sptI have digital pictures taken in 1995 which I can still view today, with no problems whatsoever. They’re rubbish mind you, because the camera was rubbish!
I’m sure you have. 10 years was just an arbitrary choice of time span; perhaps not the best choice! And no doubt it will remain viewable as long as the HD does not fail. My concern is data archived typically to CD and future compatibility. This may continue, it may not. It is dangerous to assume anything. Too many ‘standards’ have gone to be sure. e.g. Betamax video, 8 track cartridges, audio cassettes, leaded petrol……
Some will transfer digital images as standards change, many will not and potentially a vast number of images will be lost to the future.
Oh, and that image would be less rubbish if it had been taken on film! 😀
I have a 1982 computer upstairs that works perfectly, as does the software I ran on it. I have no doubt whatsoever that in 10 years I will be able to run Windows XP on any box I care to buy, even if only in an emulated manner, and therefore run any software I like on it…
Good point. However I, and many others, have to take a more practical view and do not have room to keep a number of computers just on the off chance the software might be needed. As hardware ages it will break down and will not be repairable or replaceable, so surely the software will not then be useable. I’ll tell you in ten years time if you can still run Windows XP, emulated or not. Once again, assumption is dangerous.
I’ve covered my point about film being an instant visual record above. That makes clear I was not referring to the speed of processing.
As the CD is only for archiving, that’s like comparing holding a box of slides up to the light rather than an individual slide…
Correct in essence, but irrelevant to the point I was making. You cannot directly view the pictures on a CD without software and hardware. You can directly view the slides; one at a time or as part of a collection if in a filing page! The CD, or the box, or the page can be called an archive. 😉
sptHi
Something to ponder
If you scan film, do you still have a film image or a diigital image?
Both!
You have the advantage of a digital file that you can edit with far more control than was ever possible in a darkroom and a back up copy of perhaps more proven archival stability, that you can scan again if needed.
sptAs a “Computer Expert” I can assure you that your digital pictures will look at least as good as they do now, in 1000 years
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!
A film image is just that; an image. Future compatibility of viewing is not an issue, although vulnerability to damage is probably equal if not greater than the vulnerability of archived digital data.
Incidentally, the instant you scan your photos into a computer you’re transferring them into the digital domain. All you are doing by using any camera (digital or analogue) is imparting the particular characteristics of that particular camera and the techniques used to take the photo into the image. Whether that is good, bad or indifferent is entirely subjective. Of course, now that it is in the digital domain means that it can be altered (either artistically positively – or rubbished) willy nilly – the original can even be retained as a source for further “enhancements”.
Well put. I can’t argue with this!
sptOn the question of images for magazine work, thats one I can answer.
Pleased to here the view of a professional user of both types of capture.
Published digitally captured images, when well done, I agree do have a certain clarity, but they also look different to film captured images and I personally do not much like that look. I still prefer the look of film.
However, many published digitally captured images do not look good to my eye. I might best describe this as a certain plastic, painted in by numbers look. Colour tones look crisp but lack tonal subtlety, while subjects sometimes look cut out and stuck on. I suspect this is due to in camera processing to produce JPEG image files. And as with film, sometimes things can go horribly wrong. The current edition of a historic aviation magazine features a title page shot of a Hurricane by a well known photographer here, that, I am sorry to say, is of terrible quality. Something obviously went very wrong in the production process. Scarcely a good advert for the new technology though.
Incidentally, I scan using VueScan, which allows a form of RAW capture. The raw scanner output can be written to file and then reprocessed through the software as required. Thus, vulnerable film frames only need to be scanned once; the raw digital data can be archived and processed later at leisure. Slow yes, but I like the control possible.
More info here
sptAh I was waiting for that one
I try not to disappoint! 😉
I think you have misinterpreted my point though. The key word is processed. I acknowledge the speed of digital capture in the way you describe and it is a significant advantage over film, if you really need it. However, speed of capture was not behind my point and is not an issue for me personally; I don’t need it.
The point I was making is that once you have the image stored, film has the advantage of being an instant visual record. Ultimately, photography is about pictures, and film gives you just that; a positive or negative image that can be viewed, if necessary, without any further need for hardware or software. If stored well, no further effort is needed to ensure future compatibility
A stored digital image is just a stream of binary data until interpreted by hardware and software and whilst it may remain possible to maintain future compatibility, this will require a continuing investment in hardware, software and time. I fear a lot of pictures will fall by the wayside and not remain accessible by future generations; perhaps sooner than might be expected. Continuing compatibility should not be assumed.
There is some pertinent information on archiving digital images, and some cautionary tales here and here
Incidentally, I agree with your comment about Kodak. However, Fuji do seem determined to stay with film alongside digital capture. I for one won’t miss Kodak film, except perhaps for T400 CN, which was discontinued for no obvious reason a while ago anyway.
sptThanks for all the input. I value everyone’s opinions here. There is a good amount to read through, so I will study it all offline in order to do justice to the trouble taken by others to post here. Replies over the next couple of days hopefully!
