coated on.

Additionally, exposure to light will accelerate bleaching or color shift in the dyes of the print (or film).

Fumes that are in the air can attack organic dyes, too. Vinyl emits such fumes, wheres polythelene does not. Even wood can emit fumes that attack the dyes. Acid in the paper which is used in non-archival print books also can attack the dyes.

[airfrogusmc]

Hmmm...I have some Cibachomes (aka Ilfochromes) which I printed myself 15 years ago and are on display, and some others that are in books. Both display prints and those in books look like new. In comparison, some same-age commercial prints made on normal Kodak color paper have deteriorated somewhat and do not have their new appearance in spite of not being openly displayed 24/7

Where have you heard about the AZO dye print longevity not being what was claimed? I'm interested to read it.

Wilt I read something about ciba chrome a few years back not being as stable as was once thought. I haven't seen any problems with any of the prints I made 25 years ago but thats only 25 years and they've been in a portfolio case mounted on archival board. The article went on to say that the only true archival color prints were dye transfers. Kodaks type C and what was that paper they had for positives type R? was never very stable.

[johnstownwildfire]

Question I thought that data on a cd or dvd would last a lietime, true or false

[tonylong]

Question I thought that data on a cd or dvd would last a lietime, true or false


Data on a CD or DVD will only last as long as the medium lasts. There is, though, archival DVDs that are spec'd to last longer.

If, though, that is your only way of backing up your data, you're asking for trouble. To me, backing up to DVDs is what I do on top of at least two external backups.

I don't know how to tie this into a thread about film vs. digital, though...

[ryant35]

false

[Wilt]

Data on a CD or DVD will only last as long as the medium lasts. There is, though, archival DVDs that are spec'd to last longer.

If, though, that is your only way of backing up your data, you're asking for trouble. To me, backing up to DVDs is what I do on top of at least two external backups.

I don't know how to tie this into a thread about film vs. digital, though...

Preservation of image data is what the two have in common...

Film and color paper both use organic dyes. Burnable CD and DVD (vs. pressed) use organic dyes. Organic dyes are attacked by certain fumes (such as what leeches out from vinyl, or wood), acidity, prolonged exposured to light and sun. So film and color paper and CD and DVD have similar enemies to archival preservation.

Burnable DVD in particular use less stable organic dyes than burnable CD, as they have to be written at higher burning rates. So given a CD and a DVD both in the same conditions, the DVD will suffer from 'data rot' sooner than the CD.

[rhys]

Preservation of image data is what the two have in common...

Film and color paper both use organic dyes. Burnable CD and DVD (vs. pressed) use organic dyes. Organic dyes are attacked by certain fumes (such as what leeches out from vinyl, or wood), acidity, prolonged exposured to light and sun. So film and color paper and CD and DVD have similar enemies to archival preservation.

Burnable DVD in particular use less stable organic dyes than burnable CD, as they have to be written at higher burning rates. So given a CD and a DVD both in the same conditions, the DVD will suffer from 'data rot' sooner than the CD.

But as the DVD data layer is encapsulated, no chemicals should ever touch it. The data layer on a CD is covered by a thin layer of paint that can be porus.

[tonylong]

Preservation of image data is what the two have in common...

Film and color paper both use organic dyes. Burnable CD and DVD (vs. pressed) use organic dyes. Organic dyes are attacked by certain fumes (such as what leeches out from vinyl, or wood), acidity, prolonged exposured to light and sun. So film and color paper and CD and DVD have similar enemies to archival preservation.

Burnable DVD in particular use less stable organic dyes than burnable CD, as they have to be written at higher burning rates. So given a CD and a DVD both in the same conditions, the DVD will suffer from 'data rot' sooner than the CD.

I use DVDs because CDs would pile up waaayyy too much. But, like I said earlier, that's just one part of backup, and even the DVDs will get backed up. I think that my most useable idea is to have an external hard drive that will remain unplugged except when I'm backing up to it. That way if a power surge fries everything I'll at least have it. I haven't yet resorted to storing DVDs in a bank safety deposit box.

Now if I could just locate my shoeboxes with all of my negatives from years gone by I'd be set!

