Re: filmscanners: Image archives was Re: Film Scanners and what they see.
Michael Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, Rob, I wouldn't be so quick to say that what you shoot today might not be of > interest to someone in 50 years. Quite the contrary... one reason, I have seen > your web page, you have a lot of nice shots... Thanks, Mike. :) Now if only I could make money out of them! ;) [snip] > regular darkroom... now the question is... how do I make it so it will last? I > will tiff it onto Photo CD, maybe shoot a film copy... but will it last as long > as one of my solarization prints on Agfa 6 of the same band that crawled out of > an art director's file after twenty-five years and ended up getting published in > a book? Print it on an Epson 2000P or an 1160 with pigment based inks and the answer is quite probably yes. Four years ago, the Epson Colour II did pretty ordinary prints at 720dpi. Two years ago the Stylus 700 photo printer appeared, and mine is still putting out prints that I'm astonished by. Now there are even better printers and archival inks. Who is to say where the technology will be in another 5 years? I can barely imagine where it might be in *50* years, judging by current advances. Right now a lab can print digital images to Fuji Crystal Archive paper that will last about 70+ years. That sort of technology may well be affordable for the home digital darkroom in a few years time. Who knows? Do existing B&W techniques provide much more certain archival qualities with much lower technology? Absolutely.. > Keep shooting, scanning and saving... and remember, always cover your posterity! Sounds like good advice to me. :) Rob
Re: filmscanners: Image archives was Re: Film Scanners and what they see.
Hey, Rob, I wouldn't be so quick to say that what you shoot today might not be of interest to someone in 50 years. Quite the contrary... one reason, I have seen your web page, you have a lot of nice shots... I am sure some museum or historian will want to get the rights to your archive I am into my hybrid digital (shoot film, have a lab process the film, then I scan and work with Photoshop for inkjet or tiff file output on CDR) because I don't want to set up a lab or have to deal with labs for a lot of my work... I have three enlargers I haven't used in years... won't sell 'em cuz I know when I do, I 'll need 'em the next day... But my little Minolta Scan Elite allowed me to take a 30 year old neg I shot of a rock guitar player in low light and coax enuf out of it to work it around in Photoshop and come with an image I could only have dreamed of getting with a regular darkroom... now the question is... how do I make it so it will last? I will tiff it onto Photo CD, maybe shoot a film copy... but will it last as long as one of my solarization prints on Agfa 6 of the same band that crawled out of an art director's file after twenty-five years and ended up getting published in a book? Keep shooting, scanning and saving... and remember, always cover your posterity! Mike Rob Geraghty wrote: > Mike wrote: > > My point is that we are sitting on the leading edge of > > technological developments that threaten to do away with > > tried and proven (although not perfect) processes that > > have allowed us to see what the last 170 years looked > > like... We need to be very careful before we start to > > believe everything the manufacturers tell us about > > "archival" CD's, inks, etc... > > And painters panicked that photography would make them obsolete too. :) > Any paradigm shift brings dangers. In reality, as long as we look after > our negs and slides, it doesn't much matter whether CDR technology or inkjet > technology is less than reliable. :) > > Those who can afford the "tried and proven" methods of photographic archiving > will probably continue to use them for a long time yet. Many of us lesser > mortals will have to take a risk that we can find ways of looking after > our pictures in both film and electronic form. > > I don't necessarily believe anything companies tell me in their advertising > material, but on the other hand thanks to Nikon making film scanners and > Epson making photo quality inkjets, I can now make my own 10x8 colour and > B&W prints at home without mixing up chemicals, building a darkroom, or > buying an enlarger and photo paper etc (I still need paper for the printer > of course :). I also make my own B&W prints by wet chemistry in the winter > months when it's cool enough, but digital technology has made photographic > things possible for me which would be much more expensive or impossible > otherwise. > > I take your point about known versus unknown methods and their known or > unknown longevity. It's certainly important enough to warrant the expense > in time and money for some, but not for everyone. > > Going back to the archival nature of CDR, there just aren't any practical > alternatives at the moment, so we just need to know how to make the best > of what we have. > > Rob > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Image archives was Re: Film Scanners and what they see.
Mike wrote: > My point is that we are sitting on the leading edge of > technological developments that threaten to do away with > tried and proven (although not perfect) processes that > have allowed us to see what the last 170 years looked > like... We need to be very careful before we start to > believe everything the manufacturers tell us about > "archival" CD's, inks, etc... And painters panicked that photography would make them obsolete too. :) Any paradigm shift brings dangers. In reality, as long as we look after our negs and slides, it doesn't much matter whether CDR technology or inkjet technology is less than reliable. :) Those who can afford the "tried and proven" methods of photographic archiving will probably continue to use them for a long time yet. Many of us lesser mortals will have to take a risk that we can find ways of looking after our pictures in both film and electronic form. I don't necessarily believe anything companies tell me in their advertising material, but on the other hand thanks to Nikon making film scanners and Epson making photo quality inkjets, I can now make my own 10x8 colour and B&W prints at home without mixing up chemicals, building a darkroom, or buying an enlarger and photo paper etc (I still need paper for the printer of course :). I also make my own B&W prints by wet chemistry in the winter months when it's cool enough, but digital technology has made photographic things possible for me which would be much more expensive or impossible otherwise. I take your point about known versus unknown methods and their known or unknown longevity. It's certainly important enough to warrant the expense in time and money for some, but not for everyone. Going back to the archival nature of CDR, there just aren't any practical alternatives at the moment, so we just need to know how to make the best of what we have. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
