I heard some historians of popular culture are lamenting the growth of digital photography because the photographer can delete all of the bad shots (eyes closed, subject moved, etc.). Only the best shots are kept. In the "glory days" of film, once the film was processed and the prints looked at, the bad shots were stuck in a shoebox never to see the light of day again. These shots might be the most revealing of a culture instead of the "perfect" images in an album. I do cull my bad shots and keep the good ones. The negatives, If I shoot print film, are always kept. With the advent of the index print, I keep the negs in an envelope with the index print affixed in front.
Jim A. > From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:07:03 -0700 > To: Mick Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. (kind of OT now) > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:07:03 -0400 > > Hello Mick, > > Point taken. My wife is somewhat the same way (except I archive > properly for her). One big difference though, is that she actually > takes pictures with her digitial. When using a film P&S she would > only take a single shot of any given memory or event (counting > pennies). So a roll of film would last quite a while and she would > miss quite a few worthwhile shots, not to mention the foibles of P&S > cameras. Many times the single shot sucked due to reliance on the > camera technology that failed her (focus, exposure, movement, eyes > closed, etc). Now with digital she shoots away and > gets way more to view and remember. I can say that she is much > happier with the digital direction. And yes, without me, she would > have no negatives and no cd's. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Thursday, August 26, 2004, 9:51:46 AM, you wrote: > > MM> Bruce: > MM> I am not talking about those who print their images. I think alot of > MM> people (like my mum) will keep all their images on CD and not bother to > MM> print (it's expensive or a big hassle) easier to email or take the laptop > to > MM> friends houses. Her album *is* the CD/DVD or whatever. It's not backup, > it's > MM> the primary output! > > MM> -----Original Message----- > MM> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > MM> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:40 PM > MM> To: Mick Maguire > MM> Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. (kind of OT now) > > > MM> Mick, > > MM> Herein lies the issue: > MM> We all keep talking about Joe Public (Sixpack) and his issues with > MM> archiving. The reality is that whether he is shooting film or > MM> digital, he isn't archiving in any manner that will provide longevity. > > MM> With film, if he isn't throwing his negs away, he is just throwing > MM> them in a drawer or box. Not caring about heat or humidity or having > MM> them processed in good chemicals. Nope, cheapest, quickest way > MM> possible. Then forget about it. Probably can't even find them, > MM> especially a specific frame if the need ever arises. Not to mention > MM> how much he damages them just looking at them (handling them with bare > MM> hands, scratching them by sliding them across the table, etc). > > MM> With digital, if he is having a cd made, more than likely it will be > MM> thrown into the same drawer or box, with equal care about > MM> environmental issues. Time will do it's work on the cd's as you > MM> suggest. > > MM> In the end, not much archiving really happened. He might get lucky > MM> and be able to use his pictures down the road, but don't count on it. > > MM> The reality is that archiving takes some thought, planning and caring > MM> whether you are shooting film or digital. Those that really care > MM> about the longevity of their photos will learn proper methods and the > MM> rest will reap what they sow. > > MM> For those on this list, I suspect that by and large archives are > MM> reasonable no matter medium they are using. I can say that I have > MM> some negatives my wife shot on cheap film that are fading badly and > MM> some of my slides shot back in the 70's and 80's are starting to show > MM> some problems. My only recourse with those is to scan them and fix > MM> and preserve them digitally. > > MM> -- > MM> Best regards, > MM> Bruce > > > > > > > >