[rhys]

Hard disks aren't as foolproof as you think. Personally I'll go with blu-ray when that arrives and stick with DVDs for now.

[ryant35]

I use DVDs because CDs would pile up waaayyy too much. But, like I said earlier, that's just one part of backup, and even the DVDs will get backed up. I think that my most useable idea is to have an external hard drive that will remain unplugged except when I'm backing up to it. That way if a power surge fries everything I'll at least have it. I haven't yet resorted to storing DVDs in a bank safety deposit box.

Now if I could just locate my shoeboxes with all of my negatives from years gone by I'd be set!

I agree with you on the DVDs but my last weekend shoot used 4 DVDs to back it all up.

My external HD is 279GB and only has 42 GB left, my internal is 223 and has only 54 GB left.

I think it's a lot easier to go get another 300 or 500GB external HD than to burn 100 DVDs.

[Wilt]

But as the DVD data layer is encapsulated, no chemicals should ever touch it. The data layer on a CD is covered by a thin layer of paint that can be porus.

That layer on DVD is mostly mechanical protection (abrasion). Chemical vapors do pass thru solid things all the time. That is why helium balloons no longer rise, or why salt water migrates into the fiberglass laminate hull in boats which spend all year in the water!

[rhys]

That layer on DVD is mostly mechanical protection (abrasion). Chemical vapors do pass thru solid things all the time. That is why helium balloons no longer rise, or why salt water migrates into the fiberglass laminate hull in boats which spend all year in the water!

Yes. I agree. That's why I never use Hammarite paint. It's useless because it's so porus. I painted one half of a piece of steel with hammarite after brushing the rust off. The other half after brushing the rust off I painted with ordinary enamel. No prizes for guessing which rusted!

[johnstownwildfire]

Reading all the post here, in just a few short years look how far we have come, in just a few more years where will we end up. less than 100 years ago we were using a box to take pictures (they take really great pictures by the way) what does the future hold for us.

[DrPablo]

what does the future hold for us.
Lots of great things, but I wouldn't carry that idea too far. It's very much 17th and 18th century Englightenment thinking that human progress is inexorable. Realistically we're more limited by market forces than by technology. The advancement of digital photography technology is 100% dependent on the advancement of computer technology, and there may at some point be a limit to how much computing power the market demands. This is especially true as the world becomes more based around the internet, and therefore most people's needs only extend as far as what it takes to access the internet.

[johnstownwildfire]

DRpablo - I love your statement so true. But if you look a cross the board, children in the 70 and even 80- were more active - TV time was limited to maybe 3 or 4 hours, children would for the most part would play outdoors and run and jump and just play. Tody our children seem to be glued to a screen of some sort, spending hours and hours looking though a sheet of glass, their bodies are lazy and well you gey my thoughts here, the same is true of cameras - today they make the disposable camera, or they make them so cheap, people are getting to a point they figure they don't need a camera because the net has it all.

[johnstownwildfire]

If I remember correctly, the last time I did any work in a darkroom it was the summer of 1985. After that I sent out my film. Then digital became a reality for me in the mid 90's.

Jon.
So john what your saying is... those memories can stay in the past.

[johnstownwildfire]

That layer on DVD is mostly mechanical protection (abrasion). Chemical vapors do pass thru solid things all the time. That is why helium balloons no longer rise, or why salt water migrates into the fiberglass laminate hull in boats which spend all year in the water!
The question is do we have a medium on which we can save our pictures, data etc. at a price we can aford? People often say that one should back up their data ever 2 years. Look at hard drives some people really think that it will last forever on that hard drive.

[johnstownwildfire]

Hard disks aren't as foolproof as you think. Personally I'll go with blu-ray when that arrives and stick with DVDs for now.
so what is blu-ray

[johnstownwildfire]

<thinking aloud> Perhaps manually developing film helps people to understand the process of photography more, and this in turn helps their digital post processing.
Good way of thinking, or think of this how many people today use a digital slr and have never used a 35mm?

[Wilt]

The question is do we have a medium on which we can save our pictures, data etc. at a price we can aford? People often say that one should back up their data ever 2 years. Look at hard drives some people really think that it will last forever on that hard drive.