Ultimately, it is all about pictures regardless of how they are captured, so here are a couple more from transparency…the second is something a little unusual.
sptThanks for the input Roger S. My opinions are based upon my own personal experience, but I am open minded and happy to be convinced. Hence my seeking the input of photographers on this forum.
To specifics:
You state that your digital results are superior to your scanned film results/prints. Exactly how are they superior in your experience?
I have an archive of slides going back twenty years and there is little evidence of fading or colour shift, but perhaps I am lucky, and I am well aware that others do have such problems. However, I would also question the ability of digital images archived now to be viewed in ten years time, give the pace of advance in digital technology. There is not even a properly established standardised RAW format yet…. Even if you retain your EOS 1D RAW conversion software for ten years will it run in the then current PC environment. I think not! Adobe have the right idea in trying to establish a standard RAW format, but if universally adopted, there is already a huge backlog of proprietary RAW files that will have to be converted if the aviation photographic record alone is to be preserved. I don’t think that will generally happen.
The one thing that tends to be overlooked by digital converts is that processed film gives an instant visual record. Digital does not. Slides may suffer from colour shift; negatives may be grainy, but they can be viewed by simply holding them up to a light source. Can’t do that with a CD!
Photography of historic aviation is not just about the here and now. I believe photographers should take a long term view too. Your slides may have faded and your old negatives may be grainy, but they are a valuable historic record. No one complains about the technical inadequacies of that historic shot of the Wright brothers first flight. We are just grateful that the event was recorded. Someday no doubt, your collection of slides and negatives may be equally valuable and possibly will be revived by scanning and digital processing….. 😉
sptIf there’s one thing I have learned since acquiring a film scanner it’s just how good Kodachrome is!
Yes it is very sharp….and reportedly a good archival emulsion, so colour aviation pictures should survive well for future generations, something that is overlooked by digital exponents.
I used to shoot Kodachrome exclusively. However, a few poor processing experiences, despite paying extra for the ‘professional’ service, put me off.
I have also had rather mixed experiences scanning Kodachrome. Nikon acknowledge possible problems when scanning using infra red cleaning and even with this turned off I have occasionally encountered some strange interference(?) effects. VueScan, which I now use as my scanner driver, has a specific Kodachrome setting, but this seems to give a heavy cyan cast to scans. I get better results using non specific film settings.
Now I find its look dated compared to more modern transparency emulsions, but perhaps in keeping with the 50s, 60s and 70s aviation scene? I also wonder how much longer Kodak will produce the film, given their apparent lack of enthusiasm for film these days.
sptPosting photos on the web is probably not a fair comparsion, in order for them to be usable they need to be redused in size (both physically and file) in order to display them. In this case Digital has the advantage bacause of the speed at which it can be made ready for displaying on the web (minutes instead of days)
I agree there is an element of ‘horses for courses’ here MotF. Both methods of image capture have their place and attendant advantages and disadvantages.
The speed possible with digital capture and upload is an advantage for some purposes, but I think at the cost of quality and control from the point of view of some.
Shooting digital purely for speed and quick upload denies the possibility of creating a top quality image at a later date. Once the data is processed in camera to give a JPEG, most of the parameters that control image quality are fixed. Data is lost and the camera settings determine the look of the picture. The creation of the image is largely surrendered to the camera firmware. What you get is analogous to lab printing. The danger is that the result might not be quite what the photographer wanted and there is little that can be done about the immediate outcome. Yes, the output JPEG can be processed through in a digital imaging program, but this will only degrade image quality further. At least with film there is the opportunity to try again with a reprint; assuming of course the film was processed correctly in the first place (image loss is not confined to memory card failure!), and at the expense of time.
The RAW capture option allows the control for top quality image production, but of course loses the speed element and places digital capture more on a par with film capture. However, at least there is the option for the fast route if circumstances demand.
I also think the speed element of digital can lead to a throwaway approach to images. I find the worst time to review pictures is immediately it is possible. The passage of time cuts the emotional link with the picture capture, and makes a more objective decision about the success or otherwise of an image much easier. Two of the pictures posted above were initially rejected as failures (they may still be!), but later reappraisal showed how the elements that I thought would make the picture, could be emphasised to achieve the outcome intended. Had I captured them digitally, I doubt the originals would have survived deletion.
Pleased you liked the pictures and I look forward to playing with the toys!
sptSurely the big big bonus with digital photography is the ability for ‘average Joe’ to master the techniques of image manipulation on his on PC with modest cost by comparison. A dark room at your fingertips for free…well almost.Mark
I agree….although the ‘darkroom’ is scarcely for free! OK many homes now have a PC (or Mac, I have no bias) that was not a direct photography related purchase, but by the time the cost of software, a photo quality printer and possibly a scanner or two is factored in, the cost is much the same as for a basic darkroom set up. The real benefit is the convenience and as you rightly point out the ability to produce prints that rival, or better, those obtainable from typical commercial outlets, and without the wait, and with the option to have a commercial colour print made from a digital file if needed.
