Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
Hmm. I must be doing something wrong. I jus' keep getting older, not richer... Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Mustarde wrote: Spend a few years getting really rich, then hire out the job of archiving your old photos. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:23:13 -0600, you wrote: I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be simplist thing for most people in the same situation to do? Spend a few years getting really rich, then hire out the job of archiving your old photos. Voila, you'll spend your time sipping Pina Coladas on the warm sand, photographing beach babes, instead of slaving over the scanner in your dark, lonely workroom. Oops, gotta go, the scanner needs re-loading, Mr. Big will give me hell if I don't get his CD's finished by Friday... -- John Mustarde - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
Dan Scott wrote: I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be simplist thing for most people in the same situation to do? Scanning negatives or slides would be the optimal, but time consuming for large numbers of images. A flatbed for prints? Still pretty time consuming, right? Would the quickest way be a digital camera? I know some, like the Nikon Coolpics have slide attachments available, and a simple tripod would work for quickly shooting prints, right? Personally, if I had a large number that I wanted to archive I would take prints, negatives and slides to a lab and pay to get them scanned to some Photo CD or even regular CD. Time is money. Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, aimcompute wrote: Personally, if I had a large number that I wanted to archive I would take prints, negatives and slides to a lab and pay to get them scanned to some Photo CD or even regular CD. Time is money. The only problem with this is that PhotoNet CD (the standard CD service in a lot of places) has a standard resolution of 1024x1536, which is not enough to give you good prints. There's a high res. version of the PhotoNet CD that gives 2000x3000, I believe, which will allow for an 8x10 image at 250dpi. The only moral here is that you need to ask specifically about the resolution when you drop your film off for scanning, as you may otherwise wind up with images that are only suitable for viewing on a monitor. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
In a message dated 11/18/01 4:08:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How hard is it really to spend a few hours (or even an entire day if you have a huge collection) every 20-30 years transferring your data? Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. Can we say: affordability? The gist of the data transfer thread assumes (mightily), that tens of millions of folks are going to buy the latest storage medium then transfer again every time the storage medium changes. Businesses who have a vested interest in maintaining access to their products, (music, radio, television, video and movies, businesses) regularly and readily transfer property to new storage technology. Ted Turner is the Guru of the genre, by now having copied and restored the entire MGM movie library. Not so we consumers. There are tens of millions of 78rpm records out there whose owners have not or do not think about transferring their data. Ditto for 8-track tapes, 45rpm records, 8 and 16mm movies. Why? Transferring data is damned expense is one why. Nostalgia in the guise of being or owning contemporary stuff costs like h*ll. Here we are on this list, most of whom still harbor the boxes under the bed storage system. Why don't they (PDMLers), 100% of them, knowing what they know, transfer their slide/negative/print data as per new storage medium? Again, because the transfer is 1. Expense (priced a quality DVD-R or RW machine lately)? 2. labor intensive 3. Time-consuming 4. boring. Large newspapers/magazines keep huge amounts of their staff busy archiving, transferring their merchant and intellectual properties on microfilm and other storage media. Those with a vested interest in maintaining their intellectual or creative property do. Those without-don't. As I noted, transferring my negatives/prints to CD didn't reduce the storage space used, just made it more accessible. And who, beside me, gives a hoot about my images? The copyrighted material is safe, the rest of it is but a salve to my ego, but of no great value to anyone but me and I'm not so sure I give a hoot about images I made which I'm not likely to benefit from. I just finished my last transfer of my entire image data. If CD-RW and my Zip 250 can't serve me into the near future, I know they are the ~last~ changes I'll make in my storage procedures. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order In a message dated 11/18/01 4:08:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] did not write, but I am used to being misquoted: How hard is it really to spend a few hours (or even an entire day if you have a huge collection) every 20-30 years transferring your data? Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. Can we say: affordability? The gist of the data transfer thread assumes (mightily), that tens of millions of folks are going to buy the latest storage medium then transfer again every time the storage medium changes. Businesses who have a vested interest in maintaining access to their products, (music, radio, television, video and movies, businesses) regularly and readily transfer property to new storage technology. Ted Turner is the Guru of the genre, by now having copied and restored the entire MGM movie library. Not so we consumers. There are tens of millions of 78rpm records out there whose owners have not or do not think about transferring their data. Ditto for 8-track tapes, 45rpm records, 8 and 16mm movies. Why? Transferring data is damned expense is one why. Nostalgia in the guise of being or owning contemporary stuff costs like h*ll. Here we are on this list, most of whom still harbor the boxes under the bed storage system. Why don't they (PDMLers), 100% of them, knowing what they know, transfer their slide/negative/print data as per new storage medium? Again, because the transfer is 1. Expense (priced a quality DVD-R or RW machine lately)? 