Will your children, grandchildren do this for you? Will your pictures be of interest to them, or just something else to clean out when your gone? Would a box of negatives/transparencies be treated differently than grandpa's PC (or stack of DVD backups)...?
Thor On 14. jan.. 2009, at 03.41, Douglas Nygren wrote:
I'm sure you do this every day. On Jan 13, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Peter K. wrote:You would transfer the images to a newer media. Simple. Few retain imags in DVD these days anyway.On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Shannon Hong <triode12@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:The other problem with Digital data is storage.Computer storage technology keeps evolving, standards/formats keep changing. CDs and DVDs don't last forever especially the recordable kind (Dyes fade, storage devices fail/become obsolete). HDD spindles wear out and fail over time. Even digital data is prone to corruption. Multiple copies should be made and stored on separate sets of media to ensure that you have redundancy.One has to keep transferring the data to newer storage mediums and if you have a lot of data this may or may not be a PITA. While one needs to store film well, once you have done so, you don't have to do the above every 5 yrs or so.Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:47:51 -0800 From: genej2ster@xxxxxxxxx To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [rollei_list] Re: age old "digital vs film" debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient ComputersOn reflection, there ARE a lot of ways in which digital cameras have become superior to film cameras. Convenience and operating cost are 2. No way I could provide my local ballet company with 1000 exposures of a performance on film. Neither they nor I could afford it. And the resolution and total visual information on a good 10-plus Mpixel camera can be very high. I did a 40 inch tall poster that looked really nice. I am probably going to buy a 5D Mk2 here pretty soon because it is such a powerful tool for these kinds of things. I will not be giving up my film cameras though; and it is not just because I am so sentimental about the medium. I really do find the response curve of digital sensors to be significantly inferior to film as of my Rebel Xsi or my buddy's 5D. Not even close really. The transition to shadow or highlight is so much smoother and more beautiful on film to my eye. Everyone who looks at the prints notices it. The 5d MK2 is supposed to be better. I will reserve judgement. In any case, I have no doubt, the gap will continue to narrow, and one day I WILL be using film because I just love working with it and my old cameras, enlargers, etc.On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:On the contrary, Frank, I believe both statements to be true. In all my recent experience digital -is- in all practical ways superior to film. OTOH it is a matter of personal choice so if somebody wants to use film that is fine by me :-)On 13 Jan, 2009, at 16:46, Eric Goldstein wrote:Frank, glad to read this much more reasonable and modest statement about digital's capabilities, and your own personal abilities and tastes, in contrast to this earlier statement:In all practical ways digital has exceeded the capability of film for some time. Certainly if there is an effect which one wishes to achieve, using a vintage LF lens for example, film may have to be the choice but that does not make film better, just an appropriate choice in some circumstances.Eric Goldstein -- On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I quite agree, a matter of personal choice. I get p*ssed off when people say it meeds 67, or choose any other number, megapixels for digital to match film which is patently ridiculous. Which film? what other parameter thanresolution?I get better dynamic range, a smoother look and plenty of resolution from digital. My prints look more 3 dimensional and real - particularly skin tones. I still like the look of B&W film for portraits, actually, but notfor anything else.Some photographers prefer film so for them it is better, obviously.best regards, Frank On 13 Jan, 2009, at 13:56, austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:But that doesn't mitigate that the other works "better" for others, and no amount of discussion is going to change that. Even if it is as simple as someone likes to use a particular camera, that's good enough IMO.--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list-- Be Just and Fear Not Download free emoticons today! Holiday cheer from Messenger.-- Peter K Ó¿Õ¬--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
