Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 75 of 75

Thread: No new cameras?

  1. #51
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    But whether physical or digital, it comes down to the same thing, take care of your stuff.
    That is of course the key to it all, but while all kinds of people, mothers, grandmothers, uncles and aunts, often took good care of their physical photos, made albums etc., very few make backups of their computers or smartphones. Most don't even know how to do that. And again: Those backups are probably useless in less than a 100 years anyway, since the devices can't be connected to any device that might be able to read it.

    I've been working with computers since the early seventies. None of the storage devices that were in use for the first 10 of those years can be read today unless one digs up a working device from some museum. Even the early PC HDDs are becoming a challenge, since the bus interface have been changing, and now we are talking about units that are sometimes less than 20 years old. I'm sure there are many people out there with old backups on HDD units that they will have difficulty reading because of this. 20 more years? Forget about it.

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    This is the conventional viewpoint, and the stem from which all the negative views of the future branch.

    BUT ... The past couple of decades has been a time of enormous change and growth, a turbulent era where standards were not well-formed, or documented, until near the end of it. Where the technology was coming into being, not a stable state.

    I think the whole has grown much more sophisticated now, that those who create the systems understand the need for standards and welcome them. I don't think we're headed backwards into a time of chaos and lack of standards. With standards comes future security. The systems are reaching ... not maturity, but critical mass where it becomes difficult to lose the information needed entirely. Unless the catastrophic calamity occurs.

    Those who do not understand the systems are likely to get left behind, JUST LIKE how those who did not understand how to protect their film and their prints were in many cases left behind and lost their photos to floods, fires, and other degradation. There's nothing any individual can do about that.

    Anything sufficiently valued will be carried forwards. Anything not sufficiently valued will not. Just like it has always been. The technology is different, the ease of access less "natural" but assuming we don't lose the plot entirely, it won't be lost. And if we do lose the plot, well, we've likely going to have lost it all anyway as our survival in the numbers we are now depends upon the complexity of our world as it is for a lot of the basic essentials.

    We must all take responsibility to ensure the future. Migrate your data, publish your work, get it into the Library of Congress so that larger organizations curate and caretake it. Think about your exit plan ... What will happen to your photography, the work of your lifetime, when you are no longer around? Do you plan to just dump it on your friends and family, assuming they will value it and take care of it? I do not, I plan to move what I cherish in my work into artifacts, digital and print, that others can cherish past me. Publish or perish, for real.

    I refuse to take a negative view of the future. It is the Zeitgeist to do so, but I feel that view is wrong. It's the view of old men not willing to move forward, of adamant conservatism. "I want the world as it was when it was good (when I was a child)."

    I don't want a lot of the crap I saw happening when I was a child. I don't want the level of poverty, the fallibility to disease and despair, and the unconnectedness of vast parts of the world that was rampant in the 1950s, 1960s. So much has improved world wide ... with some losses, yes ... but I find it impossible to accept that all is going bad and that the future will be dark, dark, dark forever.

    If I accept that belief, what point is there to my photography other than to express my pain and despair? That's not how I want to live. And I won't.

    G

    A Utopian view propagated by the Photographic elite.

    Like all Utopian tainted delusions it chides old men unwilling to change that grasp onto the past, while painting a picture of the future as a heroically uplifted youthful face looking forward into the brightness like a Soviet era propaganda poster.

    We are not talking about the smidgen of photographers represented here, a minuscule few grains of sand on a 1,000 mile long beach. Not the photographic record of the few curated by the even fewer caretakers of culture.

    The subject in question is the private record of families, not art, or cultural milestones, nor what the elite think is worth keeping.

    Jorgen sums it up in a "real world" manner ... family photographic records once "curated" by the maternal members of families ... which seems to have crossed all lines of social/racial/cultural/national boundaries. Notably, the only device required to view these icons of family life were your own two eyes.

    To that I'd add that the previous process helped assure a more intact family record. People could not see the images unless they printed them. Those prints were sorted and lovingly saved in albums and/or the ubiquitous shoe boxes. Barring some natural disaster, these were forwarded down from generation to generation. That they were deemed precious is apparent when often the one possession people grabbed when hurriedly fleeing an impending disaster is ... the family album. People who lose every material possession to Tornados/Floods/Hurricanes often most lament the loss of their family photos because it is the one thing insurance cannot replace.

    Granted, today there are methods of preservation and storage that should withstand the test of time while even protecting against natural disasters ... namely off-premises mass storage as a back-up to any physical record. Again, Jorgen nails it ... very few are doing that. And as devices move on into the future, there is even less assurance of preservation.

    I think this may have become prevalent behavior today because there is no highly visible company promoting it like Kodak once did. Add to that the "fight or flight" reaction to the geekified nature of digital preservation.

    As the Apple iPhone ads like to point out ... "More photos are taken with an iPhone than any other camera." "Taken", not "Kept".

    Here is an idea for Apple ... take a hint from Kodak, who despite their more recent failure is largely responsible for generation upon generation of family photographic records. If Apple were to promote preservation, and made it a method of the common person, most certainly the situation would improve. Make it as easy to preserve as it is to take a photo.

    Oh well, back to scanning and printing my pile of family prints from the 1960s to the 90s ... from which the scans themselves no one wants ... so I have to print them.

    - Marc

  3. #53
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    A Utopian view propagated by the Photographic elite.

    Like all Utopian tainted delusions it chides old men unwilling to change that grasp onto the past, while painting a picture of the future as a heroically uplifted youthful face looking forward into the brightness like a Soviet era propaganda poster.

    We are not talking about the smidgen of photographers represented here, a minuscule few grains of sand on a 1,000 mile long beach. Not the photographic record of the few curated by the even fewer caretakers of culture.

    The subject in question is the private record of families, not art, or cultural milestones, nor what the elite think is worth keeping.

    Jorgen sums it up in a "real world" manner ... family photographic records once "curated" by the maternal members of families ... which seems to have crossed all lines of social/racial/cultural/national boundaries. Notably, the only device required to view these icons of family life were your own two eyes.

    To that I'd add that the previous process helped assure a more intact family record. People could not see the images unless they printed them. Those prints were sorted and lovingly saved in albums and/or the ubiquitous shoe boxes. Barring some natural disaster, these were forwarded down from generation to generation. That they were deemed precious is apparent when often the one possession people grabbed when hurriedly fleeing an impending disaster is ... the family album. People who lose every material possession to Tornados/Floods/Hurricanes often most lament the loss of their family photos because it is the one thing insurance cannot replace.

    Granted, today there are methods of preservation and storage that should withstand the test of time while even protecting against natural disasters ... namely off-premises mass storage as a back-up to any physical record. Again, Jorgen nails it ... very few are doing that. And as devices move on into the future, there is even less assurance of preservation.

    I think this may have become prevalent behavior today because there is no highly visible company promoting it like Kodak once did. Add to that the "fight or flight" reaction to the geekified nature of digital preservation.

    As the Apple iPhone ads like to point out ... "More photos are taken with an iPhone than any other camera." "Taken", not "Kept".

    Here is an idea for Apple ... take a hint from Kodak, who despite their more recent failure is largely responsible for generation upon generation of family photographic records. If Apple were to promote preservation, and made it a method of the common person, most certainly the situation would improve. Make it as easy to preserve as it is to take a photo.

    Oh well, back to scanning and printing my pile of family prints from the 1960s to the 90s ... from which the scans themselves no one wants ... so I have to print them.

    - Marc
    Funny never thought of myself as "Photographic Elite" nor partaking of utopian propaganda. Nor do I feel that the members here are smidgens. Now that we are done setting up straw men to make a point. I suggest - we put things in context. Nobody was promised immortality, and certainly not the work they "left behind".

    I am well aware of the importance of family memories captured in photography. Also apparently need to add , all memories lost thru fire, neglect, or outright destruction. I think what Ben is doing, is a service to mankind, (not the utopian dream) We should step back a moment and consider what he is actually doing. Recording centuries old documents in a medium that people will be able to study and handle w/o ruining the originals.

    I don't subscribe to the "Chicken Little" theory that all that is recorded digitally will become obsolete and unusable in the future. I too worked with computer in the late 60's, - Information is kept and archived if important to someone. If not - "pays your money and takes your chances", - how many of us "few" have lost negatives due to negligence, or just bad luck? We can cite all the beta max's examples we want, as long as there is a need somebody will fill it. Just because technology moves on, does not mean, that it leaves all behind, - again I would cite what Ben is doing,.

