To all digital photographers of historic aviation.

I would rather my archives went to a ‘trusted individual’ whom I have known for a long time and who shares my interests in aviation and archiving.

Are these archives on film or digital/digitised?

Moggy

Slightly off topic (and possibly posted before so apologies if it has!), but M$ now have a download available for XP to allow viewing of RAW images as thumbnails, etc in the same way as other images can be.

Might be of use to some (it certainly makes it easier to pic which RAW images you want to post process….)

Microsoft RAW Image Thumbnailer and Viewer for Windows XP

Yes, it does apply to the D2x 🙂 as I’ve found out after getting my D2x last week and installing the Nikon software. I expect the same thing will apply to the D50.

Came across the following on the Nikon web site (http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikoneurope_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=10135&p_created=1084899483&p_sid=K6ZLpSIh&p_lva=10135&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MyZwX3Byb2RzPTQyLDQ1JnBfY2F0cz0wJnBfcHY9Mi40NSZwX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9cGx1Z2lu&p_li=&p_topview=1) ; anyone know if this applies to the D2X and the now released D50?

During the installation of Nikon Capture, Nikon View or PicturProject software, the Nikon installer will check your system for an installed copy of Adobe Photoshop. If a compatible version is found then the Nikon software will install the Nikon NEF plug-in filter which will allow Photoshop to open Nikon NEF (Raw) files.
This plug-in allows the white balance and exposure compensation to be performed on the raw data contained in a NEF file before the image is opened in to Photoshop. If the Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in is installed after this (optional in Photoshop 7, included in Photoshop CS and Elements 3) the Nikon NEF plugin will still be used to open NEF files in preference to the Adobe Plug-in.

So? try this logical statement: ‘Some aviation enthusiasts are idiots, but it does not follow that all are idiots or none are to be trusted.’ If you chose to rule out all museums because some museums don’t adhere to the standard you think, it’s your choice. Your alternative is hardly better.

And your response to Roger S’ point about the Piercy collection is equally hollow. Apropriate organisations can, and do, manage collections, perfectly well. You sound like the person who has had a few bad experiences and wont trust anyone ever again.

You’ve chosen not to select a museum, or archive, but to rely on market forces. You have every right to do as you please, but don’t come up with illogical hollow arguments to support your choice here – it won’t do! 😉

Yes, I stated this does not apply to ALL museums, but a couple whose archives I have visited for research purposes left a lot to be desired!
I would rather my archives went to a ‘trusted individual’ whom I have known for a long time and who shares my interests in aviation and archiving.

Yes right, I HAVE ruled out the museums as I have seen what happens to photo collections left to some museums! I am not going to name any particular museum, but some certainly don’t know how to look to look after colour slide or negative collections, let alone catalogue and archive them! You think these are trustworthy organisations, but not all are geared up to accept and look after such collections.

So? try this logical statement: ‘Some aviation enthusiasts are idiots, but it does not follow that all are idiots or none are to be trusted.’ If you chose to rule out all museums because some museums don’t adhere to the standard you think, it’s your choice. Your alternative is hardly better.

And your response to Roger S’ point about the Piercy collection is equally hollow. Apropriate organisations can, and do, manage collections, perfectly well. You sound like the person who has had a few bad experiences and wont trust anyone ever again.

You’ve chosen not to select a museum, or archive, but to rely on market forces. You have every right to do as you please, but don’t come up with illogical hollow arguments to support your choice here – it won’t do! 😉

It’s not strange at all.

RAW is, as the name suggests, the raw data from the sensor. For different manufacturers to use a common data format would require common sensors. This will simply never happen.

As I’ve said already, the best that can be expected is for them to adopt a common format for wrapping up the data. Commercially I don’t see a great deal of point in anyone being first to do even that. People whining on the internet are usually a tiny proportion of the customer base.

Damien, at last some one who understands the post that started this thread. However I would think that you are both right and wrong with your last sentence. From my research into Digital Cameras, as I’m about to dip into the digital field as soon as I have used up the last of my stock of Fujichrome, and from my position as an IT engineer for a bank, it bothers me what Nikon has done encrypting it,s white balance and rules them out immediately from my shortlist. It does not bother the average photographer as they invariably allow the camera to process the photo’s they take into JPEGs and so this whole RAW issue is for them a non issue. And as a proportion of the user base those that let the camera do everything must be at least 99%, if not 99.9%.

However for those of us that are serious amateurs and for the professional community it is an issue. And of the remaining 1% who do shoot RAW and put in the effort to do their known processing I believe a majority of this community are becoming concerned at the trend that Nikon has started. So it depends how you look at the stats.

Think of it this way. Back in the film days how many had an enlarger and processed their own E6 then printed the best shots to cibachrome. Less than 1 % I bet. Remember Kodachrome, you had to send the film to Kodak for processing, no push processing or any other control. Although it was (still is) an excellent film, its not the best any more or the most popular. Kodak however gave us a choice, and Ektachrome was there for those who craved total control. Or you used Agfa or Fuji. I view what Nikon has done as similar to Kadachrome, but with out the choice of any other film in your camera.

There are currently 5 different sensor types for DSLR’s out in the Market. There is a very good test in one of the current camera mags for those interested. There will never be a common format for RAW, it’s not that type of file. It’s the unprocessed raw data captured by the sensor. You chose to let the camera write this to the card or you allow it to develop this data and present you with a file that is a recognised std. For those looking for artistic control the later course is not satisfactory.

Now if I could just find a DSLR that’s going to be as reliable as my Olympus OM’s have been. Any suggestions?. OM1 purchased 1975, OM2 1980, OM4 1984, and Zero visits to the repair shop. A hard act to follow I think. 🙂

just playing devil’s advocate here Albert. 😉

There’s no . You’ve ruled out almost all museums for a start, and they provide the best access for the most – it’s their job. Your stuff, your choice, just don’t gild the lily.

Yes right, I HAVE ruled out the museums as I have seen what happens to photo collections left to some museums! I am not going to name any particular museum, but some certainly don’t know how to look to look after colour slide or negative collections, let alone catalogue and archive them! You think these are trustworthy organisations, but not all are geared up to accept and look after such collections. 🙁

All very laudible Albert.
Of course you make the assumption that your good lady outlives you.
What happens if she goes first?
Any kids???

If not the local council operative that clears Ross towers after the neighbours complain about the smell might have a field day.
It’s a thought innit???
Andy

PS. Me personally I don’t care because a) I’m a cr*p photographer and b) I carry all my best memories around with me in my Mk.I brain. Certainly not infallible but it’ll last long enough for my requirements.

Well Andy, I was just generalising on life expectancy. Women in general live longer than men and on top of that, Mrs. Ross is a lovely young filly 12 years younger than yours truly! :rolleyes: If she goes first, then at least I will be able to enjoy my collection in peace for a little longer and my son is an enthusiast, so he’ll have all my stuff! 😉

Do you remember Stephan Piercey, one of the best photographers I have known? 20 years ago, after he died in a crash in Germany, his legacy was auctioned or better said, his slides were sold to everybody interested. Now his propliner slides collection can be found all over the world, a few here, a few there. It should have been better if the Piercey collection should have been kept intact, as one piece. As a fact, it didn’t, and every now and then his pics turn up in the mags, sometimes credited with its name, but most of the time, some looser puts his own name under the pic, which I see as an insult to say at least. Collections should be kept as a collection. BW Roger

That’s impossible to stop happening! Even if a collection was sold altogether, what’s to stop the buyer selling/distributing them all over the world? With the original photographer no longer around to claim photos as his, only those that recognise his photos will know the name credit is wrong! 🙁

Do you remember Stephan Piercey, one of the best photographers I have known? 20 years ago, after he died in a crash in Germany, his legacy was auctioned or better said, his slides were sold to everybody interested. Now his propliner slides collection can be found all over the world, a few here, a few there. It should have been better if the Piercey collection should have been kept intact, as one piece. As a fact, it didn’t, and every now and then his pics turn up in the mags, sometimes credited with its name, but most of the time, some looser puts his own name under the pic, which I see as an insult to say at least. Collections should be kept as a collection. BW Roger

It depends whether you think you have something that not many others have, like 1950s & 60s top quality original slides! My collection will NOT be ‘taken to the local charity shop in a cardboard box’ as Mrs. Ross knows they are worth more than that and ‘my little world’ will be auctioned off to the highest bidder at a well-known auction house specialising in aviation and transport memorabilia. This will ensure that (a) Mrs Ross is taken care of and gets the best deal and that (b) my archives go to someone that really wants them and appreciates them for future generations to see.

just playing devil’s advocate here Albert. 😉

There’s no connection with being able to pay best price on the day and “someone that really wants them and appreciates them for future generations to see”. None. Auctions have many merits, but sensible distribution of goods to the right people at the right price for all concerned… Well, I’d like you to propose that idea in an auction house and watch the poker faces crack.

While the intent to provide for Mrs Ross is laudiable through this method (although I’m sure it’s not your only legacy) but please don’t convince yourself that it’s a meriticious selection method. You’ve ruled out almost all museums for a start, and they provide the best access for the most – it’s their job. Your stuff, your choice, just don’t gild the lily.

It depends whether you think you have something that not many others have, like 1950s & 60s top quality original slides! My collection will NOT be ‘taken to the local charity shop in a cardboard box’ as Mrs. Ross knows they are worth more than that and ‘my little world’ will be auctioned off to the highest bidder at a well-known auction house specialising in aviation and transport memorabilia. This will ensure that (a) Mrs Ross is taken care of and gets the best deal and that (b) my archives go to someone that really wants them and appreciates them for future generations to see. If you have something worth preserving, I suggest you ensure its continued existance, as it is vital that aviation history is preserved. I have heard too many horror stories about stuff being ‘dumped’ in skips and similar places after their owner’s demise! The biggest culprits are the aircraft manufacturers!
Of course, it all depends on whether you think your collection is fairly unique or just another load of poor quality ‘snaps’ that no one else will want and only you can appreciate for what they are! ‘Horses for courses’?

All very laudible Albert.
Of course you make the assumption that your good lady outlives you.
What happens if she goes first?
Any kids???

If not the local council operative that clears Ross towers after the neighbours complain about the smell might have a field day.
It’s a thought innit???
Andy

PS. Me personally I don’t care because a) I’m a cr*p photographer and b) I carry all my best memories around with me in my Mk.I brain. Certainly not infallible but it’ll last long enough for my requirements.

Good point Septic.
I think we tend to make the rather pretentious assumption that what we do is worth preserving.
Chances are, after our demise our little World will be chucked in a cardboard box and taken down the local charity shop.
So enjoy it while you’re here.
Andy.
PS Septic, I need to PM you on an entirely different matter.

It depends whether you think you have something that not many others have, like 1950s & 60s top quality original slides! My collection will NOT be ‘taken to the local charity shop in a cardboard box’ as Mrs. Ross knows they are worth more than that and ‘my little world’ will be auctioned off to the highest bidder at a well-known auction house specialising in aviation and transport memorabilia. This will ensure that (a) Mrs Ross is taken care of and gets the best deal and that (b) my archives go to someone that really wants them and appreciates them for future generations to see. If you have something worth preserving, I suggest you ensure its continued existance, as it is vital that aviation history is preserved. I have heard too many horror stories about stuff being ‘dumped’ in skips and similar places after their owner’s demise! The biggest culprits are the aircraft manufacturers!
Of course, it all depends on whether you think your collection is fairly unique or just another load of poor quality ‘snaps’ that no one else will want and only you can appreciate for what they are! ‘Horses for courses’?

A question spt, who is actually going to want to take care of all these images when we pass away. The general nature of my own personal collection of aircraft images will not I’m sure be of interest to many. I know from personal experience how difficult it is to present an item (non photographic) into the care of a National museum.
A good friend of mine passed away a short while back and his personal collection of aircraft and airshow photographs dating back to the early sixties was offered free of charge to a well know archive but was declined.
So what are we to do with these carefully stored images beyond our own personal use.
Personally I feel these vast collections of images should be handed down to young enthusiasts who can enjoy them as much as we did. Otherwise as Roger said they will end up as garbage.
Septic.

Good point Septic.
I think we tend to make the rather pretentious assumption that what we do is worth preserving.
Chances are, after our demise our little World will be chucked in a cardboard box and taken down the local charity shop.
So enjoy it while you’re here.
Andy.
PS Septic, I need to PM you on an entirely different matter.

Many thanks for the tip. I see that their price equation, incl delivery, is much the same as my Maplin example, but the bigger capacity options are amazing, some even including integrated card readers. There really is no reason to mess with discs!

Try Overclockers instead. I got a 250 Gb LaCie external HDD for £117. Works well and looks pretty nifty too.

Raw

Hi

Why not try it?

I’ve certainly found it better when the light’s fading, it seems to retain far more detail in the shadows. Any areas of a single colour (particularly red) come out much much better in RAW, the best example I have of this is the spinner on IAC161 which looked crap in a JPG but lovely in a 16 bit TIFF derived from a RAW image. They scale up a great deal better too.

The downside is, of course, space and the time taken to save the blighters. However, you’ve got a tool that can save RAW as fast as the proverbial rat out of the proverbial pipe, so why not use the full capability of your camera? I clearly remember phoning you from East Kirkby after filling a 2Gb card in a very short time saying “sod RAW”, but I’ve had chance to experiment since and I’m convinced that the results are better. I’ve tried it on the 10D and you can quite frankly forget about capturing RAW at a reasonable shooting rate because it can’t keep up.

Rob

Since I got the 20D, I have had to eat my words with raw. I now use it a lot,. The speed at which the camera takes and saves to the card is much much faster than my D60. I now only use jpeg when I need a lot of photos in a hurry. You do though need more card space, but as they are now so cheap it’s not a prob. I find that the results using raw are much better and it’s no more time at the PC if you process using a batch programme.

As for storage, I bet this same thread came up when 35mm first hit the traps. Store it well and all will be well, don’t and you will have aproblem.

See you all in July!!!!!!

You should see some of the transparencies that I shot 25 years ago on Agfa film.

And as for the ones my father shot in the 1960s…… 🙁

The problem isn’t just confined to digital.

It’s all to do with storage and how you look after them! The colour slides took 40 years ago on Agfachrome and Kodachrome are as good as the day I shot them, simply because they have been kept in a centrally-heated rooms and in archival-friendly plastic sheets (not the cheap plastic ring-binder sheets commonly used). I was in Hong Kong for two years and sent everything back to UK for storage immediate they were processed as I knew the humidity would cause a fungal growth on slides. Damp and dust are the biggest enemies of slides.I wonder if storage conditions affect digital images?

The LaCie drive looks good at the price- thanks! Less sure about the caddie as its for a 2.5″ HDD and they can be pricey. I do use a caddie with out fan for a 250GB IDE drive, but it gets light use ’cause I’m just not that confident in it.

A good friend of mine passed away a short while back and his personal collection of aircraft and airshow photographs dating back to the early sixties was offered free of charge to a well know archive but was declined.

Septic.[/QUOTE]

With me the situation is different. The museum (the big one overhere) was/is realy happy to receive my photographic collection ( and 2 other collections I have) when I am gone. To be honest, it was their own idea. So, I know it is safe. I know severall collections of 10.000nds of pics and negatives, some starting as early as in the 1930ties, which were dumped by the family or who ever took charge, and ended into large carbage containers, even before the person who took them, were burried. Sometimes things go very fast. I know that the entire private collection of aviation related items of a former director of an aviation museum were dumped right after his death. The family had no idea that it might be of interest for the museum he worked so long for. So, in my opinion, this is much more a danger than the fact that RAWs will be difficult to read in times to be.

BW Roger