2. labor intensive 3. Time-consuming 4. boring. All that you are saying in your ever pendantic way, is that about 40 years of photographic history from the advent of resin coated paper is destined to survive less than about 100 years. Whether this matters or not is moot. The box under the bed is not sufficient for these materials. They self destruct all by themselves in this situation. Fortunately, the bulk of the pictures that will be lost don't matter, even to the people who have taken them. Unfortunately, the ones that do matter (such as Joe Sixpack and the ever slutty Jane Whitewine's wedding pictures) fall into the same category. I have prints from my grandparents wedding, and my parents wedding, but I won't be able to pass on pictures from my own wedding (not that it matters), because they were printed on 1980's era RC papers, and are already discolouring. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we say: affordability? The gist of the data transfer thread assumes (mightily), that tens of millions of folks are going to buy the latest storage medium then transfer again every time the storage medium changes. Huh? Go back and read what I said... I *never* argued about how many people are or are not going to transfer their data. I don't care if 10 million people or one person transfer their data... my points about data transfer are about the process itself, not how many people use it. And an intelligent person won't transfer their stuff every time a new storage medium appears, just every time a new one becomes dominant, and when it looks like their current medium won't be around for much longer. Businesses who have a vested interest in maintaining access to their products, (music, radio, television, video and movies, businesses) regularly and readily transfer property to new storage technology. Ted Turner is the Guru of the genre, by now having copied and restored the entire MGM movie library. Agreed. Not so we consumers. There are tens of millions of 78rpm records out there whose owners have not or do not think about transferring their data. Ditto for 8-track tapes, 45rpm records, 8 and 16mm movies. Why? Where did we get talking about records? I'm talking about photographs. People didn't transfer their records because it was cheaper and easier to buy the CD version of the album. Think about it... there was no need to transfer their music albums because they could buy a copy on whatever media came next. The same people need to transfer their photos if they want them to last beyond the realistic life of the negatives. Personally, I don't care if they transfer the photos themselves or get a company to do it for them... that's irrelevant to my points. Transferring data is damned expense is one why. Nostalgia in the guise of being or owning contemporary stuff costs like h*ll. Here we are on this list, most of whom still harbor the boxes under the bed storage system. Why don't they (PDMLers), 100% of them, knowing what they know, transfer their slide/negative/print data as per new storage medium? Again, because the transfer is 1. Expense (priced a quality DVD-R or RW machine lately)? CD-RW's are pretty cheap now unless you want the high-end ones that can run while you're working on your computer. I got mine for less than $200 CAN and it's worked fine. 2. labor intensive 3. Time-consuming 4. boring. So don't do it, then. I'm not arguing that digitizing your negatives is the most fun or exciting job in the world. All I'm saying is that it's the *only* way that you stand a chance of being able to make high-quality prints beyond the life of the negatives. If you don't want to do that, fine. If it's too expensive for you, fine. If you'd prefer not to spend a day or so every 20 years doing this, fine. That's your choice. As for the time and labour factor, there are two parts to this. The only real time-consuming part is digitizing your archived negatives and slides in the first place, and you can cut down on this by using a scanner with software like Digital Ice or by having someone else do it for you. Or just buy a digital camera. :) Once your photos are digitized, it takes next to no time to transfer them to another medium. The size and price of storage media are always going down. If you think that taking one day out of 20-30 years is unreasonable, then that's your decision. You may find it boring, but I bet a lot of us would find it pretty interesting. Large newspapers/magazines keep huge amounts of their staff busy archiving, transferring their merchant and intellectual properties on microfilm and other storage media. Those with a vested interest in maintaining their intellectual or creative property do. Those without-don't. As I noted, transferring my negatives/prints to CD didn't reduce the storage space used, just made it more accessible. And who, beside me, gives a hoot about my images? Your great-great grandchildren, perhaps? If you don't care about the fact that later descendents or centuries might prize them as part of the historical record, then why archive them on CD? Keep them as negatives, enjoy the prints and negs while they last, and then let them crumble away into the dust. Again, I'm not arguing that people should archive every single one of their images digitally; I'm sure many people will only digitize their favourites or the ones that will mean the most to them and their families. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Businesses who have a vested interest in maintaining access to their products, (music, radio, television, video and movies, businesses) regularly and readily transfer property to new storage technology. Ted Turner is the Guru of the genre, by now having copied and restored the entire MGM movie library. Not to give Mafud more ammo for his point of view, but even Turner's a bad bad man when it comes to this -- Important films that no longer completely exist in any resolution higher than that of a DVD because of storage negligence during Turner's watch: Goldfinger (apparently left in a hot warehouse -- print quality of the current DVD varies widely from sequence to sequence, since some was salvageable, but the rest comes from inferior duplicate negatives and release prints) West Side Story The long version of The Alamo (pristine 70mm print borrowed from a collector, the last believed to be in existence, transferred to video, then chopped into sections and put into a cleaning bath...and forgotten about until it turned into magenta goo) Warner, who have recently aquired most of the old MGM library from Turner, have apparently been having kittens over the shape that much of the original material is in. Just because we can archive this stuff doesn't mean we will, even when it is financially wise for us to do it. But, like Chris, I agree, the important part is that we CAN do it. -Aaron p.s. I don't imagine that Pixar will ever have the problem of the last known print of, say, Monsters Inc. being accidentally left in a hot warehouse -- they could just output another one. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
In a message dated 11/18/01 9:56:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fortunately, the bulk of the pictures that will be lost don't matter, even to the people who have taken them. Exactly. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be simplist thing for most people in the same situation to do? Scanning negatives or slides would be the optimal, but time consuming for large numbers of images. A flatbed for prints? Still pretty time consuming, right? Would the quickest way be a digital camera? I know some, like the Nikon Coolpics have slide attachments available, and a simple tripod would work for quickly shooting prints, right? Dan Scott (curious spectator) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wm. Robb wrote: I have prints from my grandparents wedding, and my parents wedding, but I won't be able to pass on pictures from my own wedding (not that it matters), because they were printed on 1980's era RC papers, and are already discolouring. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
Not sure I agree with you about the no media that came next (that'll happen in the future, not the past), but you're right about the tapes. I'm old enough to remember wondering whether or not I should dump my tapes and buy into this new-fangled CD technology. :) chris On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Many people put their precious recordings on to tape when tape became available, whether reel to reel or cassette. This was long before CDs. At one point there was no media that came next. If you wanted to preserve your recordings, you had to make tape copies. Maybe you're too young to remember that, Chris ... g. Mafud said: There are tens of millions of 78rpm records out there whose owners have not or do not think about transferring their data. Ditto for 8-track tapes, 45rpm records, 8 and 16mm movies. Why? Chris Brogden replied: Where did we get talking about records? I'm talking about photographs. People didn't transfer their records because it was cheaper and easier to buy the CD version of the album. Think about it... there was no need to transfer their music albums because they could buy a copy on whatever media came next. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/pentax_repair_shops.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Points of Order
Hi Mafud: I'm probably not entirely serious about scanning everything! However, I do have a collection of negatives and slides which I have been asked to give to a web-based institute, as they are an almost unique record of a particular place taken between 1967-69, and they number several hundreds of each. In this case, it's not really my right to exclude anything except the technically bad, I think. I will keep the negatives - my feeling is that eventually (and I'm not putting a time frame on this) it will be quite hard to get cheap wet-printing done commercially, but until then I'll maintain both, gradually building the scanned copies up. The process should be one which easily identifies those which are really worth keeping and those which can be binned. Incidentally, I did go through the hard task of weeding out the really bad stuff a couple of times already! As to whether I would choose to print from the scan or the negative: all depends on the quality I can achieve from computer technology vs traditional, modified for the potential use. I have had one perfectly satisfactory set published in a technical journal, which incidentally were (see another thread) desaturated colour scanned from an original 35mm slide at 1600dpi on a flatbed - pushing the technology a bit, I think! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia On Thursday, November 15, 2001 1:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: In a message dated 11/14/01 5:07:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Time to get scanning - only about 6000 negatives and slides to go, and I'll be up to date - if I stop shooting new stuff! Hey John! Are you going to scan ~each and every~ negative? And why? What I realized is that most snapshots are only good for viewing, not keeping. But how many... all of them? And pray tell, what are you going to do with the negatives? ...And which would you actually choose to have a print made from in ten years: your CD or the negatives? Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
