Digital BW, The Print

Not so WRONGO, Peter

So, you're telling me - and everybody else - that it will be easier for 
my heirs or whoever get their hands on my work - that it will be easier 
to scan several hundred thousand images - present count - rather than 
transfer the stuff from one system to another?

I presume that the technology will be "advancing" and it will be easier 
and easier to move from one storage media to another - and what fits on 
100 DVD's now will soon fit on one - etc., etc.,

As for floppies - as  a Mac user I left that stuff behind years and 
years ago -and yes - I do have a few hundred floppies laying around 
full or useless old programs and stuff - BUT - all my work is easily 
accessible on DVD and hard drives - and if you did read my postings you 
should have picked up on that I store copies on both DVD and hard 
drives . And I am a Mac user so it again doesn't get obsolete so 
quickly - but - all DVD's are burned for cross platform access.

Somehow I don't think it will be so quickly obsolete that whoever is in 
charge of the work won't be able to move it from one storage media to 
another - and rather easily.  And, yes, I do think they'll want to do 
so as they will be able to continue to sell prints or license images.

Film - I have a few prints by Milton Greene - prints of Marilyn Monroe. 
Lovely stuff! His son has been busy for several years now scanning and 
digitally restoring all his film - as they were all fading away..... 
Anything to be learned here?

Anyway - I don't think I would leave anything laying around for 10 or 
15 years without re burning or re storing my stuff. You may not think 
it is worth anything but I do - and the print and licensing sales seems 
to bear that out - so I'll do whatever it takes to keep it up  to date 
- and if I do - I can easily market and sell it.

Christer


			Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell
"It's the artist's job to accomplish two things-to stir the emotions of 
the viewer
	  and to lay bare the soul of his subject." Jousuf Karsh
      Member EP (Editorial Photographers) - 4,000+ professionals 
worldwide.
			  http://www.ChristerArt.com
		  	   3.4+ million visitors to date..


On Nov 23, 2004, at 7:59 PM, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>    From: "Peter Nelson" <pnweb@...>
> Subject: Re: how many REALLY do store digital copies elsewhere
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Christer
> Rosewelll <christerart@m...> wrote:
>>  you gotta leave something behind for those who's
>> supposed to dissect you and your work when you're
>> not around anymore - if nothing else - this will
>> make it a lot easier for 'em...=*^)
>
> WRONGO!
>
> It will make it a lot HARDER for 'em!
>
> Digital technology changes so fast that even 15 years from now there
> will be no easy way to read those DVD's.
>
> Assuming that the shelf life of the media itself isn't an issue, in
> 15 or 20 years we'll be - what - maybe 3 generations of storage
> technology past DVD's.    Traditionally PC's overlap one generation
> prior to what's current.   When 3.5" floppies came out most PC's also
> came with 5.25" floppies, too.   When CD's came out they still
> shipped with 3.5" floppies but 5.25's were gone.  Now that DVD's are
> standard, 3.5" floppies are going away (NONE of my last 3 computers
> came with one) but PC's can still read CD's.
>
> So say XYZ replaces DVD in 5 years - DVD's will still be around.
> But 5 years later, when ABC replaces XYZ, DVD's will go and computers
> will still have old XYZ drives.
>
> And nevermind the drives - you would also need DRIVERS, and something
> that can read the file formats, etc!!    How many PC's today have
> drivers and display software for hardware and image formats that were
> in use 20 years ago?
>
> So your plan forces your heirs and descendants to keep copying your
> images to whatever is current every few years!   That's a lotta
> trouble for them to go through!   What makes you think they'll be
> willing to do that?
>
> Now *I*, on the other hand, have Kodachrome slides and BW negatives
> my father took over 60 years ago!!    They have been sitting around
> in attics and drawers all this time and NOBODY had to do ANYTHING to
> update them.   Yet I can pop them into my Nikon Coolscan and read
> them like they were taken yesterday.
>
> If you want archival images for your descendents, you need to pick a
> storage medium that does not force them to do constant maintenance.
> I suggest BW silver-emulsion film.   Even if there are no scanners,
> because no ones uses film, in the future, there will still be
> cameras.   And those cameras will be FAR higher-res and wider dynamic
> range than today.   So your descendants can just "scan" the old film
> by taking a picture of it, like people do today to copy slides with
> their cameras.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Christer 
Rosewelll <christerart@m...> wrote:
> Not so WRONGO, Peter
> 
> So, you're telling me - and everybody else - that it will be easier 
for 
> my heirs or whoever get their hands on my work - that it will be 
easier 
> to scan several hundred thousand images - present count - rather 
than 
> transfer the stuff from one system to another?