    Please find the basis of "family photographic records once "curated" by the maternal members of families" is that not romantic and truly a myth? Also I don't think parsing Apple's propaganda, serves any purpose, other than to sell more iPhones. - Also last i heard Apple does offer iCloud.

    I am, as stated a proponent of prints, that is the way I introduced to Photography, and my preferred way to view images. But it serves no purpose to belittle or humiliate people who use their phones to take pictures of food, - it is non threatening and harmless, maybe the way people once thought about "Rock n' Roll"?

    my 2 cents - I will go back to working on a print

    Phil

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by alajuela View Post
    Funny never thought of myself as "Photographic Elite" nor partaking of utopian propaganda. Nor do I feel that the members here are smidgens. Now that we are done setting up straw men to make a point. I suggest - we put things in context. Nobody was promised immortality, and certainly not the work they "left behind".

    I am well aware of the importance of family memories captured in photography. Also apparently need to add , all memories lost thru fire, neglect, or outright destruction. I think what Ben is doing, is a service to mankind, (not the utopian dream) We should step back a moment and consider what he is actually doing. Recording centuries old documents in a medium that people will be able to study and handle w/o ruining the originals.

    I don't subscribe to the "Chicken Little" theory that all that is recorded digitally will become obsolete and unusable in the future. I too worked with computer in the late 60's, - Information is kept and archived if important to someone. If not - "pays your money and takes your chances", - how many of us "few" have lost negatives due to negligence, or just bad luck? We can cite all the beta max's examples we want, as long as there is a need somebody will fill it. Just because technology moves on, does not mean, that it leaves all behind, - again I would cite what Ben is doing,.

    Please find the basis of "family photographic records once "curated" by the maternal members of families" is that not romantic and truly a myth? Also I don't think parsing Apple's propaganda, serves any purpose, other than to sell more iPhones. - Also last i heard Apple does offer iCloud.

    I am, as stated a proponent of prints, that is the way I introduced to Photography, and my preferred way to view images. But it serves no purpose to belittle or humiliate people who use their phones to take pictures of food, - it is non threatening and harmless, maybe the way people once thought about "Rock n' Roll"?

    my 2 cents - I will go back to working on a print

    Phil
    "Smidgen" is a slang unit of measure, not a personal description ... meaning small amount compared to the whole. As in, our efforts here add up to a smidgen amongst the billions of images taken.

    Elite is not a derogatory term as you seem to take it ... it refers to the best in a particular category

    Ben is providing an elite service by helping preserving historically and culturally important documents

    AGAIN, that isn't the concern.

    History has already proven you wrong regarding the preservation of generational family records. The loss is already well on its' way ... mostly out of technologically induced neglect. What Ben does has little to no meaning to someone taking family photos on a phone and not doing anything with them ... you keep confusing the two efforts.

    Of course, some images succumb to unforeseen events whether analog or digital ... but as a rule, the vast majority of a family's past images did not. Exceptions to a rule do not eliminate the rule.

    I cite Apple as a possible solution to the dilemma ... however, having a solution for preserving memories like the Cloud isn't the same as powerfully promoting it in the manner that Kodak did. More than any other, Apple seems in a position to make a course correction by adding just one more profitable attribute to their product ... preservation. Come on Apple, make it a no-brainer effort for everyday folks ... and pick up the torch that Kodak dropped.

    Sticking our heads in the sand and singing "Don't worry, everything will be all right" won't fix this. Recognizing and revealing it will.

    Then again, maybe no one but the photographic elite gives a shyt anymore. That could be a real possibility.

    If so, I believe there will be some really disappointed people in the future.

    - Marc

  5. #55
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    "Smidgen" is a slang unit of measure, not a personal description ... meaning small amount compared to the whole. As in, our efforts here add up to a smidgen amongst the billions of images taken.

    Elite is not a derogatory term as you seem to take it ... it refers to the best in a particular category

    Ben is providing an elite service by helping preserving historically and culturally important documents

    AGAIN, that isn't the concern.

