zaterdag, november 29, 2003
Digital isn't permanent, and it won't matter how you store it. Don't kid yourself. It's just data, not a real image. Hard disks are magnetic media, which after a few years time the magnetic particles that allow storage and access to that data decay and lose the ability to store and maintain the data. Non-magnetic storage mediums (CDRs) are only temporarily secure, plus the technology used to write and access data on CDs has and is changing rapidly so that what you store on a CDR may not even be readable by the technology available 20-30 years from now. And that's if the CD is even still existant. A 5 year old burner can't even write to or read the current crop of CDR disks. CDRs do in fact decay after only a few decades (the stamped layers literally come apart or the dye layers fade, causing data corruption, and it happens regardless of *how* you store the CDs.) Digital isn't permanent, it's just data and data is technology-device dependent.
Film doesn't have any of those issues. it's not data, it's a real, existant image. It's its own permanent storage medium. Technology isn't needed to retrieve it or view it. It will in fact outlast any digital storage medium, according to Dr. James P. Reilly at Rochester's Image Permanence Institute. If properly stored, an image on film can last literally thousands of years. Modern polyester based sheet film supports are virtually indestructable. Acetate films simply require controlled storage conditions. You don't have to constantly and redundantly "back up" the data on newer and newer technology -- which for most photographers means copying and recopying thousands of stored images every few years -- in order to ensure permanence. Even if some "data" corruption of an image on film takes place, the image is still retrievable and usable. We have photographs that are nearly 200 years old and counting, and show no signs of "rotting." With digital, any data corruption at all and the entire image is gone. Permanently.
If you want to believe the fallacy that digital is permanent, or is more permanent than film, it's your choice. But it's a lie.
Tom Philips
Film doesn't have any of those issues. it's not data, it's a real, existant image. It's its own permanent storage medium. Technology isn't needed to retrieve it or view it. It will in fact outlast any digital storage medium, according to Dr. James P. Reilly at Rochester's Image Permanence Institute. If properly stored, an image on film can last literally thousands of years. Modern polyester based sheet film supports are virtually indestructable. Acetate films simply require controlled storage conditions. You don't have to constantly and redundantly "back up" the data on newer and newer technology -- which for most photographers means copying and recopying thousands of stored images every few years -- in order to ensure permanence. Even if some "data" corruption of an image on film takes place, the image is still retrievable and usable. We have photographs that are nearly 200 years old and counting, and show no signs of "rotting." With digital, any data corruption at all and the entire image is gone. Permanently.
If you want to believe the fallacy that digital is permanent, or is more permanent than film, it's your choice. But it's a lie.
Tom Philips
# posted by Jan-Edward : 22:53
|
|