Yes.      

Because "possible" is easier than "impossible".  That's why I cited 
my father's pictures from 60 years ago.    I had no difficulty 
recovering them, even though none of the various aunts and sisters 
whose hands they passed through did ANYTHING other than just stuff 
them in a drawer or attic.

With YOUR scheme, if anyone breaks the chain and doesn't convert the 
images to the next file format while they still overlap the images 
become lost to posterity.    

You're ignoring human psychology.  People aren't usually interested 
in the recent past.  15 years after you die you'll be lucky to have a 
motivated, tchnically knowledgable heir or descendant who will bother 
to do the appropriate data conversion.    SIXTY years later, when 
somene DOES become interested in old Great Uncle Christer's 
photograhy it will be too late.

> Somehow I don't think it will be so quickly obsolete that
> whoever is in charge of the work won't be able to move 
> it from one storage media to another - and rather easily.

The "WRONGO" in your plan is that you think someone will be "in 
charge".

It always amazes me how people can be so smart about technical stuff 
but have no clue about human nature.

Peter,

Now you're getting offensive and exhibiting some really flawed logical 
thinking as well!

Seems you're really on a particular horse here and nothing logical is 
going to change your mind. That's ok - that your'e getting offensive in 
your writing is not!

That it will be easier to scan hundreds of thousands of images on film 
20 - 30 40 years from now is simply ridiculous - you really think the 
film scanners are not going to be obsolete by then? The majority of 
posters here has the opposite opinion of yours..

And, yes, I have a little more faith in the human psychology.

And I am NOT uncle Christer - not to you - not anyone, OK?

You need to temper your writing a little here! To paraphrase your 
ending statement:

It always amazes me how people can be so offensive so easily on lists 
like this!

Christer


			Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell
"It's the artist's job to accomplish two things-to stir the emotions of 
the viewer
	  and to lay bare the soul of his subject." Jousuf Karsh
      Member EP (Editorial Photographers) - 4,000+ professionals 
worldwide.
			  http://www.ChristerArt.com
		  	   3.4+ million visitors to date..


On Nov 24, 2004, at 12:56 PM, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 12
>    Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:05:16 -0000
>    From: "Peter Nelson" <pnweb@...>
> Subject: Re: It will make it a lot HARDER for 'em!
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Christer
> Rosewelll <christerart@m...> wrote:
>> Not so WRONGO, Peter
>>
>> So, you're telling me - and everybody else - that it will be easier
> for
>> my heirs or whoever get their hands on my work - that it will be
> easier
>> to scan several hundred thousand images - present count - rather
> than
>> transfer the stuff from one system to another?
>
> Yes.
>
> Because "possible" is easier than "impossible".  That's why I cited
> my father's pictures from 60 years ago.    I had no difficulty
> recovering them, even though none of the various aunts and sisters
> whose hands they passed through did ANYTHING other than just stuff
> them in a drawer or attic.
>
> With YOUR scheme, if anyone breaks the chain and doesn't convert the
> images to the next file format while they still overlap the images
> become lost to posterity.
>
> You're ignoring human psychology.  People aren't usually interested
> in the recent past.  15 years after you die you'll be lucky to have a
> motivated, tchnically knowledgable heir or descendant who will bother
> to do the appropriate data conversion.    SIXTY years later, when
> somene DOES become interested in old Great Uncle Christer's
> photograhy it will be too late.
>
>> Somehow I don't think it will be so quickly obsolete that
>> whoever is in charge of the work won't be able to move
>> it from one storage media to another - and rather easily.
>
> The "WRONGO" in your plan is that you think someone will be "in
> charge".
>
> It always amazes me how people can be so smart about technical stuff
> but have no clue about human nature

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]