You did notice I said data life didn't you. That is as opposed to media life. Short of a massive EMP digital files can be copied over and over with no loss of information. Can not do that with film. I assume that important images will be transfered to the new media technology when necessary. And contrary to what I know someone is going to say about who will have the time, that transfer is easily automated. --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:35 AM Subject: Re: Points of Order In a message dated 11/13/01 7:00:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make? I can see one: my CD-R/RW disks may not be playable in twenty years ala 8-track tapes. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Tom Rittenhouse wrote: I assume that important images will be transfered to the new media technology when necessary. And contrary to what I know someone is going to say about who will have the time, that transfer is easily automated. Agreed. And the nice thing about storage media is that they are always increasing in size. It took a long time to transfer information to 60-70 floppy disks, but then Zip disks came out that could hold all of those files on one 100MB disk. Now we have CD's that can hold 650MB of data, not to mention the 1GB+ media out there. Transferring data will only get quicker and quicker. How hard is it really to spend a few hours (or even an entire day if you have a huge collection) every 20-30 years transferring your data? Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Points of Order
I just did it a couple of months ago! At least where the neg was still available, and therein lies the rub. It seems many people never kept the negs once they had had enough prints done for everyone at the time. I keep reminding my wife (when she whinges about how much space my files take up) that prints are not enough - she is now beginning to realise the truth of it as the original prints of her kids when young begin to fade or get lost, and the negs are long gone. Time to get scanning - only about 6000 negatives and slides to go, and I'll be up to date - if I stop shooting new stuff! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia On Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:33 AM, Aaron Reynolds [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 06:23 PM, Tom Rittenhouse wrote: Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make? How often do you dig out the negs of 100 year old photographs of your ancestors and make new prints? -Aaron - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:00:16 -0600 (CST), you wrote: On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make? I can see one: my CD-R/RW disks may not be playable in twenty years ala 8-track tapes. Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred to 8-track tapes. So what's next? -- John Mustarde - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
John Mustarde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:00:16 -0600 (CST), you wrote: On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make? I can see one: my CD-R/RW disks may not be playable in twenty years ala 8-track tapes. Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred to 8-track tapes. So what's next? Getting your 8-tracks dubbed onto Elcassette, of course! (Anyone actually remember that abortion from the 70's: a cassette that contained 1/4-inch tape?) ...either that or the Philips DCC digital cassette! -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
In a message dated 11/14/01 5:07:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Time to get scanning - only about 6000 negatives and slides to go, and I'll be up to date - if I stop shooting new stuff! Hey John! Are you going to scan ~each and every~ negative? And why? What I realized is that most snapshots are only good for viewing, not keeping. But how many... all of them? And pray tell, what are you going to do with the negatives? ...And which would you actually choose to have a print made from in ten years: your CD or the negatives? Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
Ha ha hh...! (Like John Lennon) Tom C - Original Message - From: John Mustarde [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:46 PM Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:00:16 -0600 (CST), you wrote: On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make? I can see one: my CD-R/RW disks may not be playable in twenty years ala 8-track tapes. Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred to 8-track tapes. So what's next? -- John Mustarde - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
In a message dated 11/14/01 5:59:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred to 8-track tapes. So what's next? Oh, let's see John: small format tape*t* Cassette, then CD. *t* about 14 years ago (1987), I had all my favorite 33 1/3rd albums rerecorded on ... guess what? HI_FI VHS video tape! Something about the width of the tape and some other audio-speak I didn't understand then or now. You ~do~ need a quality 4-head recorder to hear all the data on the tapes. Now I only have to get someone with a pro quality VHS deck to reproduce the tapes on ... you guessed it; DVD or CD-R. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