    History has already proven you wrong regarding the preservation of generational family records. The loss is already well on its' way ... mostly out of technologically induced neglect. What Ben does has little to no meaning to someone taking family photos on a phone and not doing anything with them ... you keep confusing the two efforts.

    Of course, some images succumb to unforeseen events whether analog or digital ... but as a rule, the vast majority of a family's past images did not. Exceptions to a rule do not eliminate the rule.

    I cite Apple as a possible solution to the dilemma ... however, having a solution for preserving memories like the Cloud isn't the same as powerfully promoting it in the manner that Kodak did. More than any other, Apple seems in a position to make a course correction by adding just one more profitable attribute to their product ... preservation. Come on Apple, make it a no-brainer effort for everyday folks ... and pick up the torch that Kodak dropped.

    Sticking our heads in the sand and singing "Don't worry, everything will be all right" won't fix this. Recognizing and revealing it will.

    Then again, maybe no one but the photographic elite gives a shyt anymore. That could be a real possibility.

    If so, I believe there will be some really disappointed people in the future.

    - Marc
    History can not prove me wrong as you any more more than you can prove a negative. Do you know - or anybody knows how much has been lost in photography or any physical records over time? The answer is no. We have an idea what has been destroyed ie War, Fire, Floods etc, but otherwise we know nothing, Unless we know how many photos have been taken and how many have been printed and how many survived, it is conjecture. We can all have opinions, but....

    There is no confusion or lumping together the state of electronic images vs print images, the numbers are certainly skewed to electronic. First the ease, second the cost (zero) everything has a camera. As opposed to idyllic worlds of instancmatics and Polaroids.
    Where there is no disagreement is that there is a huge - (sea change) drop in the number of images that get transferred to paper. On a personal level I also agree this is a loss and a pity. BUT I do not buy into the fatalistic attitude all is doom, that any format used today is going to be unreadable in the future. Nor do I feel that is optimistic, that is practical.

    I just saw a new web site up with beautiful images, -- He also sells prints.

    To make a note - what Ben is doing is exactly the same, digitizing records from a documents created 100's of years ago. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been digitized. As far as family archives are concerned - it is up to the family as it always has been - I would venture to say, the Rabbinic records of life then - if Photography would have been invented -- would be included, of course in print form to be digitized. Elite is not a word that comes to mind, any more than historians, archeologists or anthropologists are "elite".

    Where we digress is I think all is not lost due to the proliferation digital photos, ie Iphone and lets not leave out Samsungs, with Google's Android. I do think the records digitized today will be maintained as long as we have a semblance of a civilized society. To be crass - there is too much money in it.

    Phil

  6. #56
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,575
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: No new cameras?

    Apple makes it very easy to produce printed books of photos. I can't speak to the archival nature of the results, but they *do* provide a means of getting your pictures into the real world.

    Best,

    Matt

  7. #57
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by alajuela View Post
    Funny never thought of myself as "Photographic Elite" nor partaking of utopian propaganda. ..
    Nor I. Some of my most treasured photos are friends and family.
    They are going into books which, while not saleable, will be printed and distributed so that there's a future for those that might cherish them.

    (I have been making*small books through iPhoto since the service was available. It's great for some books that you want to distribute to family and friend. They seem to hold up well so far. And if you want to preserve them in the Library of Congress, register them before printing, create a page with the identification and copyright info, and send them a digital or physical copy for archiving. Immortality can be yours. ;-)

    G

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: No new cameras?

    Marc is correct however, there is a huge untapped market out there for providing a future for the common mans digital records. It will need customer education however and I have a feeling that a large part of the larger corporations goal is to not make people realise how temporary their efforts actually are in the digital realm unless they take specific, annoying and often costly steps. Google would seem to be the prime candidate for this, especially with their project to photograph the worlds books and make them available online (copyright issues aside). Would be a huge money maker too.

    It is really the cloud I suppose but I just wonder whether giving control over history as it will be perceived 100's of years from now, to governments and large corporations is really the best idea. We have only really begun to undo the damage of the history of the dark ages (or indeed the past few thousand years) being in the hands of those (monarchies and religious groups) far too unobjective to allow it to be taken as fact and that is where there were, albeit few, independant records. Technically the truth of what has actually happened during this generation should be the easiest to piece together given and albeit the vast collection of available information worldwide. Only though if it is curated independently of governments, corporations and interest groups. I would not trust to that if it is they who will be relied on to do the curating just to make sure there will be a record at all. Not centuries from now.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  9. #59
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: No new cameras?

