Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

35mm Film vs DSLR

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
45 replies to this topic

#26 AuroraSeeker

AuroraSeeker

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,407
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2004

Posted 23 June 2005 - 06:48 PM

It may be of some interest to you and others to note that during the last five years at least, the Vatican, the Biblioteca Nacional de Espana at Madrid, the Biblioteque le France in Paris, the Louvre, the Kennedy Presidential Library, the Library of Congress and too many others to mention, have been saving their collections to digital archiving formats for access to researchers and the public however in the last year, due to concerns regarding the permanence of the digitally stored data, the above mentioned institutions have implemented a program of digital to silver film based transfer for the permanent archiving these irreplaceable collections of some of the most important images, documents, etc known to mankind. But what do they know?


So how long did it take you to dig up that stuff. At least a day, judging by how long it has taken your to respond to my reply.

What do they know???? Duh. Stupid comparison. The works and other data they are archiving in these institutions are priceless items that cannot be replaced and are extremely important historical items. As you said, " . . . collections of some of the most important images, documents, etc... known to mankind." I'm sure both my images and *YOUR* images don't even come close to the importance or historical value as what they are archiving. Again, DUH and very poor comparison.
 

#27 denise41

denise41

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2005

Posted 23 June 2005 - 08:06 PM

Dear Dan;
I'm sorry that I wasn't able to answer your response to my post more quickly as I do have a life and was busy watching a basketball game. I suggest you get the same, that is a life not a basketball game but with the tenor and quality of your response, that is, "DUH", I suppose you've got about as good as you're going to get. As an aside, my father once warned that in a dart game with a one eyed man, he with binocular vision wins. Nice eyepatch Dan!
Best wishes,
Denise Libby
 

#28 AuroraSeeker

AuroraSeeker

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,407
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2004

Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:12 PM

Again, I fail to see your comparison. Maybe i'm a bit *BLEEEP* in the head or something, but i'm still trying to figure out how the archival process of the the world's most important and historical documents pertains to the archival of an amateur photographer's work.

The Vatican, the Biblioteca Nacional de Espana at Madrid, the Biblioteque le France in Paris, the Louvre, the Kennedy Presidential Library, the Library of Congress have legitimate reason to have such a stringent archival process.

Some Joe Schmoe's shot of M42, does not.
 

#29 denise41

denise41

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2005

Posted 24 June 2005 - 01:43 AM

Dear Dan;
Finally you are beginning to understand that I have been suggesting a viable alternative and/or additional means of archiving ones important digital files. I agree that only you can assign their worth and thus determine the value to you of their safekeeping. I do not agree that only the famous and historic deserve whatever modicum of perpetuity that it is in our power to achieve. If that were the case many of the items we now deem historic and important would have ended up on the ash heap. It is not for us to decide what future generations may choose to deem important to their understanding of our times. A perfect example would be Julius Caesar's commentaries and the Gettysburg address, the lab notebooks of Marie Curie and the correspondence between Jefferson and Adams. All of these were considered too trivial to be of any interest to future generations and were discarded after the death of these people. It was only the sheerest luck that these were saved from destruction, whether by purpose or neglect, much to our benefit. There are others with which I am familiar, mostly in the field of photography, who in their lifetimes were never recognized, yet today their work is regarded as important to our understanding of their art. I hope I've made my point of view clear as I am really tired of this sometimes acrimonious thread. May we please get back to astrophotography?
Denise Libby
 

#30 AuroraSeeker

AuroraSeeker

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,407
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2004

Posted 24 June 2005 - 07:00 AM

Believe me, neither you or myself are a Julius Caesar or a Marie Curie. We certaintly don't need future generations to tell us that. I'm willing to bet that the dialogue demonstrated in this forum would be of much more use to future generations than our measely pics of M42. You would certainly learn more about a group of people, than looking at their astrophotos. Maybe we should archive this forum.
 

#31 Nodda Duma

Nodda Duma

    Vendor - Glass Plate Imaging

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 567
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2004

Posted 24 June 2005 - 09:27 AM

I think the best media would be a phonographic record--a gold-plated copper disc which also contains sounds and images selected to portray the diversity of life and culture on Earth. Instructions, in symbolic language, should indicate how the record is to be played. The images should be encoded in analog form. Each record is encased in a protective aluminum jacket, together with a cartridge and a needle.

That should last for at least 40,000 years, and should please both analog and digital folks...being that you can save digital images onto it in analog form.

Cheers,
Jason
 

#32 AuroraSeeker

AuroraSeeker

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,407
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2004

Posted 24 June 2005 - 09:36 AM

No way. The best media ever was the infamous 8-Track. Everybody knows that!
 

