Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex1994
So, film will never be obsolete as a storage medium. This is because developed film can be scanned easily using whatever scanning technology we have available (and we'll always have scanners). Glass plates from centuries ago can still be viewed today. Prints, slides and negatives will be scannable in centuries time, ready to be viewed on a computer screen.
Digital, by contrast, is tied by two things: file formats and digital storage media. Hard drives continue to crash on a fairly regular basis, so the best option is a DVD, a format that in itself may become obsolete and still isn't as reliable as a negative/transparency.
Secondly, file formats: these come and go all the time. RAW will be replaced sometime in the not-so-distant future, when someone comes up with something better. In the race to stay on the cutting edge, companies will drop RAW support on their hardware. Result: you have to convert all your images into the new format, or bin them.
|
The others know far more about the technical stuff than I do but there are some points here. 1) Some glass plates can be viewed today in carefully controlled conditions so deterioration is not speeded up, but many have been lost. Prints fade as do slides and negatives which also go mouldy. In other words film is far from permanent and there is only one
exact copy which is the original, if that is damaged that is that. Digital files can be cloned and
exact copies kept in a variety of places even miles apart.
Film can be scanned but quality is lost and file formats will no doubt change but they can be converted at a click of a mouse. It would takes goodness knows how many weeks of work to scan all my past slides and negatives, backing up my 35,000 digital images takes a couple of hours during which I do not even have to be there.
I doubt many if indeed any use DVD to back up photos these days. Hard drives do die, in fact a couple of mine just have. No problem, I have backups and everything is restored in a couple of hours including cataloguing. Then new technology comes out like solid state drives which will be more reliable and the cost will come down.
You argue that film will still be scannable in centuries time which is doubtful as the film will probably be dust by then or damaged but even if possible it is hardly an argument, you are just saying film is better than digital because it can be turned into digital, even if it means loss of quality, which it does.
One last point, we are all agreed that the final piccie is what counts but you also admit you have never worked in the wet darkroom and printed your photos under an enlarger. That means that you have handed over your picture to someone else to do at least half the process of producing the picture you want and he puts your film in an automated machine. If you are truly going to get the most out of your photography then you need to have control of the whole process from start to finish. Use film by all means and enjoy it but set up your own darkroom, us oldies have done it and enjoyed it but my old Durst stands rather forlorn in a corner because digital is far easier, gives more control, and is repeatable without the risk of destroying the original which can all too easily happen when developing the negative or slide. Darkroom work is fun but can be very frustrating and expensive when chasing a colour cast because the temperature is not quite right or constant. When you are in control of everything from start to finish you feel far more of a real photographer whether you use digital or film.