- This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
My gosh, Bob is at a loss for words. HAR! WW - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:51 PM Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
You should see what my cousin Irma looks like with a mustache and chomping on a ceegar LOL. Your post cracked me up. Robert Soames Wetmore wrote: No, Shel - that was me rummaging around while you were sleeping. (Aaron was over the night before, though. And Mike Johnston was there over the weekend - he was going to wack you with an Optio while you were sleeping, but I stopped him.) For the record, Shel's family's BW prints are perfectly fine - I don't know what Aaron was talking about. One odd thing, though - Shel's grandmother and great grandmother looked exactly like him. Pretty scary. Hmm... That or it was him posing in a sundress to bolster his falsified claims of print longevity. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make? --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:39 PM Subject: Re: Points of Order I know about Wilhelm, and it's the marketing people who are hyping print longevity. When I see a 50+ year old ink jet print that hasn't faded, I'll believe that they have reasonable longevity. Over the years many scientists, engineers, designers, and manufacturers have made innumerable claims, all based on then current knowledge and information, and many of those claims have been proven wrong. And I still have properly stored colour prints that have faded in less than 10 years. The marketing people are hyping print longevity because of Wilhelm, not in spite of him. William Robb Yes, I'm afraid Shel and I disagree on this point rather strongly. I've followed Henry Wilhelm's work for years (although I don't know him personally), have read most of his book, and know a colleague of his quite well. Wilhelm has at times been an almost lone voice agitating for print longevity, fighting mendacity and resistance among the manufacturers and apathy on the part of the public. In the early days of digital, Wilhelm was a voiciferous and outspoken critic of the poor longevity of digital prints, and a great and important advocate of better LE as an important property of imaging systems. It isn't far from the truth to say that he singlehandedly brought print longevity to the forefront as an issue in digital imaging, and he has certainly improved the situation dramatically for the benefit of all of us--and of posterity. IMHO the entire photographic community owes a considerable debt of gratitude to this man. He is one of only small band of photo-technical people working today who will deserve a place in the history of the medium. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 06:23 PM, Tom Rittenhouse wrote: Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make? How often do you dig out the negs of 100 year old photographs of your ancestors and make new prints? -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But...but: you overlook the simple truth: you ~can~ (CAN) ~actually~ make new (if poor) photographs of those 100 year old photographs from those 100 year-old negatives. And I'd like to see someone in 20 years dig out a CD from under their bed and make a print. Ain't gonna happen. You can still buy record players... CD-ROMs will be around for a while. Besides, I can transfer my images every 20 or 30 years, and after 100 years my grandkids can make *perfect* copies of the photos if they want to, while yours are going to be complaining about the almost completely faded negatives and prints. :) Besides, photographs or slides don't need a mechanical device to be viewable, unlike the CD/DVD/tape/Zip cartridge. True, but they can fade out after a few decades, leaving you with nothing. Then what? **What ya gonna do in the year 2050, hold up one of your CD/DVD/Zip/tapes up to the light, (as in a slide/negative) so you can see what you have 'cause you sure as hoot won't find anything to play a CD/DVD/tape/Zip cartridge on. Mafud, can you understand that there are advantages and disadvantages with each method? Film sucks in some ways, and digital in others. Film requires less maintenance, but it has a finite life. Digital images require more periodic maintenance, but they can be transferred forever with no loss in quality. Different people prefer different methods... try to realize that yours isn't the One True Way, ok? :) chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
I know about Wilhelm, and it's the marketing people who are hyping print longevity. When I see a 50+ year old ink jet print that hasn't faded, I'll believe that they have reasonable longevity. Over the years many scientists, engineers, designers, and manufacturers have made innumerable claims, all based on then current knowledge and information, and many of those claims have been proven wrong. Mike Johnston wrote: Don't mean to pick on you here, Shel my friend, it's not quite that unknowable. Henry Wilhelm runs an independent lab and had been working with print permanence for many decades (he was part of the original East Street Gallery that first devised archival washers for black-and-white). His integrity is unquestioned, and his methods for determining likely print LE (life expectancy) are by now very sophisticated. He did get blindsided by the ozone orange fade problem last year, but generally his methods are a pretty good indicator of likely print LE. After all, it's widely accepted that the permanence of a good platinum print is 200-500 years, but photography hasn't been around that long. These claims, while not 100% certain (what is?) are not just based on marketing. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Points of Order I know about Wilhelm, and it's the marketing people who are hyping print longevity. When I see a 50+ year old ink jet print that hasn't faded, I'll believe that they have reasonable longevity. Over the years many scientists, engineers, designers, and manufacturers have made innumerable claims, all based on then current knowledge and information, and many of those claims have been proven wrong. And I still have properly stored colour prints that have faded in less than 10 years. The marketing people are hyping print longevity because of Wilhelm, not in spite of him. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
Yes ... but hyping it they are. Just because some technical guru says a thing is so does not, in fact, make it so. Time will tell, not marketing mavens and technology wizards, regardless of their credentials. And, while we're on the subject, most of this discussion has centered around color. What about the longevity of BW ink jet prints compared to well-processed silver gelatin prints? It's my understanding that, in order to make fine quality BW ink jet prints, special inks are needed, which, in and of itself is not a bad thing, although, in order to print good color and good BW it's been suggested that a printer dedicated to each is ideal. Finally, let's talk about paper surfaces. Is it true that the longer-lived papers are generally matte finished, and that there are some problems with glossy papers? William Robb wrote: And I still have properly stored colour prints that have faded in less than 10 years. The marketing people are hyping print longevity because of Wilhelm, not in spite of him. William Robb -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 03:20 PM, William Robb wrote: And I still have properly stored colour prints that have faded in less than 10 years. The marketing people are hyping print longevity because of Wilhelm, not in spite of him. I have properly stored colour prints from the 70s that have faded rather severely in recent years. Good bye childhood! -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
All of our family's BW prints are just fine - even those that are 100 years old. Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 03:20 PM, William Robb wrote: And I still have properly stored colour prints that have faded in less than 10 years. The marketing people are hyping print longevity because of Wilhelm, not in spite of him. I have properly stored colour prints from the 70s that have faded rather severely in recent years. Good bye childhood! -Aaron -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 05:11 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: All of our family's BW prints are just fine - even those that are 100 years old. Actually, many of them display bronzing, as well as severe discoloration of the base. They're viewable, but certainly not fine. Some of them have almost been obliterated. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
Hi ... I don't see digital printing as a replacement for silver gelatin prints, but I am concerned that, due to the contemporary business climate, over time, less and less in the way of materials will be available for those wishing to explore the process of a chemical darkroom. That said, my comments about longevity were mainly a broadside at those who believe everything put before them. I am a skeptic by nature, having seen many schemes and shames. I ~do~ recognize digital printing as another way of expressing one's self and of putting an image into a viewable format. What few people know - at least on this list - is that, although I enjoy conventional photography, and reportage especially, in the past I have manipulated prints in very experimental ways, using inter negatives, litho film, reticulation, solarization, hand coloring, high and low contrast, collages, and who knows what else. I am not averse to going further and using other methods to produce a final print. I've just not done any of that sort of manipulation is a very long time. I am, however, slow to embrace new technology, in any area, not just photography. I make changes very slowly, only after carefully investigating the possibilities and alternatives. At this point I am ~very~ reluctant to give up film or embrace the digital camera as a recording tool. OTOH, I am not averse to finding an acceptable method for making prints using digital technology. The film/digital combination is appealing on several levels, but, as appealing as it is, I do not see changing from silver gelatin to digital output. Rather, I see digital printing as another way to express my point of view. I am, after all, scanning negs now, and learning a bit about that end of the process. The next step is printing. It may take a few months, or a few years, but I will be producing digital prints from film-recorded images at some point - once I know and understand what I want. There are a couple of well-regarded labs in the area that do exceptional work. I've already visited one of them, and, just today, have left word with another that I want to visit their premises. Bob Walkden wrote: Hi, it's a mistake for people to think of digital printing as being a complete replacement of chemical printing. It's another way of getting the picture off the film and onto some sort of paper (or paper-like material such as cotton rag or plastic or whatever). Silver gelatin prints are different from gum bichromates, which are different from all the other techniques that have developed (no pun intended) in the last 150 years or so. We shouldn't judge them by one single standard. Probably for most people, certainly