#33 denise41

denise41

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2005

Posted 24 June 2005 - 01:19 PM

Dear Dan;
you state that neither of us are a Julius Caesar or Marie Curie nor likely to be. Please speak for yourself. I am not dead yet and know not what I may accomplish, either through my own efforts or serendipity, hense an ounce of prevention seems appropriate. I don't know about you but I have never seen two photos of M42 that were the same and I've seen hundreds. Since some of my work is in both private and public collections around the world, I have a compelling reason to carefully archive my work however, upon the recent deaths of my beloved aunt and uncle, my cousin said that she was thankful for all the pictures I'd taken of her parents over the years as they were the only pictures surviving after the tragic fire that took their lives. These were not my masterworks but seemingly trivial photographic records of people I loved. Who knew how important they would become to their children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren?
Please don't tivialize that which you do not deem important as it may be of great importance to others even the "measely picture of M42" by Joe Shmoe.
Denise Libby
 

#34 Rushwind

Rushwind

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,137
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2004

Posted 24 June 2005 - 01:22 PM

Hey, um, I don't want to step in the middle of an all-out war (it's been fun to watch, after all :grin:)

...but I've been thinking about a problem, and am wondering how to solve it. Since I'm shooting on slides anyway, I'm all set up to torture my family members at every reasonable occasion with a slideshow of my latest images. However, since the slides are the originals, they haven't had their contrast stretched, etc. and are thus less impressive than they otherwise could be.

So, does anyone know a decent way of getting my gorgeous (albeit digitally enhanced) images back onto slides? I'd love to be able to archive my data in both formats, if only because some people have slow internet...

Just wondering,
Jimbo
 

#35 denise41

denise41

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2005

Posted 24 June 2005 - 01:52 PM

Dear Jimbo;
Your digitally enhanced files of your slides can be recorded back to slide film at most places that do pre press drum scanning for commercial publications. There are many available film recorders for home use. I use the Polaroid ProPalette 8000 film recorder which records at 8000dpi as I also record to 6x7cm film. If you are only interested in 35mm film then the Polaroid HR6000SE is a very good choice. More information on film recorders can be found at Bitec. You may also want to consider buying a used unit and saving a bundle. I hope this information is of some use.
Denise Libby
 

#36 Rushwind

Rushwind

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,137
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2004

Posted 25 June 2005 - 01:37 AM

Denise,

Exactly the info I needed; thanks! :)

I now return you to your regularly scheduled flamewar. :lol:

Jimbo
 

#37 AuroraSeeker

AuroraSeeker

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,407
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2004

Posted 25 June 2005 - 10:36 AM

Dear Dan;
These were not my masterworks but seemingly trivial photographic records of people I loved. Who knew how important they would become to their children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren?


And i'm willing to bet your grandchildren and greatgrandchildren wouldn't have the slightest idea to do with some dusty old glass plates found in the corner of the attic. The technology, albeit a good one as you mentioned, is slowly going the way of the dodo, regardless if it lasts 1000 years or so.

Your grandchildren and greatgrandchildren, and their children will be embedded deep within the digital world and beyond. They'd have a better chance of getting your images in digital format than trying to figure out how or what to do to these old dusty glass things that used to belong to old grandmom.
 

#38 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,588
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2005

Posted 25 June 2005 - 10:46 AM

At the rate we are using up[ our resources and destroying our environment, I seriously have doubts our great-grandchildren will be playing with anything digital.
 

#39 denise41

denise41

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2005

Posted 25 June 2005 - 02:41 PM

Dear Dan;
That response was not worthy of even you. Even the most dimwitted person I've ever met would have the sense to hold a negative or slide up to the light and realize that it contained an image but you know your family better than I.
Denise libby
 

#40 AuroraSeeker

AuroraSeeker

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,407
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2004

Posted 25 June 2005 - 04:09 PM

Firstly, i'm not talking about the initial identification of a glass plate. Thats obvious - duh. I'm talking about actually getting the photographic plate printed.

Anyways, i've given up with arguing with you. But i would like to see your work. You must be one of the best photographers in the entire world to go through all that trouble to archive your work. Or maybe your ego is just so *BLEEEP* big you actually think your work is pristine which warrants the use of such elaborate archival processes.

I for one know my work is nothing special. Digital archival is fine for me.
 

