You got that right! I predict a virtual (pun intended) "dark age" for
the first decade of digital image loss. It will take the catastrophic
loss of hundreds of millions of digital images before everyone gets
serious about personal digital migration, and I will probably be right
in there with all those poor slobs. I am only a hard drive failure away ...
Eric Wenocur wrote:
>I have not had a chance to read the Kodak CEO comments, but it does look like film photography, at least for the mass market, is dwindling. A few days ago I read an article in the Wash Post which says that Konica Minolta will stop making film cameras. I suspect this is the tip of the iceberg.
>My first thought about this, even before the artistic/aesthetic and historic aspects, was that the wholesale adoption of digital photography will put the public squarely in the same position of archivists trying to preserve tape formats! In the past, photos taken on negative film, and even most prints, simply continued to exist in pretty good condition--and very few of the lay public ever considered whether their family photos would be around in several generations. If everyone moves to digital, the amount of personal records that will be lost before some kind of archiving becomes commonplace will be huge. And even when people realize they had better backup those digital files, unless they bother to make high-quality paper prints they will face the same migration/obsolescence issues that the pros face.
>-- Eric Wenocur
>Lab Tech Systems
>>Frank Wylie writes:
>>>Well Jeff Kreines, look like your worst fears are about to be
>>>realized... [...] I would recommend that those who deal directly
>>>with motion picture film begin patronizing Orwo for B&W filmstocks
>>>and Agfa or Fuji for Color.
>>The way I read his comments, he was only talking about mass market
>>still photography when he said that 'film is gone' and that
>>single-purpose cameras were going.
>>And in that context, he's right. Walking down to the shop to get
>>some bread and a bottle of grapefruit juice this morning, I passed
>>some tourists taking pictures of York Minster. They were doing so
>>with a mobile 'phone, not a 35mm compact. My PDA has a 1.2mp camera
>>built in, though I've never used it. It will also play MP3 audio
>>files and there's another model in the range which has a mobile
>>'phone built in, too. The only reason I didn't buy it is that I hate
>>mobile 'phones with a passion and it'll be snowing in Hell before I
>>ever own one. OK, the camera chip is pretty low resolution - but
>>it'll only be a short time before these things have 3-4mp camera in
>>them, which is all your average tourist or family snapshooter will
>>ever need. If Kodak wants to continue selling imaging technology to
>>these sorts of people, it makes logical sense for them to look at
>>making this sort of multifunction device.
>>In the same way that a few small firms are still making turntables
>>and pressing new vinyl LPs for a small market of audio geeks, I'd
>>imagine that as long as 35mm film remains in mainstream use by the
>>motion picture industry, the extra costs of packaging it in small
>>lengths for still photographers will be low enough to make it viable
>>to do so. As someone who still takes my pictures on 35mm, my fear is
>>that as the conversion to digital hoovers up most of the professional
>>market as well, film for still photography will become so expensive
>>that someone like me won't be able to afford to use it, except
>>possibly at a special occasion every few years.
>>For the moment, though, I haven't heard any serious commentator
>>suggest that the 'film is gone' moment for moving picture use is
>>anywhere near imminent.
>>Curator, Northern Region Film & Television Archive
>>School of Arts and Media
>>University of Teesside
>>Tel. + 44 (0)1642 384049
>>Fax + 44 (0)8719 002602