SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Jun 8, 2014 8:02:22 GMT -5
Truls raised the issue of arching digital images, on another thread: ... My concern is how to preserve the images for the future. In digital, the files are very fragile in many ways. Computer systems fail, also malicious software can delete or tamper with images. I could make a long list. Lets say in about thirty years from now, how many images survive on computers? When I am gone from this earth, my encrypted disks will most likely be trashed since no one cares, and so on. What is your thought on this? ... I would like some comment how to preserve digital images, as time passes ... Truls raised three threats: computer failure and malware etc, archival procedures, trashing by inheritors. Most of us have suffered hard disk failures, and we know the the answer is backup. But it still happens. We've discussed CD and DVD backup before, some of them will be unreadable when the time comes, so you have to back up your backups. The time comes when when you choose between going out to take more pictures or staying in to do that day's schedule of backup back upping, that's the day you gave up. My latest attempt is to back up all new data files (text, sound, image, database) every day to an external USB hard disk, so I have an exact copy. If one fails I have the other to copy a replacement from. I use SmartSync Pro, but there are other programs. Without proper archival procedures you have chaos. Films you chopped into small lengths and put in film pockets, each numbered, in volumes that were numbered, all logged, so you could find any image quickly. For digital, I keep all my raw originals, day by day by date. Probably unnecessary, but a habit from film days. Processed originals (tiff, cropped, full size, colour balance, saturation etc) are saved by date. A 1600x1200 jpg version goes into a database so they can be found. I'm using ACDSee. The processed original is never modified, but is used for making prints or jpg copies, tailored for each instance. When ACDSee disappears, let's hope some successor will import it, but you never know. Finally, our inheritors or executors, when we're no longer there. What they do to our stuff, nobody knows. Explain in writing, in time, how your image archive is organized, which cameras are worth selling or holding on to etc. We can forget Judgement Day, after that it's all over anyway. But there's still Armageddon. Sea levels are rising, Katrina and New Orleans were only the first, hardly anyone has listened yet. London has built flood barriers against high sea tides to protect the underground railway, but inland the whole Thames valley all the way to Wales is allowed to flood to protect London. Move to a hilltop home before everyone else wakes up and gets the same idea. I recall a letter to a model magazine, bemoaning a late friend's widow who dumped 500 unique locomotive models in black bin bags. It happens to everyone, all the time. How do you think those camera finds you delight in at boot sales and charity shops get there? |
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Jun 8, 2014 13:39:06 GMT -5
SidW, thanks for opening this thread, it became way off topic  I agree with your points of view. In a historical perspective, photography is a kind of new medium, digital likewise. It could be someone invented some durable archiving material.. I also archive image files some sort of continuously after date exposed, and a textfile explaining what is in every folder. Another problem could be images presented for real, but altered to hide or change the truth? Would digital signing solve such a matter. BTW: I saw your beautiful Flickr-gallery, impressive. I like your photography. Are you from Sweden? The picture from Abisko is not far from my home town in Norway. |
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 8, 2014 13:46:03 GMT -5
Plus ça change.
Some good and interesting points, Sid and Truls. The problems are nothing new, however. What is seen by one person, or generation, as worth saving is seen by another as rubbish - only for others, later still, to decide that it is valuable.
Sometimes even if there is appreciation that something might have value, there are other things that have a greater importance at the time. I would suggest the the destruction of many of the photographic plates of and on Shackleton's expedition a hundred years ago as being one example. Another is the number of American Civil War plates that found better use as window panes.
Tommy Thompson was a founder member of Caldy Rugby Club. At his funeral forty years or so ago his widow (or sister?) Said that all his photos had been thrown away as "no one would want them". Here we have a difference. Most of Tommy's archive were one offs, so once they had gone they had gone and there was no chance of recovery. My rugby club photos are on flickr as well as being backed up on my hard drives. There is at least one other who has the full set, having downloaded it using bulkr.
On another point, how much do we want to archive? In the days when cameras and photography were uncommon every photo was important. Now everyone is photographing everything. Much of what is taken is just a copy of what someone else has taken. Many more photos would have to be destroyed to lose all record of an event.
As regards hardware, there is just too much around for some things to become valuable. Once more is chucked in the bin those remaining will attract more interest and monetary value, at least from some of the population.
P.s Sid is from Kent, England.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 8, 2014 15:20:22 GMT -5
Why is it necessary to save our digital images digitally. No one seems sure of the life span of digital images.