#41 denise41

denise41

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2005

Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:50 PM

Well Dan;
You are right about two things. As for printing a photographic image from a glass plate, I believe that problem will be easily overcome as long as there is sunlight, paper and a few common chemicals like ammonia and table salt to sensitize the paper and plain old water to fix the image. That is how the early photographers of the 19 century did it. I sure hope that the people of the 22 century are at least as bright but if not there are always libraries with books that describe the many formulas and processes available through the centuries. Oh wait! Books and libraries will be a thing of the past if I follow your reasoning so they will just have to get their information via the internet. You know the internet, safe, reliable and full of only the most accurate up to date information on everything. Much like you.
P.S. The next time you wish to engage in a battle of wits please remember to bring some.
Denise Libby
 

#42 AuroraSeeker

AuroraSeeker

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,407
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2004

Posted 25 June 2005 - 10:23 PM

Old man, your delusions continue to make me laugh. The fact that you are going out of your way to transfer all your photographic work on photographic plates for archival purposes seems just way over the top. Unless you are doing absolutely extraodinary work, applying ground breaking astrophotographical techniques, or discovering out of this world objects, i just can't see how anyone can justify the archiving of their work on photographic plates. Its just plain silly. Sure, the Library of Congress, National Archives do it, but for obvious reasons.

Also, believing that your descendants will actually go through the trouble of obtaining the proper chemicals and researching the proper techniques to print images from glass plates is another problem. In fact, you'd be lucky if they looked at them in the first place. In my many years in belonging to various photographic clubs, i don't know how many times family members come in with boxes full of slides, negatives, and other prints asking if anyone wants them. Typically you hear the famous line, "Well, i don't really know what they are . . . i was going to throw them out . . . but you can have them if you want."

Sure, digital archival may not be the best either, but if you really want your descendants to look at your work, why not create a scrap book or portfolio? They might actually spend a few extra minutes looking at then, then trying to figure out what is on a glass plate they find stashed in a box somewhere.

Regards,

PS - I'm done with this thread. I will not read or post any more messages on this particular thread.
 

#43 denise41

denise41

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2005

Posted 25 June 2005 - 11:44 PM

Dear Dan;
Listen here old woman, at no time did you ever read a suggestion from me that anyone should archive images to glass plates. As to the low regard in which you hold your own work, I can only say you know the value of your work but please don't presume to value the work of others. I have said for the umteenth time that each person must decide for themselves that method of archiving that best suits their needs and merely offered a viable addition and/or alternative to digital archiving that has been shown to be more permanent. I'm sure it doesn't matter what my descendants will do with what I leave behind as parts of my photographic archive have been deeded to and accepted by the Biblioteque de France in Paris and the Vatican library in Rome after my death. I have done my best to preserve what is important to me and then hand it on. What others do with it after that is not in my power to command.
Once again in this war of words it seems you've brought a knife to a gunfight.
Denise Libby
 

#44 southmike

southmike

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2004

Posted 26 June 2005 - 10:37 AM

hmm my 2 bits is
usually when you see the ccd size it is compared to a 35 mm cell, which is generally many times larger .
the equipment is very cheap now a days...the biggest draw back is the cost of film and developing....
especially during the startup phase when you are bound to waste film on under/ over exposed or blurry shots....
with digital you just re-shoot.

about the archival...I see a lot of people end up scanning the pics and tweaking them in photoshop anyway.
so once digitized the archival is the same.better if you consider they have negatives to boot.

so I would say it is about personal preference..availible equipment,and some people just like the look ands feel of real photo's.
esp if there printer equipment isn't up to it.

Personally I hope to have my cake and eat it too. i bought a rebel body and then found a film rebel with two lenses.
for a song and a dance.(110$)I couldn't even buy one lens for that. Hopefully I will use both, I plan to use the digital as a learning tool and then when I can take good shots , put some on film.And continue to use the digital.
 

#45 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 27 June 2005 - 05:17 PM

interesting thread.

denise
if i may add my few cents. i beleive dan does not
valuue his work in low regard. rather he does not
act in an egotistical manner and thinks realistically
in terms of how his work compares with others who have
much more expertise in the art. you claim your work to
be superier, but i have not seen any of your work in publications or the internet. perhaps before you make such outraggeous claims you show examples of your work and let us decide.

dan
you should probly lighten up a bit. its obvious denise is a relic from times way past. remember its hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
 

#46 Suk Lee

Suk Lee

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,566
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2003

Posted 28 June 2005 - 09:03 AM

Dear CNers:

One of the delights of CN is that it is a community of friends who enjoy sharing with each other. Accordingly, we take special care at CN to keep the tone friendly, descend into name calling, personal attacks, etc.

My apologies to the members for not catching this earlier - I am not able to spend as much time moderating as I used to.

Unfortunately, with essentially no notice, I am going to lock this thread down, as it has run its useful course and has now moved into non-CN behavior. I urge those who participated in the end of the thread to cool off, and re-look at your responses in the frame of mind of: would I talk like this face to face with one of my friends?

Thanks,
Suk (mod)
 


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics