Re: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film

["\(SonC\) Sonny Carter" <sonc@sonc.com>]

William,

  I run into this lots in my job.  The truth is that a paper print,
especially one contact printed from an origianl neg, as so many of the ones
you have are full of information.  A good flatbed scanner can save these
shots and with a little work thay can be partially restored.

You have a treasure there.  You also have a task.

Sonny Carter ( I'll bet you did not know that I am:)
Digital Imaging Specialist
Cammie Henry Research Center
Northwestern State University





- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William Gower" <w_gower@sympatico.ca>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 8:42 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