We are more familiar with silver images. I have two photographs 10" x 12" of my grandparents that were taken about 1885. They have been hanging on walls for most of their existence. They are as fresh and clear as the day they were made, No fading. No discolouring.
Surely it would be possible to reduce digital images to much smaller sizes and still retain the sharpness and detail of the originals.
I think of the microfilm dots that spies were said to have used in WW2 and, perhaps, even now.
Perhaps today's technology might even allow colour pictures to be saved in such a manner.
In my job as a title searcher I was often required to read microfilm and microfiche of old documents and often make prints. A matter of pressing one button. When the negatives were properly made and most were they produced excellent 8" x 10" prints on cheap paper.
Undoubtedly further research and refinement would be necessary but "If we can send a man to the moon ....
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 8, 2014 16:13:59 GMT -5
We still do prints of quite a number of our photos. A local photographic shop does 6x4 prints from digital, but made on proper photographic paper. I have never properly looked to see how much information is retained. A normal inkjet print only has the number of dots that the printer (and original file) will allow. Analogue will transfer all the "dots" from the original negative. It maybe that the prints from Fairs Cameras are somewhere between the two.
To add on the storage question: online sites such as flickr can be used for storage. There is 1TB of hard drive space available for $20-ish a year.
So here is the solution:
1) back up to second (and even third) hard drives
2) use flickr as a backup
3) email important photos to others, and yourself
4) print important photos out
5) make a photo-book of important events
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 8, 2014 16:18:15 GMT -5
We still do prints of quite a number of our photos. A local photographic shop does 6x4 prints from digital, but made on proper photographic paper. I have never properly looked to see how much information is retained. A normal inkjet print only has the number of dots that the printer (and original file) will allow. Analogue will transfer all the "dots" from the original negative. It maybe that the prints from Fairs Cameras are somewhere between the two. To add on the storage question: online sites such as flickr can be used for storage. There is 1TB of hard drive space available for $20-ish a year. So here is the solution: 1) back up to second (and even third) hard drives 2) use flickr as a backup 3) email important photos to others, and yourself 4) print important photos out 5) make a photo-book of important events Dave, I think solutions 1 to 3 really do not solve the longevity problem. But 4 and 5 may be the answers. My local photofinisher does a dreadful job printing from digital. I can do much better sitting at my desk with my pal Photoshop. Incidentally, better than I could usually do in my darkroom except with rare time and paper consuming efforts. I was not good in the darkroom. Mickey |
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Jun 8, 2014 16:23:31 GMT -5
You could have them printed. Or at least the best selection
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Jun 8, 2014 17:53:56 GMT -5
... Are you from Sweden? The picture from Abisko is not far from my home town in Norway ... A quick off-topic aside. I grew up in Kent (UK) as Dave said. I've lived all my adult life in Sweden, working in various aspects of education. A Norwegian town near Abisko? Sounds like Narvik. Haven't been there for many years. In 2000 we walked down Rombaksbotn but didn't go into town, we were picked up by bus. Have walked over Björnfjället many times. A strange experience, the Swedish side is absolutely wild and desolate, on the Norwegian side you suddenly drop into small villages of weekend cabins, planted gardens, kids playing. Back to topic: Some fine points made all round. |
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 8, 2014 20:12:14 GMT -5
Stephen on the original thread said:
We are all hung up on the archiving problems of digital images. I wonder if analogue photographers had similar worries for their work over the years since photography started. It was the ability to fix the image that was the big step forwards. To achieve permanence the image needs to be properly processed and stored.
The loss of images on CD is similar to the loss which occurred of much cine film from the early days. The nitrate stock literally fell apart.
Digital images could be put onto plain paper rolls with holes representing each bit of information, in much the same way as a pianola roll. I imagine, though, that the rolls would have to some length to save all the information that is carried in one digital image. Maybe the information could be stored as a hexadecimal list and thus be able to be kept in a notepad. As long as someone doesn't lose the "Rosetta Stone" it would always be capable of being translated.
In spite of the well known saying, even a diamond is not forever.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 9, 2014 4:38:03 GMT -5
It is feasible to transfer to paper as a file dump, but the physical size is the problem.
Prints from laser or the later inkjets should be stable for many years if on photograde papers. The problem with digital is that most are never printed out.
Micro dots amuse me in connection with digital, some dots are as small as about 8x8 pixels, yet contain more information than the pixels, who says digital can rival film?