Magnetics is the only truly proven recording media. The rest is speculative, based primarily on accelerated testing rather than the true passage of time. If a hard drive is turned only only to spin up the drive and back up data to it, or retrieve a copy of its archival data, the MTBF clock is not ticking while it is sitting totally idle with no power running to its motor. A network harddrive (using 10/100 baseT) are the closest thing we have today today to something which matters not about the motherboard bus structure nor the ever-evolving standards in hardddrive controller interfaces (a new one about every 4 years, if you use the past 20 as in indicator!)

[johnstownwildfire]

Magnetics is the only truly proven recording media. The rest is speculative, based primarily on accelerated testing rather than the true passage of time. If a hard drive is turned only only to spin up the drive and back up data to it, or retrieve a copy of its archival data, the MTBF clock is not ticking while it is sitting totally idle with no power running to its motor. A network harddrive (using 10/100 baseT) are the closest thing we have today today to something which matters not about the motherboard bus structure nor the ever-evolving standards in hardddrive controller interfaces (a new one about every 4 years, if you use the past 20 as in indicator!)
We talk about preservin gour pictures etc. the movie industry is still concerned about preserving current films, sure they last longer but the term longer means nothing when your talking 100's of years. It is sad how many movies from 4' 50's and now even the 60's are falling apart. The same can be said of pictures, if we really want to preserve that one good picture, what does one do. Here a dark room can't help you too much, can a computer do the trick

[Wilt]

We talk about preservin gour pictures etc. the movie industry is still concerned about preserving current films, sure they last longer but the term longer means nothing when your talking 100's of years. It is sad how many movies from 4' 50's and now even the 60's are falling apart. The same can be said of pictures, if we really want to preserve that one good picture, what does one do. Here a dark room can't help you too much, can a computer do the trick

A modern Vista computer with a PCI bus and EIDE controller will do nothing to read data stored on an ST-506 harddrive whose controller only fits a 16-bit ISA bus from a computer 20 years ago! That exemplifies the mechanical problem of retrieving digital data, where the evolving physical specs (bus) and electrical specs (harddrive interface) and even O/S support of old hardware is questionable with the passage of time. Yes, computers permit us to scan films and store them digitally remastered with freshened colors (or colorized B&W films), but the data retrieval 20 years from now is still an issue that too few even consider because they haven't been on this earth long enough to see data unretrievable after 20 years! We assume data is readable when companies that invented the data recording are no longer in existence...has anyone wondered about the major corporations in the 70's who had all their correspondence written onto Wang Co. word processors with proprietary Wang document format, and they needed to retrieve the data today to settle someone's estate???

[rhys]

A modern Vista computer with a PCI bus and EIDE controller will do nothing to read data stored on an ST-506 harddrive whose controller only fits a 16-bit ISA bus from a computer 20 years ago! That exemplifies the mechanical problem of retrieving digital data, where the evolving physical specs (bus) and electrical specs (harddrive interface) and even O/S support of old hardware is questionable with the passage of time. Yes, computers permit us to scan films and store them digitally remastered with freshened colors (or colorized B&W films), but the data retrieval 20 years from now is still an issue that too few even consider because they haven't been on this earth long enough to see data unretrievable after 20 years! We assume data is readable when companies that invented the data recording are no longer in existence...has anyone wondered about the major corporations in the 70's who had all their correspondence written onto Wang Co. word processors with proprietary Wang document format, and they needed to retrieve the data today to settle someone's estate???

I have disks with unusable data. When PCs went from 16 to 32 bits most data was lost. Example - I have a series of WordStar Pro 4 documents that I cannot read. Aside from the fact they're on 5.25" floppy disks (can't get the disk drives any more), the document format is unreadable by most modern computers.

[johnstownwildfire]

I have disks with unusable data. When PCs went from 16 to 32 bits most data was lost. Example - I have a series of WordStar Pro 4 documents that I cannot read. Aside from the fact they're on 5.25" floppy disks (can't get the disk drives any more), the document format is unreadable by most modern computers.
You only wish they would com eup with one standard for everyone to go by but that many never happen. They have one medium type but like you guys said they have different programs for placing the data on the disk.
Maybe the darkroom will make a come bak just for this reason

[SkipD]

A modern Vista computer with a PCI bus and EIDE controller will do nothing to read data stored on an ST-506 harddrive whose controller only fits a 16-bit ISA bus from a computer 20 years ago! That exemplifies the mechanical problem of retrieving digital data, where the evolving physical specs (bus) and electrical specs (harddrive interface) and even O/S support of old hardware is questionable with the passage of time. Yes, computers permit us to scan films and store them digitally remastered with freshened colors (or colorized B&W films), but the data retrieval 20 years from now is still an issue that too few even consider because they haven't been on this earth long enough to see data unretrievable after 20 years! We assume data is readable when companies that invented the data recording are no longer in existence...has anyone wondered about the major corporations in the 70's who had all their correspondence written onto Wang Co. word processors with proprietary Wang document format, and they needed to retrieve the data today to settle someone's estate???Solution 1: Keep a working computer from each basic hardware generation stored in a place where it won't be affected by magnetic fields, mold, mice, etc.

Solution 2: As you upgrade computers from one hardware generation to another, figure out a way to transfer the data right then and there from the old generation to the new. Figure out a way to connect computers of different generations to each other for future data recovery from old hardware.

Of course, if someone forgot to do either of these 20 years ago, they are S.O.L. :rolleyes:.

[Wilt]

Solution 1: Keep a working computer from each basic hardware generation stored in a place where it won't be affected by magnetic fields, mold, mice, etc.

A. You have space to do that?!

Solution 2: As you upgrade computers from one hardware generation to another, figure out a way to transfer the data right then and there from the old generation to the new. Figure out a way to connect computers of different generations to each other for future data recovery from old hardware.

Nice idea, if the connectivity exists. But just as it was not typical for PCs from 25 years ago to have network connectivity, it just might be that the computers 25 years into the future have some other incompatible network connectivity, about 4 generation past the 802g standard of today!


Of course, if someone forgot to do either of these 20 years ago, they are S.O.L. :rolleyes:.

Even if you remember, sometimes you are SOL anyway, or close to it. For example, take the Iomega ZIP disks that used to plug into parallel ports or into SCSI ports...whaddatheygot for connectivity now?!

[tonylong]

Nice idea, if the connectivity exists. But just as it was not typical for PCs from 25 years ago to have network connectivity, it just might be that the computers 25 years into the future have some other incompatible network connectivity, about 4 generation past the 802g standard of today!

...

Even if you remember, sometimes you are SOL anyway, or close to it. For example, take the Iomega ZIP disks that used to plug into parallel ports or into SCSI ports...whaddatheygot for connectivity now?!

I'd say you're being a touch paranoid:)!

I'd surmise that anyone who values their photographs would have resolved all such issues well before dumping their outdated systems. I've heard people promoting this "concern" for years...I suspect that a number of people promoting such arguments are people who loved their film photography and are feeling a bit cranky about this new-fangled digital technology stuff:).

But, what I think is a valid concern is what would happen if I, who have not just photographs of value to me, but photographs of value to my family and others, should suddenly pass away or have some other really debilitating thing happen to me? Would these valuable photos be locked up in a password-protectd system, out of reach for my heirs? They'd have to resort to some way of "breaking in" to my hard drive -- time-consuming and expensive to have someone do this.

I really wouldn't want to put my loved ones through that. This is one compelling argument to back your library up onto at least one hard drive, as well as DVDs (and to tell your heirs about it).

[goforphoto]

There are no right or wrong answers to this question. Digital files if kept in digital format will have to be converted to what ever new medium arises to keep them safe, and we all know what the quality is with a copy of a copy of a copy. Printing images on archival papers using the latest technology, and keeping them in a climate controlled room away from UV-rays will insure about 100 years of safe keeping but how many of us have access to that type of storage?

[tonylong]

There are no right or wrong answers to this question. Digital files if kept in digital format will have to be converted to what ever new medium arises to keep them safe, and we all know what the quality is with a copy of a copy of a copy. Printing images on archival papers using the latest technology, and keeping them in a climate controlled room away from UV-rays will insure about 100 years of safe keeping but how many of us have access to that type of storage?


??? Making a digital copy does not degrade the copy! You certainly run the risk of corrupting the copy, which is why you don't want to go "cheap" with things like DVDs, but if you verify your copy you should do fine! Damage to the medium is the biggest danger, and reason to have more than one backup of your library.

[Wilt]

I'd say you're being a touch paranoid:)!

I'd surmise that anyone who values their photographs would have resolved all such issues well before dumping their outdated systems. I've heard people promoting this "concern" for years...I suspect that a number of people promoting such arguments are people who loved their film photography and are feeling a bit cranky about this new-fangled digital technology stuff:).

I don't fret, at the level of paranoia. But I am not blindly optimistic about continuity of data, when I already have data that is irretrievable due to both media type and due to data format type..I am merely realistic about the situation enough to warn others not to be blindly complacent!!! :) I love digital for what it permits me to easily do, that film could not so simply accomplished! But I also do not worship compressed MP3 music in lieu of commerically produced uncompressed CD music quality, either!

But, what I think is a valid concern is what would happen if I, who have not just photographs of value to me, but photographs of value to my family and others, should suddenly pass away or have some other really debilitating thing happen to me? Would these valuable photos be locked up in a password-protectd system, out of reach for my heirs? They'd have to resort to some way of "breaking in" to my hard drive -- time-consuming and expensive to have someone do this.

I really wouldn't want to put my loved ones through that. This is one compelling argument to back your library up onto at least one hard drive, as well as DVDs (and to tell your heirs about it).

In the past I, too, have pointed out both the fact that our descendents are not likely to put the thought and effort into migrating our data after we are dead. And that will result in loss of memories of us for our descendents, and to historians who extract valuable knowledge from the records that have been preserved over the ages.

[johnstownwildfire]

To eac of you who visit this site, do you think one voice can make a difference? Can all combined voices make a difference? Or does the industry (who ever the industry is) make all the calls as it applies to preserving our pictures, and how we store them? We have come from a dark room, to a world where I feel we have very little control over how we process the end means, our picture. sure we can work magic magic with it in photo shop etc. But I mean preserving the picture. Just maybe in a dark room one can feel their control over the way the picture turns out or is preserved. Som eof you folk really know your stuff and thats wonderful, but with all your knowledge, can you make a difference? It really should be a simple answer to a simple question, can we make our pictures last forever?

[johnstownwildfire]

There's just something about slipping that piece of exposed paper into the developer and watching the image appear, almost as if by magic. Digital processing is never going to be able to match that.
I think your right

[Wilt]

It really should be a simple answer to a simple question, can we make our pictures last forever?

There are too many things totally out of our control, in the quest to 'make it last forever'! The first of which is that someone who follows us on this planet has to care enough to TRY to make your photos last.

Then there are all the technical implementation hurdles...by that I mean that you are storing data on media or units which need to be supported into the future. We already have floppy disks, PC tape media, even harddrives which cannot be read in the average PC in the average consumer's office/home!

Lastly there are the physical media longevity. DVDs with organic dyes and film with organic dyes, which fade with time and which are accelerated in their fade by a number of antagonist agents.

[Liam:]

I prefer to develop film in a darkroom than sit in front of a computer and I pay good money on paper and film to do so.

p.s. I am 16 years old.

[johnstownwildfire]

I prefer to develop film in a darkroom than sit in front of a computer and I pay good money on paper and film to do so.

p.s. I am 16 years old.
God love ya!
Keep it alive...

[Wilt]

I prefer to develop film in a darkroom than sit in front of a computer and I pay good money on paper and film to do so.

p.s. I am 16 years old.

Keep it up, Liam! I can state that I get nowhere the same degree of satisfaction from working over a computer monitor in postprocessing and printing or sending a file to a commercial printer, as I do working in the darkroom, even if all methods could end up with equivalent end results.

I love digital for the low light advantages, the ease of photo manipulation, and the relative immediacy of final photos for clients, compared to traditional methods. But it isn't as satisfying to the soul!