Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/27

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film
From: "Mike Durling" <durling@widomaker.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 21:42:58 -0400
References: <422141D3-5A49-11D6-A111-00050289F09A@sympatico.ca>

You are right in this regard.  Some digital prints may indeed last 100 years
but I would still, today, place my bets on good old fashioned black and
white film and paper.  As you note, they have an excellent track record!

The loss of Microdol-X is not in itself a major catastrophy.  At this point
we can all learn to mix developers that match the characteristics of our
favorites.  It's just less convenient.  As our favorite films are
discontinued there may come a time when there are few alternates.
Panatomic-X, APX-25 and Verichrome Pan are gone.  What's next?

Film is not going away anytime soon.  After all, you can still get glass
plates from Kodak, just only in Tmax-100.

Mike D

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William Gower" <w_gower@sympatico.ca>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film


> I've been thinking a lot about digital and film since returning from a
> trip a week ago. I'm not anti-digital, in fact I have a digital set-up
> at home including "archival" inks for black and white printing, but this
> experience hit home and I thought I'd share. (Plus, after searching this
> city high and low for some Microdol-X, I find out Kodak discontinued it
> a few months ago and I'm really pissed off.)
>
> About a week ago I returned from visiting my Grandmother, who is 91
> years old and my last remaining grandparent. Her time on this earth is
> numbered, so it was important to take the time to visit with her.  The
> one thing she wanted to do the most was to visit the "old house" - the
> original home where she lived with my grandfather (who died in 1996)
> prior to moving into a seniors apartment a decade ago. So we went.
>
> The house is slowly falling apart - not surprising that it's gone
> through 10 winters of -30c and 10 summers of +30c all boarded up. No
> heat, no running water, no humidity control, nada. The paint is peeling
> off the walls, mould and mildew is rampant, the linoleum is cracking and
> pealing. You get the picture.
>
> What I didn't expect to find however, was the boxes of old photographs.
> 4 large boxes FULL of old pictures.
>
> And I mean old. The earliest one is dated 1903, but there are others
> that are, by estimation and judging by the ages of the people, at least
> circa 1890's. These are pictures of not only my father and grandfather
> and my great-grandfather, but my great-great-grandfather. Some were
> formal portraits, but the majority were informal shots. Dogs, men
> working teams of horses, my grandfather and great-grandfather harvesting
> wheat. My great uncle returning by ship from WW1.
>
> I was astounded and asked my grandmother why on earth they would have
> left these photos to rot. Her reply was that the "important" ones were
> in albums. Which is true, to a point. All the formal pictures are tucked
> away in albums, while the majority of the informal/candid ones were left
> behind, without a thought to how important they actually are.
>
> The pictures are, for the most part, in rough shape. Some are faded
> simply because they are over 100 years old, others have mildew damage -
> none are pristine, but all are still viewable.
>
> Where am I going with this ?
>
> Are your great-great grandchildren going to be holding one of your
> digital inkjet prints 100 years from now just because Epson or someone
> like Henry Wilhelm says you should experience no significant fading
> under proper storage conditions ?
>
> Do you expect that electronic manufacturers will continue to build
> technology to support the CD and DVD formats 50 years from now, or are
> they going to be the technological equivalent of the 8 track tape, 45
> RPM disk or wax cylinder recording ?
>
> Digital may be more efficient  = more images. I'm thinking now that
> digital = the potential for more images lost.
>
> My thoughts. I guess only time will tell.
>
> William
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from William Gower <w_gower@sympatico.ca> (RE: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film)