    Yep, you guys are just "awe shucks" common folk snapping away with the only camera you own ... your iPhone.

  10. #60
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    Marc is correct however, there is a huge untapped market out there for providing a future for the common mans digital records. It will need customer education however and I have a feeling that a large part of the larger corporations goal is to not make people realise how temporary their efforts actually are in the digital realm unless they take specific, annoying and often costly steps. Google would seem to be the prime candidate for this, especially with their project to photograph the worlds books and make them available online (copyright issues aside). Would be a huge money maker too.

    It is really the cloud I suppose but I just wonder whether giving control over history as it will be perceived 100's of years from now, to governments and large corporations is really the best idea. We have only really begun to undo the damage of the history of the dark ages (or indeed the past few thousand years) being in the hands of those (monarchies and religious groups) far too unobjective to allow it to be taken as fact and that is where there were, albeit few, independant records. Technically the truth of what has actually happened during this generation should be the easiest to piece together given and albeit the vast collection of available information worldwide. Only though if it is curated independently of governments, corporations and interest groups. I would not trust to that if it is they who will be relied on to do the curating just to make sure there will be a record at all. Not centuries from now.
    Bingo! Frankly, I didn't even think of Google ... that's an interesting notion.

    I think if modern preservation of family photographic records is tied to making hard copies, it'll fail ... let alone Aunt Phoebe making a book and shuttling it off to the Library of Congress ... as if that'd ever happen on a mass scale these days. Delusional "let them eat cake" thinking.

    It has to be some very easy method ... perhaps an App that you just tap and that delightful pic of a sleeping Uncle Marvin who's face was painted by his nieces, automatically goes into the family Cloud photo vault. If it already exists, then it needs to be better promoted.

    I've come to accept that photography has largely become democratic ... but it needs to be preserved to finish the task ... and most certainly not by Governments or institutions with an agenda.

    I had an interesting insight when photographing a 1 year old baby for a previous wedding client. Yes, I could do a beautiful couple of shots, but it was a crap shoot whether the baby was in the mood. On the other hand the couple is there boots on the ground all the time, with a photo devise at hand all the time ... there's no way to compete with that. It'd be a greater service to them to spend an hour showing them how to compose an image and helping them set up a way to keep the images.

    - Marc

  11. #61
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    That is of course the key to it all, but while all kinds of people, mothers, grandmothers, uncles and aunts, often took good care of their physical photos, made albums etc., very few make backups of their computers or smartphones. Most don't even know how to do that. And again: Those backups are probably useless in less than a 100 years anyway, since the devices can't be connected to any device that might be able to read it.

    I've been working with computers since the early seventies. None of the storage devices that were in use for the first 10 of those years can be read today unless one digs up a working device from some museum. Even the early PC HDDs are becoming a challenge, since the bus interface have been changing, and now we are talking about units that are sometimes less than 20 years old. I'm sure there are many people out there with old backups on HDD units that they will have difficulty reading because of this. 20 more years? Forget about it.
    You never migrated your data onto new hardware?? The stuff you need to take care of is the data.

  12. #62
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    You never migrated your data onto new hardware?? The stuff you need to take care of is the data.
    Yes.

    Media is transitory. Data is forever. I've been working with digital images since the early 1980s. If I relied upon the media to be around, well, forget it. Most is long gone. But I always migrated my data to new media as it appeared.

    I've not lost a single digital image file. Ever.

    I don't know how many thousands of negatives and prints I've lost over the years. All I know is that I often remember a photo that is long long gone.

    G

  13. #63
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    You never migrated your data onto new hardware?? The stuff you need to take care of is the data.
    I do, and most of the data I ever created are intact. However, when I ask others, except photo enthusiasts or professionals, hardly anybody do.
    Things I sell: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/epixx?language=en
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #64
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: No new cameras?