at the consumer end, digital will replace chemical prints, and that in itself is neither a good thing nor a bad thing as far as I can see. If anything it's good because it brings high quality in at a very affordable price. In the part of the market that people like you and I inhabit we will, probably for our lifetimes at least, be able to choose from the whole array of different processes that are available, from calotypes to Piezo prints and beyond. There's no reason why you _have_ to change to a different type of print if you don't want to - although of course some of the materials may become difficult to obtain and expensive over the next few years, but that will probably give your photos an added cachet and value, like gum bichromates. But if you won't change just because you haven't seen a 100-year old print then you can never change - however much you might like some new process we haven't heard of yet - because you will probably never see a 100-year old anything that's produced using techniques or materials that are younger than you are. It's even possible that the materials you're using now, such as Tri-X, won't last 100 years. But the 'papers' such as cotton rag almost certainly will last for hundreds of years - cotton rag predates paper as a technology and our libraries are full of books printed 100s of years ago on the stuff. Also, some of the pigments are quite old technology, I believe, and the way it permeates the cotton rather than lying on the surface apparently should guarantee very long lifetimes. To some extent this is a better-proven, and longer-established technology than photographic chemistry. Hell, if the worse comes to the worst you could even print on vellum and that'll last for millenia! -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
Oh, so that was you rummaging through my family albums the other night ... glad you could stop by and view the prints g. Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 05:11 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: All of our family's BW prints are just fine - even those that are 100 years old. Actually, many of them display bronzing, as well as severe discoloration of the base. They're viewable, but certainly not fine. Some of them have almost been obliterated. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
Heavy on opinion, rather light on the research --- IMO. Otis Shel Belinkoff wrote: I know about Wilhelm, and it's the marketing people who are hyping print longevity. When I see a 50+ year old ink jet print that hasn't faded, I'll believe that they have reasonable longevity. Over the years many scientists, engineers, designers, and manufacturers have made innumerable claims, all based on then current knowledge and information, and many of those claims have been proven wrong. Mike Johnston wrote: Don't mean to pick on you here, Shel my friend, it's not quite that unknowable. Henry Wilhelm runs an independent lab and had been working with print permanence for many decades (he was part of the original East Street Gallery that first devised archival washers for black-and-white). His integrity is unquestioned, and his methods for determining likely print LE (life expectancy) are by now very sophisticated. He did get blindsided by the ozone orange fade problem last year, but generally his methods are a pretty good indicator of likely print LE. After all, it's widely accepted that the permanence of a good platinum print is 200-500 years, but photography hasn't been around that long. These claims, while not 100% certain (what is?) are not just based on marketing. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
- Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds Subject: Re: Points of Order I have properly stored colour prints from the 70s that have faded rather severely in recent years. Good bye childhood! For me, that is the old E-4 chromes that my father shot when I was growing up. Almost all clear celluloid now. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Points of Order
I know about Wilhelm, and it's the marketing people who are hyping print longevity. When I see a 50+ year old ink jet print that hasn't faded, I'll believe that they have reasonable longevity. Over the years many scientists, engineers, designers, and manufacturers have made innumerable claims, all based on then current knowledge and information, and many of those claims have been proven wrong. And I still have properly stored colour prints that have faded in less than 10 years. The marketing people are hyping print longevity because of Wilhelm, not in spite of him. William Robb Yes, I'm afraid Shel and I disagree on this point rather strongly. I've followed Henry Wilhelm's work for years (although I don't know him personally), have read most of his book, and know a colleague of his quite well. Wilhelm has at times been an almost lone voice agitating for print longevity, fighting mendacity and resistance among the manufacturers and apathy on the part of the public. In the early days of digital, Wilhelm was a voiciferous and outspoken critic of the poor longevity of digital prints, and a great and important advocate of better LE as an important property of imaging systems. It isn't far from the truth to say that he singlehandedly brought print longevity to the forefront as an issue in digital imaging, and he has certainly improved the situation dramatically for the benefit of all of us--and of posterity. IMHO the entire photographic community owes a considerable debt of gratitude to this man. He is one of only small band of photo-technical people working today who will deserve a place in the history of the medium. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