Although an image may be saved as a hex dump in memory, using memory gives the same risks as storing in a picture format, which after all is the same thing.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 9, 2014 6:37:17 GMT -5
The hex dump is stored on paper, rather than in memory.
Why is there all this worry? The number of photos being taken is significantly more than there ever has been. A good percentage will be archived in one of several ways. In the 1950s someone took photos of Caldy sevens. All that were taken would have been printed out. I wouldn't be sure how many were taken but less than a dozen remain. A few years ago I took a thousand photos and printed a hundred or so out. Which system will keep a better record, even if the actual digital file is lost? The chances ate the the negatives are long gone.
We also seem to have a belief that every analogue photo has been kept. Many have been lost over the years. I recall an album in a second-hand bookshop of photos taken in the American West, perhaps the late 1800s into the 1900s. Someone might have bought eventually (I would have done if dates and places had been marked), however, many albums such as this would have just been dumped in the bin.
What is also true is that even when a hard drive fails most of the information will still be there, though it may take a specialist to recover it.
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Jun 9, 2014 8:34:00 GMT -5
Interesting debate, and very important also.
If one rule out judgement day and similar "events", the answer could be as simple as mickeyobe (and others) points out, print copies and make photobooks and so on - a physical medium - including small notes (name, year?).
Rely on electronics could be bad because dependency of electricity? A power outage could make backups useless. History, full of war and destruction, witness of future digital chaos?
It is of great interest for future generations, be able to look back. In the year 3412 someone claims MacDonalds never existed.. Well, I have a picture, it did exist, and it was called McDonald's. Think of being able to look at images 2000 years old today. Here we have an image of Jesus (left side) and Thomas eating dinner. Do we collectors have a responsibility? Do we believe in images when they gets really old?
Well, some sort of conclusion can be, go physical, print your most beloved once.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 9, 2014 10:29:01 GMT -5
2000 years ago pictures were on cave walls and seem to have been completely permanent.
For example: Lascaux |läsˈkō; las-|
the site of a cave in the Dordogne, France, which is richly decorated with Paleolithic wall paintings of animals dated to the Magdalenian period.
and
Right here in Ontario there are pictures on rocks along the shorelines of Georgian Bay that have lasted for hundreds of years in all kinds of weather.
Unfortunately shutter speed, aperture and focal length were not recorded.
Take a look at old family snapshots probably taken with simple box cameras. They are far more precious than yesterday's images which undoubtedly will increase in value as the years go by - if they survive.
Whatever the intent of the photographer when he took a picture he just made a historical record. It will be appreciated many years after the decisive moment.
Mickey
|
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Jun 9, 2014 16:33:34 GMT -5
I am only interested in preserving photos of my family and of special events in my families' life. Pics of bees, statues and sunsets can be deleted when I go. They are there only for my own pleasure.
I have mine printed in the lab - no inkjets, proper lab prints. I have inkjet prints printed in 1996 they are faded almost to nothing.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 9, 2014 17:20:17 GMT -5
I am only interested in preserving photos of my family and of special events in my families' life. Pics of bees, statues and sunsets can be deleted when I go. They are there only for my own pleasure. I have mine printed in the lab - no inkjets, proper lab prints. I have inkjet prints printed in 1996 they are faded almost to nothing. I totally agree....well almost. When photography first started (or before it first started perhaps) prints were not permanent. Techniques improved till most prints became permanent, albeit within certain limits. The same is true of inkjet printing. Inks has improved, though it seems to depend on the quality of the paper, perhaps more than the ink. I have some that have held up well, and others that have not. In fact there has quite a marked difference between prints in the same poster frame that had been on the walls of the rugby club for a few years: same ink, different paper. Analogue is not exempt from fading. Perhaps there is less problem, but I have copied and "re-coloured" faded photographic prints for friends - you know, the sort that have been in a frame in strong sunlight. One big trouble with inkjet prints is that they don't take too well to getting wet. The Canon Selphy system ("dye-sublimation") is better than inkjet in many respects. It offers many of the qualities of proper photographic prints, but without some of the disadvantages - although it has disadvantages all of its own. |
|
... My concern is how to preserve the images for the future. In digital, the files are very fragile in many ways. Computer systems fail, also malicious software can delete or tamper with images. I could make a long list. Lets say in about thirty years from now, how many images survive on computers? When I am gone from this earth, my encrypted disks will most likely be trashed since no one cares, and so on. What is your thought on this? ... I would like some comment how to preserve digital images, as time passes ... 
