Archival Quality: 20 Year Old CDs Disintegrates In Denmark.

[matt5791]

People are going to loose shed loads of their photographic memories because of digital cameras.

Most people will not bother or will put off archiving the files in a proper organised manner loads of stuff will be lost / accidently wiped, etc.

- and all this well before the problems of outdated software and hardware set in too.

I really think that, to an extent, we have a case of the Emperor's new clothes when anything digital, but especially where digital photography is concerned. "Digital" is the buzz word - if it is digitlal it must be good or better than something that is not digital.

Like the emperor, people just believe it.

I am guilty of it. I advertise that our Self Storage facility has digitally recorded CCTV - people love it

Matt

[Angus]

Digital has been a buzz word for so long now...

yeah we have a digitally stored CCTV system at the school where I work. Stores the images simultaneously from 8 cameras on one DAT tape....so compressed you couldn't recognise anybody even if an intruder was recorded on the system. Oh and recorded at about 4fps too. nothing wrong with the cameras, a live feed from the cam at the main enterance exhibits fine picture quality. I once rigged up an old B&W security cam on the top floor, hooked it up to an old VHS machine and took close-ups of people passing through the gates to prove a point...."but it's old, it's analogue" they said...

Digital has been a buzz word ever since CDs became popular...before that it was "turbo"...suddenly every vacuum cleaner was turbocharged, the most ridiculously small cars had turbo engines....but nothing has taken over people's tiny minds as much as the misconception that anything "digital" is somehow better than something that doesn't have that moniker attached.

I see digital photography has a genuine place in news journalism, where images must be quickly readied for publication...perhaps in sending emails or publishing to the web (though quality here is usually greatly improved by scanning a film print or slide). But for taking and keeping precious memories, it has no place whatsoever.

[Angus]

This is one of the reasons I am hesitant to dive into digital photography. Digital cameras may well last a long time,

I doubt it...everybody I know with one has had to replace it within 3 years because it broke down. There is one exception, the school where I work has one about 6 years old, never been off the premises and is only used rarely (640x480 max resolution so extremely rarely now) and stored carefully when not in use.

Think back to computers 20 years ago, totally incompatible with
today's.

On the other hand, I can "upgrade" my ancient film cameras every time a new emulsion comes out...

Quite so. I remember circa 1988 Goldring (or one of the big stylus manufacturers) using the slogan "Buy a £200 CD player and you need a new record collection. Spend £200 on our new cartridge and you'll already have one"

People talk about "value for money" in a £250 digicam which will be obsolete in 5 years time, if it still functions at all.

I say, "what about a 50 year old Zeiss-Ikon 120 rollfilm camera which has recorded thousands of priceless images and still produces pictures more true to life than your new digicam?"

[synthnut]

Hia,
Wandering dangerously close to the off topic boundary....
A similar thing happend in synthesisers (hey, my handle's synthnut - enough said) Analogue synths (the first kind around) became totally out of style with the "must keep ahead of the Jones'" types in the latter part of the eighties. Many got chucked out or could be pickd up for next to nothing. Guess what? It all turned around after about ten years and if you have an old Moog, Arp or EMS etc in your loft, dig it out as it's probably worth more now that it was new. (quick, try and draw it back on-topic...)
Digital obviously has it's place in the world of fast turnarounds and electronic distribution (i.e. taking that picture of FILM kit to put on Eb*y etc!!!) But digital hype is just a marketing ploy gone haywire and it's going to leave a nasty hole in a lot of poeples memories when they don't have anything to share with the grand-kids etc...

Keep exposing those silver-halide crystals on linear polymer strips...

Ben

[Splee]

I say, "what about a 50 year old Zeiss-Ikon 120 rollfilm camera which has recorded thousands of priceless images and still produces pictures more true to life than your new digicam?"

Amen to that, brother!

With a roll of high quality modern film in it, that camera will produce images far superior now to those it produced when it was new!

I have a 41 year old Kiev 4 that produces fabulous images, especially on K64...

Compare that to digital cameras with a completely hard-wired CCD. You can't take advantage of emerging technology without dumping the whole camera...whereas even totally ancient film cameras can take advantage of cutting edge film developments, as long as the format remains supported.

Lee

[Taqi]

"must keep ahead of the Jones'"

Would that be the Howard Jones?


Sorry.

[greenplastic79]

A couple years ago a paid $160 for a 2.0 megapixel digital camera. My hard drive took a crap and I lost some pictures and camera ready artwork that I wish I hadn't. I like how far money can go with older film equipment.

Nizo S800 $50
Nazi Praktica SRL 35mm $20
Super 8 Projector $15
35mm Slide Projector $6

Not having to worry about
the blue screen of death $priceless