    The problem with commercial enterprises is that they are commercial, and when they don't make a profit anymore, they go bankrupt, like Digital Railroad did a few years ago. The cloud exists because people and/or commercial entities pay for it. The only thing that can be truly trusted are our own copies of whatever media we own. If schools weren't so hung up in previous decades, they would be teaching backup of essential data. If electronic stores weren't so hung up in the latest, profit making gadget, they would be promoting reliable, personal backup systems as a "must have" for anyone owning an electronic device able to capture data.

    But they don't, and my guess is that they might never. Time these days is too precious to be spent on yesterday, when there's a stack of tomorrows waiting to be explored and captured, like fireflies or sparklers. Reminds me of the place where I live. There's one time only, an that time is now

  15. #65
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    The problem with commercial enterprises is that they are commercial, and when they don't make a profit anymore, they go bankrupt, like Digital Railroad did a few years ago. The cloud exists because people and/or commercial entities pay for it. The only thing that can be truly trusted are our own copies of whatever media we own. If schools weren't so hung up in previous decades, they would be teaching backup of essential data. If electronic stores weren't so hung up in the latest, profit making gadget, they would be promoting reliable, personal backup systems as a "must have" for anyone owning an electronic device able to capture data.

    But they don't, and my guess is that they might never. Time these days is too precious to be spent on yesterday, when there's a stack of tomorrows waiting to be explored and captured, like fireflies or sparklers. Reminds me of the place where I live. There's one time only, and that time is now
    Unfortunately, I fear you are right on all accounts Jorgen.

    I have a fair amount of images located on SmugMug which isn't free storage. If they went belly up, it'd be a monumental task to migrate them somewhere else. My on-site storage is fraught with impermanence ... as they say it isn't a matter of IF a drive will fail, but WHEN.

    Except for the minuscule amount of enthusiasts and even fewer pros, perhaps photography will be relegated to an ever rushing river of nows.

    I still contend that it'll come back to haunt many who will wish they had preserved those memories.

    I recall when my father passed and my family looked to preserve his memory for their children and children's children, it struck me that his life in photos nearly ended at the digital age ... sadly, even from me.

    All I can do now is collect, sort, edit, and make some sort of book of family images and distribute it to my family.

    - Marc

  16. #66
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: No new cameras?

    I remember when you told me that line about hard drives failing back in the photo.net days some 9 years ago. So incredibly true. I seem to have averaged a hard drive a year since then...

    With our repro project we keep the main depository of data on Raid 6 NAS setups. Obviously not backup. We then have everything on two sets of tapes, one nearby, the other in Zurich (for obvious reasons and I have family there ). Tapes were the decision we made for backup as for our uses it was the cheapest and most reliable way to run multiple backups that were not fragile for shipping abroad like a hard disk is or have to worry about it powering on again in 5 years for that matter.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  17. #67
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: No new cameras?

    Here's a very simple, cheap backup solution for those who are interested:
    I have all my external disks in relatively cheap ($100) 4-bay Probox cabinets. Two originals and two backups in each, no RAID. I have installed Carbon Copy Cloner (CCC) on the computer (runs only on a Mac). CCC copies all data that have been changed or added to the backup disk automatically at given intervals (every second day in my case), or as soon as I start the computer if the interval has been exceeded. RAID 1 could probably given me similar functionality, but I have chosen the solution that I feel give me the best control.

    Offsite backup, which I do every week, is copied to small, portable HDDs, and then copied automatically to another set of disks, in another Probox, at the offsite location. Offsite backup also uses CCC and can start automatically when the transport disk is connected. I only update backup of the latest photo HDD (2TB) and the general data HDD (1TB).

    This way, the only manual operation performed by me is to connect and disconnect the transport disks once per week at each location. Setup is as simple as can be. CCC is made for humans

  18. #68
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    I recall when my father passed and my family looked to preserve his memory for their children and children's children, it struck me that his life in photos nearly ended at the digital age ... sadly, even from me.

    - Marc
    Unfortunately, this is not the first time I have heard that, and it makes me sad every time.

  19. #69
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: No new cameras?

    While folks like to blame digital, that is not the problem. The problem is people don't care until it is too late. I cannot tell you the number of people how come with a old faded 3x5 print that was never printed well and want to save it and simply tell me they don't know where the film is when I ask for it.

    The problem is people. Technology, old or new, is not going to change basic psychology.

  20. #70
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: No new cameras?

    After reading this review, I sat wondering what the real important improvements have appeared between the Spotmatic and the new Olympus E-M1. AF of course, and for most people, the replacement of film with a digital sensor. But the 7,567,828 functions on modern digital imaging devices... I'm not sure how much they have contributed to photography.

    Blast from the Past: 1965 Pentax Spotmatic Review

  21. #71
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: No new cameras?

    Jorgen, try shooting architecture with and without live view on a DSLR, I promise you there are some features on my camera now that although I could and have until now done without, are a real boon to making my life easier.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  22. #72
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    While folks like to blame digital, that is not the problem. The problem is people don't care until it is too late. I cannot tell you the number of people how come with a old faded 3x5 print that was never printed well and want to save it and simply tell me they don't know where the film is when I ask for it.

    The problem is people. Technology, old or new, is not going to change basic psychology.
    I already mention that ... people saved prints not negs. In the case of professionally shot portraits or milestone family events (Births, religious milestones, weddings, anniversaries, etc.), they never had the negs. The photographer owned them.

    The difference is that many if not most, damaged prints can be restored ... at least there is something to work with. With lost digital files, there is nothing.

    Yes, basic human nature will be at play always ... which is why I believe it has to be an almost automatic, no brainer way of storage ... call it the "Family Foto Shoebox" or something so they get the purpose.

    - Marc

  23. #73
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    Jorgen, try shooting architecture with and without live view on a DSLR, I promise you there are some features on my camera now that although I could and have until now done without, are a real boon to making my life easier.
    Architectural images have always been done with live view ... it was called a Ground Glass

    Personally, I don't wax poetically about the past glories ... film is a dead issue with me now because I'm lazy and indolent when it comes to the use of gear and the process afterwards.

    However, Jorgen has a point ... simplicity escapes many contemporary camera designers ... probably because most people want an all in one solution including a can opener

    - Marc

  24. #74
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: No new cameras?

    I forgot to mention a built in electronic spirit level also a life saver for those of us (me) who keep losing theirs..

    Shot this picture today at iso 6400 (didn't have a tripod), needed live view to focus as it was f22 using waterhouse stops and I was handholding. Personally I'm enjoying being able to use modern day equipment. No I don't use half the features on my camera but then they don't get in the way either.

    The all in one options today are so good that they no longer offer compromises that you would assume are inherent to any 'all in one' options. If you've got a 5D3 or D800 (got both) then you have relatively small packages that can pretty much do it all, and very well, unless you have specific niche needs. If you buy one of these they they will excel not just provide, for most areas of photography. All that for about $3000 or so. Use what you need, ignore the rest but it's there for you should you ever want it without ever getting in the way if you don't. Personally I'm not complaining.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #75
    Senior Member RVB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    807
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No new cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Architectural images have always been done with live view ... it was called a Ground Glass

    Personally, I don't wax poetically about the past glories ... film is a dead issue with me now because I'm lazy and indolent when it comes to the use of gear and the process afterwards.

    However, Jorgen has a point ... simplicity escapes many contemporary camera designers ... probably because most people want an all in one solution including a can opener

    - Marc
    "simplicity escapes many contemporary camera designers " True Marc,and this is an area that Leica did a decent job with the S/S2..

    this is a quote from Vincent Peters when asked about gear.. "Can you tell us about your material, which camera and lenses you mostly use?

    I never changed my camera since I was 17. I have a Mamiya RZ medium format. I always shoot film you know. I have some clients that say ďyou donít shoot digital we donít work with youĒ and Iím like okay no problem. But I donít like digital. I think the whole process did a lot of damage to the industry and there isnít a single photographer I spoke to who didnít agree with that. So far I get away with it. I can hardly imagine Peter Lindbergís career in digital. Or Mario Sorrenti, the king of the room. They would never have had that quality, that vulnerability. The technique defines the art soÖ If thereís a digital art itís not my art. I think it does define the expression. Digital is not just a process of capturing images. Digital is a different concept. The shoot is different. Your relation with the model is different. Anyway, I hardly know how to read an email."

    He produces great work and still uses his RZ..
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •