Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom



Well this has another 'permanence problem'.  I still have in my 'archive' of
storage media
2 9track 6250 tapes (from less than 20 yrs ago and now effectively
unreadable)
6 8" Floppy disks (now unreadable)
3 IoMega removable disks (from 10 years ago - now unreadable)
lots of 3.5" floppies, which are rapidly becoming unreadable on many
machines

OTOH, I have a cabinet full of negatives from 30+ years ago - and negatives
from my grandmother's time, as well as positives, that survived Displaced
Person's Camps and all sorts of horrible situations. How many CDRoms do you
think would have made it through Forced Labor camps of WWII?

ALL of which are 'readable' (ie printable)

Data CD-ROMs, exposed to sunlight, have a life expectancy of about 15years
before bit-rot becomes uncorrectable (not AS big a deal in image and music
CDs where it appears as noise)

As for Digital having the same quality as film - maybe if you are purely
looking at 35mm - but I would disagree here as well.  Note also, that as
wonderful as an Epson 1280 is, It can't do 16x20 or larger.  I can with my
chemical enlarger.  Pretty trivially.

That said, I'm not an anti-digital luddite.  But unless you are going to
spring for a Canon D-30 or a Nikon D-1, even point-and-shoot film cameras
give you better image quality, and  I will take the crispness of a
photographic print over a glossy inkjet anyday.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Allen" <ktrout@hotmail.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom


> John wrote:
> >>the only "difference" that seems still unresolved (to me, at least) is
> >>that of print permanence.
>
> OK, here's a thought: Since the permanence of a digital print is
relatively
> unknown, empirically, why not include a CD with the picture, with a print
> purchase? It would add about $5US to the price, if you did a mess of them
at
> the same time.
>
> There's probably something I'm not taking into consideration, sort of like
> Will Roger's idea to get German U-Boats out of action in WW-I--"You just
> bring the temperature of the Ocean up to boiling! Ah don't know how you'd
> *do* it--Ah just come up with the ideas!" :-)
>
> Best regards--LRA
>
>
> >From: Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>
> >Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> >To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
> >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 01:36:40 -0700
> >
> > >> I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't
> >understand the
> > >> issue. What "differences" are we talking about here? Excellent output
> > >> can be
> > >> obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that
> > >> seems
> > >> still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And
as
> > >> long as
> > >> great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would
> > >> choose the
> > >> one with greatest longevity. Is there a consensus among experts?
> > >> (I have been to Wilhelm's site -
> > >> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/index.htm -
> > >> but he seems to limit his studies to digital.)
> > >> Thank,
> > >> John J.
> >
> >
> >Oddly, Wilhem is considered the #1 authority on conventional film and
> >print permanence.  He has several books out of the subject.  He has
> >since been more interested in digital due to the huge demand for this
> >information.
> >
> >As far as which will last longer, conventional versus inkjet output...
> >When using most OEM inks and papers, conventional photographic printing
> >is far more stable that inkjet.  However, if you use inks and paper
> >types specifically designed for longevity, the digital print *may* have
> >an advantage, which we will not truly know for hundreds of years.
> >Wilhem, for instance, identifies Cibachrome type two are having only a
> >17-19 year life before fading becomes most a potential issue.  He gives
> >higher points for inks, dyes or emulsion which fade evenly between their
> >colors to maintain neutral greys and blacks.  There are some ink and
> >paper types within the inkjet market which claim accelerated aging with
> >fading of over 200 years based upon the relative accuracy of any
> >accelerated testing processes.
> >
> >Art
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.