Historic Aviation pictures: The film advantage?

Yes 121 years old, kept very well don’t you think, god knows what computors
will be like in 2126. I cant see CD disc lasting that long can you? but i might be wrong,and using old hard ware is fine till it needs repairing, not knocking
dig for pic quality just the longevity of the finished article.

Seems I’m not the only cynic out there after all. 😀

At least before 1885…

Flood

Yes 121 years old, kept very well don’t you think, god knows what computors
will be like in 2126. I cant see CD disc lasting that long can you? but i might be wrong,and using old hard ware is fine till it needs repairing, not knocking
dig for pic quality just the longevity of the finished article. 🙂
Phil.

At least before 1885…

Flood

Would Any body on here like to guess how old this pic is, a black and white
photo stuck in a book. 😀
Phil.

Great shots Roger S. 🙂

In which domain would you consider the best way of capturing extremely long distance deep space shots?

Well, if you want to take photographs of objects over huge distances, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’ll find they are all captured in the digital domain these days.

There is a reason for this – digital CAN be more sensitive than analogue, when applied in the right way. The cost of that extreme sensitivity will eventually fall and become more and more available to domestic purchasers as time goes by.

Or is this an irrelevance? Perhaps because it is the actual presentation of the image to the sensor (of either analogue or digital type) that makes the difference.

In theory yes…

However, my point was a reference to being able to read that digital data in the long term (10 years was perhaps not the best time span to select on reflection!). Yes it can be copied to new formats and/or media as required, but I think ultimately it is dangerous to assume continuing compatibility will be possible. As my son is forever reminding me, assumptions are the mother of all f*** ups!

There’s no theory in this – you will be able to read that data in 1000, 2000, 1,000,000 years if the file has been retained (analogous to throwing away the prints and negatives). Original prints and negatives WILL fade. The digital bits that go into making up a digital photograph will remain, unaltered, if stored & maybe even transferred to resilient media. There will be no problem in reading those data.

It isn’t a matter of compatibility at all, no one is ever going to throw out the baby with the bathwater, short of a truly massive nuclear war/phenomenally massive natural disaster that destroys all data storage devices and our technology completely. In which case, I would suggest that photographs will become something of a rarity in any format.

Even if the technology we use changes, there will be mechanisms in place to transfer digital images to that alternate technology storage system, and systems will be in place to present those images. There is nothing dangerous in this supposition – it revolves around practicality – there would be no way anyone would take up a non-backwards compatible storage system. The only thing that is likely to change is the amount of space required to store those images (ie considerably less), and the speed at which they can be presented (ie considerably faster).

Thanks Rob, I’ll shall advise him to have a look. I have a 17-35 and don’t think either to get the 16-36. I doubt it’s that better than the one I have (never had problems with mine) and as it’s only 1 mm wider. No. Some 13 years ago I bought a Canon 15 mm but I didn’t start using it untill I got my digital(s) with the 1.6 enlargements. It suddenly made a great wide angle and in PSP it is possible to remove the last few “curves”that remain. It’s expensive. However a company called Zemitar or Zenitar makes a 16mm fisheyye F2.8 which comes very lose to the Canon one, at only a fraction of the price. I think it is possible to get one for 50 pounds or so. Sounds like a joke, it isn’t however. The enclosed pic I took on the Canon 15 mm. Thanks for the info, BW Roger

Hi Robbo, I remember you were using a 17-40L in Hendon last year. Are you happy with it? A friend of mine just bought a Sigma 15-30 3 weeks ago and isn’t happy with it (it is the only Sigma among his other Lglass (28-70L and 100-400L). Will the 17-40L be give him an upgrade in quality , or better said, are you happy with it. He is now thinking between the 14-40L and a 17-35 F2.8L (the one I use) but that’s even 2nd hand twice the price. BW Roger

Rob,thanks for the insight. I’m in total agreement with you on this.

But guess what? I’ve found a fail safe way of archiving my photographs! Yes, a method nobody remembers in this argument (conveniently).

I print them. I turn my captured imags into photographs. And there we are, they stand a good chance of lasting. I have the exact same quality of prints made from neg, slide or digital file too.

And then….. 😉

or colour paper (which is made with dyes and dyes, as we all know, can, and do, change with time.)

Explain please why none of the stock libraries want film submissions now.

Convenience, speed, ease of transfer, all to the benefit of the bottom line. They have a business to run for profit. Digital allows profit to be maximised.

The last time I read anything of value in AP was long before I learnt about photography

Does this imply you have stopped learning about photography? 😉 I quoted this well respected author as evidence to back up a point. Always good practice, as opposed to a string of assertions lacking evidence or explanation as support. 😉

This author has an opinion, which I respect, just as you and I have opinions that obviously differ, which I respect, so further semantic sniping is pointless and will not add anything of value to this debate.

My intention in starting this thread was to provoke a reasoned exchange of opinion, which seems to have fallen by the wayside in the face of a digital is best, no argument, onslaught, in which actual evidence and explanation is sometimes lacking! And yes, I am guilty as charged in provoking and contributing to the more petty aspects of the argument. I think its known as playing devils advocate!

I am drawing the line here, in the hope that there is some information of value in the above……and with a reminder of ultimately what we all have a passion for. 🙂

Thanks for the link Snapper. It appeared while I was composing this. I will follow it up.

This is an illuminating read:

http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/technology/sensitometry/

Found it. Photo paper can hold a MAXIMUM of 4-5 stops in dynamic range. (Being able to print an image that makes full use of those stops of dynamic range without deep shadows or burnt out highlights is of course a different matter).

As an aside, and one which Ashley can verify, I recently left some Nitrate film at Duxford as it was deteriorating. Lets quantify that. 2 six inch strips had totally dissolved all the emulsion, a further had left an inch safe to keep. Apart from being flammable/explosive, the images were of no good whatsoever. They are now putting them in cold storage. Thats the extreme. I have, though, seen countless scratched and waterdamaged negatives, I’ve seen ones with fungus growing on them, and i’ve seen ones that have taken on a dense single coloured hue. Film is NOT an archival medium.

“However, it is the only way I can guarantee you will be able to look at a photograph in 50 years time, because the history of photography to date has demonstrated that photographs can survive long term: at least 100+ years.”

Oh, and that relates to fibre-based black and white photographs that have been through a 7-bath process and often toned. It doesn’t relate to resin coated (which is inferior) black and white paper through a 3 bath process (again inferior) or colour paper (which is made with dyes and dyes, as we all know, can, and do, change with time.)

I’ve had film scratched, chewed up and otherwise damaged. I’ve had it degrade from chemicals in the house. I’ve also seen it fade and change colour. Tell me – the lab that processed your negatives – did they change their stabiliser regularly? Was their bleach replensihed sufficiently? Was the fix fresh? If not you may have trouble…..

I’ve had digital files corrupt, I’ve had digital files deleted.

But guess what? I’ve found a fail safe way of archiving my photographs! Yes, a method nobody remembers in this argument (conveniently).

I print them. I turn my captured imags into photographs. And there we are, they stand a good chance of lasting. I have the exact same quality of prints made from neg, slide or digital file too.

Now.

“A DSLR would give you results that approach those of your SLR”

Fine. I’ll accept that. As nonsense. My 2 year old 10D produces more resolution and detail than my 35mm Canons do. The colour balance is more accurate than Reala correctly printed or Provia. The perceived ‘grain’ is less than on either too. I have no dust nor scratches to contend with either, and can enlarge higher. My wedding albums look superior to those of two years ago. Explain please why none of the stock libraries want film submissions now.

“Geoffrey Crawley (AP 12 February 2005)”

The last time I read anything of value in AP was long before I learnt about photography

“states that at this stage of digital capture’s evolution, the tones and colours possible can at least equal the film negative/positive process if not the reversal process.”

They exceed it, and positive and reversal are the same thing.

“Elsewhere, it is generally quoted that a good DSLR sensor has a dynamic range of 5 stops; here for example. That is the same as for transparency film.”

Which is film.

“A sunny real world scene might typically have a dynamic range of 7-8 stops and the maximum possible is 10 stops. Obviously, without careful exposure, something has to give and that is usually the highlights; be it with digital or transparency capture”

That’s been an accepted trade-off for years. If it were so bad, why does publishing demand transparency as opposed to negative?

“So digital capture has the look of negative/positive colour film with the restricted dynamic range of transparency, a good reason why it is not yet true film quality.”

It doesn’t have the look of negative/positive film at all. It has a superior look. Transparency is positive, and is therefore film. It is therefore superior to film quality (whatever that is – and which particular film emulsion is your benchmark by the way?)

Enough for now. I’ll leave you with one task. Tell me how the superior dynamic range of negative film gives you better pictures than the limited dynamic range of digital/transparency. Make sure you mention the effect of printing this first generation image onto second generation photographic paper, with the attendant loss of dynamic range, sharpness and detail. Can you print the full dynamic range of negative film onto paper? Or must we look at a inch by inch and a half orange/brown piece of plastic?

emulators mean you have no need whatsoever to actually keep hardware. Longevity of software or image formats simply isn’t an issue.

OK so how about this scenario? In 50 years time you find a CD with images written to it. It is the only means of recovering those images. How are you going to read it without the hardware? Or are you seriously suggesting that you will be able to software emulate a CD rom drive……..

Digital image capture is good in many ways; digital image storage has many advantages, but I cannot see evidence here of any serious and practical long term planning. Humans as a species are basically lazy…. It is all very well advocating software emulation and transferring data from medium to medium as newer types become available, but generally it will not happen.

Film is not the only way, or even the best way for all applications. However, it is the only way I can guarantee you will be able to look at a photograph in 50 years time, because the history of photography to date has demonstrated that photographs can survive long term: at least 100+ years.

I’ll say it again….processed film is the image. If it survives, all you have to do is take it out of storage and look at it. No compatibility issues; no hardware issues; no need for software emulation; no need for the hassle of transferring data from medium to medium, verifying that data periodically and inevitably losing some to corruption……And the evidence of the poor archival standard of current digital archiving media is emerging here already. 7 year old CDRs that are shot; 20+ year old tape cassettes that are failing. I have music cassettes that are younger than that, which are useless due to print through from being stored wound in one position for too long. I have 10 year old music CDs, which are produced by a different and arguably longer lasting process than home burnt CD media, that are showing signs of age, despite careful storage and handling and no heavy use.

On that evidence, I would say that the potential for survival of digital media is poorer than for film and that needs careful storage for a realistic chance of suvival.

Yes, but be fair. They did a pretty good job with the last Olympics.

I understand one should also be wary of Geeks bearing gifts!

Ah, now that actually gives me a chance to demonstrate one of the disadvantages digital actually does have – dynamic range, or lack thereof.

Now this is more the response I was hoping for in starting this thread! The opportunity to mull over the pros and cons of the two types of image capture, and for all here involved in taking aviation pictures to perhaps learn something of advantage. 🙂

Geoffrey Crawley (AP 12 February 2005) states that at this stage of digital capture’s evolution, the tones and colours possible can at least equal the film negative/positive process if not the reversal process. Elsewhere, it is generally quoted that a good DSLR sensor has a dynamic range of 5 stops; here for example. That is the same as for transparency film. A sunny real world scene might typically have a dynamic range of 7-8 stops and the maximum possible is 10 stops. Obviously, without careful exposure, something has to give and that is usually the highlights; be it with digital or transparency capture.

So digital capture has the look of negative/positive colour film with the restricted dynamic range of transparency, a good reason why it is not yet true film quality.

Blown out highlights can look worse with digital capture because of how the sensor responds to luminance; at the extremes there is a definite on or off point giving a sudden jump to pure black or white. Film’s response to luminance is by chemical reaction, which tails off gradually at each extreme. The transition to pure black or white is smoother and more perceptually acceptable.

Either way, the real problem is how to capture the dynamic range of the scene convincingly and without loosing highlight detail. This is done by appropriate exposure and post capture or scan processing. The well known rule for transparency exposure is ‘expose for the highlights’, while for digital capture it might be thought to be the same, but is in fact more usually quoted as ‘expose right’. This is fully
explained here It works for scanning too.

I would suggest that the better metallic look in my shot is because of films ability to render fine tonal distinctions more accurately than digital capture, especially transparency film, and due to careful post scan editing. I multi-pass scan to yield the equivalent of 14 bits per channel colour data and then carry out all but minor adjustments in 16 bit mode. Something similar could be achieved from a DSLR by using RAW format capture and exporting this, via Camera Raw or similar, in 16 bit mode. I also use various other well publicised techniques to boost apparent dynamic range and to mask contrast, with the aim of a more perceptually pleasing tone distribution.

Incidentally, and this is intended as a constructive observation, I notice that when your image is imported into Photoshop, there is a marked shift in contrast and saturation; both increase to the improvement (I think) of the picture. Could it be that your original was left in the Adobe RGB colour space when saved for web use? I had a similar problem, until I realised that web browsers assume an sRGB colour space and do not recognise ICC profiles. It took two years to work that one out! 😮 However, I stand to be corrected on this observation.

So my preferences are:
For convenience, ease of use, and lower cost – my little digitals
For quality – my old SLR.

Sorry I overlooked the courtesy of a reply.

MotF has already ably covered much that I might have said and I would endorse his comments. It really is an issue of cost. A DSLR would give you results that approach those of your SLR, if you like the look of digitally captured images (I do not, as you might have gathered!). If you are content with the quality pictures that your SLR gives you, that is a very good reason to stick with it. A digital compact is the equivalent of a film compact in terms of quality. It is designed for convenience and ease of use at a price, as a trade off against out and out image quality.

Yeah, that’s nice innit?
They’ve had a terrible time.

Yes, but be fair. They did a pretty good job with the last Olympics.