 Aphorisms [message #1032] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 19:39  |
 ZoneZero Forums
Messages: 141
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
|
Please share with us your opinions and ideas on this matter.
[Updated on: Tue, 01 November 2005 15:31] by Moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Aphorisms [message #1038 is a reply to message #1037 ] |
Sat, 08 October 2005 00:43  |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
| Simon Cygielski wrote on Sun, 02 October 2005 14:14 |
Real nice, Pedro -- you make it sound all so Zen. I have only one problem here: the five or six CD-ROMs with archived images that I can't get my computer to read any more.  All my negatives, on the other hand, are filed and ready to use.
|
First I would try and find out why these files are not readable? is it because they were saved with a format that is no longer available on your computer? if so, then getting back your files with that particular older software is one possibility. Then there is another very accesible piece of software called Graphic Converter ( which you can download from the internet) it is like a swiss army knife of files that will open most anything ever recorded.
Second, if that would not work, there seem to be other options to recovering your files, provided they were saved correctly in the first place. However, ypu should consider that even in a worst case scenario, there have been all sorts of accidental losses of negatives as well, through bad archival processing, due to physical damage due to water, fire, humidity, etc. I do not believe that negatives are any safer that other digital means of saving archiving. They are all vulnerable in way or another to issues of loss.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
|
| Re: Aphorisms [message #1041 is a reply to message #1040 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2005 00:20 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
If you stick to film as you suggest, you better stock up on a lot of it, while there is still some to be bought, but then the problem is that film does not store very well over the long run, so maybe at some point you will end up having to use digital anyway. If you speak to conservators, those who work at conserving film archives you will be dismayed at how vulnerable your cherished film is in reality. So my advice to you would be to get more information on this matter, as you might be reconsidering some of your conclusions. Remember, I want to conserve my archives as much as you do yours, this is not about defending one solution but about making sure that one has the best option at hand.
I am perfectly clear that my entire archive will need to be periodically updated, upgraded over the decades. But with the technologies at hand already today, these can be processed or shall I say, reprocessed, in batch form, where a good computer might be busy for a few weeks with over a million images. Nothing out of the world, or too complicated to handle. Elaborare? yes, but then so is backing up all the time your archives, or washing your film endlessly and contaminating the environment in order to get your film rid of all the chemicals in which it was developed. Oh! by the way, water is also going to be scarce, and washing films endlessly might not be an option in some parts of the world.
These are all things to consider.
Best regards
Pedro
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
|
| Re: Aphorisms [message #1666 is a reply to message #1042 ] |
Tue, 01 November 2005 15:37 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
SIMON,
Some further ideas about this issue of the negative as a safe haven for your work.
Think that you can not store a negative in two places. However, you can make copies of your most important work, and store it in two diverse facilities, that way you are better protected from loss due to unforseen circumstances. With all the potential for damage due to natural events ( earthquake, floods, hurricane, fire, etc) having only one alternative for protecting your work, such as the sole negative might not be as secure as you anticipated.
Best regards
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Re: Aphorisms [message #1668 is a reply to message #1666 ] |
Sun, 06 November 2005 14:22 |
Simon Cygielski
Messages: 8
Registered: April 2005 |
Junior Member |
|
|
|
I'm fully aware of the fragility of negatives, but somehow it doesn't bother me quite as much as the inability to access my digital archives. You have a point about two backup copies, though - that would certainly more secure, although it would be overkill for me. But two separate backup copies (no matter where you stored them) would at least increase the chances of being able to recover anything in case of disc failure (which I know is not only my problem). I suppose the new technology will force us to think about archival storage in completely new ways. I'm sure we're not there yet, though.
[Updated on: Sun, 06 November 2005 14:24]
|
|
|
| Re: Aphorisms [message #1678 is a reply to message #1666 ] |
Sun, 04 December 2005 00:59 |
|
Pedro you write:
"I am perfectly clear that my entire archive will need to be periodically updated, upgraded over the decades. But with the technologies at hand already today, these can be processed or shall I say, reprocessed, in batch form, where a good computer might be busy for a few weeks with over a million images. Nothing out of the world, or too complicated to handle. Elaborare? yes, but then so is backing up all the time your archives, or washing your film endlessly and contaminating the environment in order to get your film rid of all the chemicals in which it was developed. Oh! by the way, water is also going to be scarce, and washing films endlessly might not be an option in some parts of the world."
It is very difficult to disagree with what you write as you are correct. But you are correct in much the same way as a politician may be correct in defending his or her political spectrum. Every time I make a mistake with a CD I cut it with scissors and then I don't know what to do with it. Here in Vancouver I put it in a bin for plastics. What do "they" do with it? For how many centuries will it be "archival" in a land fill? You can see used film cameras sold in stores. What happens to all those digital wonders of three years ago ( or a mere two months ago)? Where do they go to die when it is too expensive to try to fix them?
I am not necessarily trying to defend the archival properties of film (I am not) in comparison to the digital. But I leave as evidence Niepce's photograph taken from his kitchen window in the 1830s. It can be still viewed at the University of Texas at Austin. Does anybody believe Epson's claim for 200 years?
I would be presently be more concerned with all those press photographs (and amateurs', too) of the 60s, 70s and 80s taken with colour film. Both the negatives and the C prints made from them are highly unstable. I was not too surprised when I read some years ago that the Ampex videotape of the Armstrong's landing on the moon had to be reconstructed and repaired as it had deteriorated. I was in Mexico City in the early 70s when the Heraldo newpspaper was publishing it daily in colour. Where are those negatives? In what shape are they? And that's film, not digital.
|
|
|
| Re: Aphorisms [message #1916 is a reply to message #1037 ] |
Sat, 03 November 2007 23:53 |
|
|
Simon? This is a bit off-topic, but were you in Krakow in the summer of '95? I think we met at the summer school there. I saw one of your photos from the street carnival. It's Holly--I went to Hungary and you sent me a postcard. Is it you?
[Updated on: Sat, 03 November 2007 23:58]
|
|
|
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
) 1 Vote(s)