Excellent results from film are possible via the scanning film and digital route too. This is the reason I went this way with colour photography. Experience in black and white darkroom working showed me what was possible and consequently, buying commercial colour processing and printing was very frustrating. Put simply, I rarely got what I wanted; printing was often of poor technical quality (machine printing typically needs machine minders, not photographers!) and at best a compromise. By using film and scanning, I get the distinct look of a film image, a ‘hard copy’ of some recognised archival permanence and a print as I want it to look. The real additional benefit of course, is that the control possible over the colour digital image making process far exceeds that possible in a colour darkroom.
I will post a couple of aviation pictures to support my argument when the image posting problems here are resolved.
I see the problems are fixed now. I will post pictures later today….
sptDoes anyone know of a safe method to clean dirt etc off of negs and slides?
This is probably not quite what you want to hear, but the easiest solution is to keep the negatives and transparencies as clean as possible in the first place by proper storage. Failing that, I use one of those lens cleaning puffer brushes to dislodge loose dust and the cans of compressed air sold for lens cleaning do a similarly efficient job for dry dust.
Other marks, such as grease, can sometimes be removed from the non emulsion side of film with a cleaning fluid. On the rare occasions I find this necessary, I use a soft microfibre lens cloth dampened with a lens cleaning fluid from the local opticians. It works for me, but try it at your own risk! I believe there is a cleaning fluid marketed specifically for film, but I cannot remember by whom (possibly Tetenal?). Try an enquiry to one of the more specialist photographic suppliers that advertise in the photo press.
Do not try to clean the emulsion side of film beyond removing loose dust. In this instance software cleaning options, or cloning after scanning, are the only solutions.
Hope this is of some help Tilleydog.
sptThanks for the input APG and Robbo. I look forward to some comparative test shots Robbo.
sptThe 1DS2’s street price is actually nearer £5K than £6K.
£5000 or £6000, this is still a lot of money for a 35mm style camera that will be quickly superseded and for most users will not be used to its full capability. In all honesty, how often do you print larger than A4?
Personally, I rarely print even that large. A smaller well presented image works just as well, if not better, if it is to be passed around for appreciation. I find it difficult to take in the whole of an image bigger than A5 held in the hand. Hence the popularity of the typical 6×4 or 7×5 enprint?
Large images only really work well in the context of being hung for display. Then the distance at which they are viewed allows better appreciation of the whole, but possibly negates the need for the finesse of detail reproduction that the 1DS2 apparently yields.
And image appeal is not always about absolute technical quality……
sptThe current 1DS2 is widely regarded as superior even to medium format film:
I have looked at the Luminous Landscape articles on the 1DS2 but I admit not to having had time to read and digest the information thoroughly. However, I have gleaned enough to consider the information to be very persuasive and well argued by someone who certainly knows his photography; but what the article does not assert is that the 1DS2 is superior to Medium format film quality. The relevant phrase in the conclusion is:
“And, easily challenging medium format film quality.”
That I would go with, because in terms of lack of grain it certainly does challenge medium format film quality…..
I also agree with the outlined concept of measurable and perceivable image superiority. I have grown up with film and used film for many years. I like the image quality that film gives. To me it remains perceivably superior to any digital images that I have seen, but maybe I have not seen the best that is possible? From what I have seen, I consider that the average amateur photographer is being seduced by digital camera technology. A great deal of money is being spent to achieve image quality that is certainly no better than that obtainable for film, and in my experience often worse. Reviews in the reputable photo press often concur with that opinion, especially with regard to the money that ‘film comparable’ digital cameras cost.
What matters of course is the image. If you (and your clients) are happy with the quality of image and print enlargements that digital gives you, for the investment in equipment you have made, then great. It is right for you.
My perspective is different. I can obtain images that meet my personal quality criteria by scanning film. Yes, this is more time consuming and arguably needs a better knowledge of digital techniques than the digital capture route, but I like the control it gives me; I have a darkroom background after all. All I require is a small portfolio of quality images and I as yet see no need to spend money on a digital camera when a film camera gives me as good a result.
One further point is different film types have different qualities. Fuji Velvia is very different from Fuji Provia, which are different again from Fuji Reala. Scanning film allows these qualities to be easily retained and exploited, a further perceivable advantage of film for me. No doubt these qualities can be replicated using digital capture. The saturation and colour temperature options available in camera or via RAW processing probably go some way to achieving this, but at the cost of needing highly tuned experience of colour perception and theory. This is the point that someone pops up to say that a Photoshop plug in is available to replicate colour film types! There is, after all, already one available to replicate the specific characteristics of various black and white films.
This is all getting seriously off topic now, so I’ll stop!
spt…..when the film grain is so obtrusive that your image is nothing but a mass of noise when scanned at very high res
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm is worth a look on the subject of grain on film scans. All is not quite what it seems perhaps?
Sign In
