Dangers of Digital Technology

[jpolzfuss]

Wow. It feels like you are looking for problems instead of solutions. Try looking for solutions instead, it will be a lot easier. I promise.

These aren't "stupid hypothetical" questions, but real questions that I already have for years without finding a proper solution: After having converted my Photo CDs (some of them several times until I found the above link with a proper solution), I still have 20 to 30 older documents (GeoWrite, GeoDraw, ...) that I would like to transfer to a newer format. But at the moment I can't do this without losing information (e.g. by turning vector graphics into bitmaps) or without making them kind of "read only" by turning them into a PDF. So there's no need of making fun of me! And there's no need to say that this wouldn't happen as it already happened and as it's obvious that it will happen again and again. But the next time, it wouldn't be "just my 8 Photo CDs and a handful of docs", but also thousands of my digital images/videos.

[Mitch Perkins]

...Because hard drives fail, discs fail...

That's how digital "changes" over time - it changes into nothing at all. A spark, a magnet, a medium-high impact, the data is lost forever.

Mouldy slides, torn photos, Super 8 with emulsion scaling off - these are all preferable to nothing at all.

Mitch

[etimh]

A fun real-world case that applies to all of this migration talk:

Just last week I dug up some old zip discs I had that contained some important writing projects that had been put on hold. They were saved from my last desktop which I passed on to the recycler. I wanted to get at them so I figured I'd find a computer that had a zip drive and I'd migrate them to either CD or USB drive or whatever.

Easier said than done. Even though I know that zip drives are still around and used, finding one turned out to be a real pain in the butt. Asked my neighbors--no zip drives. Went to kinkos to see if they had any work stations with zip drives--"are you kidding?" (really, that's what the guys said). The desktop in my office at school didn't have one, but after asking a dozen people I finally find one in an unused office in another department.

Sure, mission accomplished, but this gives you an idea about the effort involved in such an effort. At least two days of running around reaching dead-ends. And I'm somewhat knowledgable and conscientious about such things--will the average, marginally interested person even think to go to such trouble? Hard to imagine.

Tim

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

These aren't "stupid hypothetical" questions

Ah, but they are. you asked "Will there be a "ready-to-run"-solution or do you have to..." and then you had a list of detailed questions about this tool from the future.

Did you really think I would answer you how you´d get the tool in the future, how it works, how fast it is and how it will treat specific files?

Perhaps you want a link to the future software?

Regarding the exif-info and transparancy... where will you store this exif-info on analog negatives? And no, I do not know if this tool from the future will transfer any exif-info. How on earth would I know that?

And regarding your old weirdo-formats... this is what the whole discussion has been about. They were not as common and as used as jpegs and mpegs are today. You cannot compare the migration capabilities from twenty years ago with the migration capabilities of most common formats of today.

This is a very good reason why you should stick to standard formats, the more unusual and weird format the bigger chance it is that you will run into trouble while migrating.

And no, I do not think of Kodak Photo CD as a standardised format. I never once wanted anything on Kodak CD, for that specific reason. I want free and accessible images, not something that is hidden in a special-format.

[aj]

Or take a look at this problem when converting images from Kodak's Photo CD into another format.
Etc. pp.

Thanks for listing this. Useful information! I don't have that many of these (too expensive then) but it is a bit odd as these evolve into retro artefacts. At the time it seemed all well thought through. It stil does but is a bit overwhelmed by tsunamis of other formats.

[MovieStuff]

Here's the problem with this whole discussion. It selectively ignores positive "what if" scenarios in favor of negative "what if" scenarios, depending on which point of view one wants to take.

Oh, sure, one can say, "If your computer crashes, then you lose your digital files. With analog, at least you still have the negatives."

Really? Most people don't, even now. And if they do, they don't know where they are. And if they know where they are, they don't know how to look at them to tell what picture is what.

How about, "Yes but you only have one set of negatives and, if you lose them, then you are screwed. At least with digital, you can have back up copies that are a perfect duplicate of the original."

I mean, this sort of reasoning and counter-reasoning can go on and on. But, really, the likelihood that people will still have their negatives 20 years from now compared to the ability to read a JPEG 20 years from now? The likelihood that people will still be able to get cost effective prints from negatives 20 years from now compared the ability to read a JPEG for free?

I'm sorry but, to me, this is a no brainer. Take care of both and you will still have both. But the ability to easily access your digital media in a digital future seems far more likely than it is for something created in an analog past.

Roger

[Juno]

I'm sorry but, to me, this is a no brainer.
Roger

"Well, we can't all be geniuses" - James Bond

[VideoFred]

Just last week I dug up some old zip discs I had that contained some important writing projects that had been put on hold.

Yes, but if those files where so important, you should have had a copy on another medium to, Tim. On your desktop for example. A good backup system is part of digital archiving.

My entire digital archive was on Zip disks in the past, but there was a copy on my computers harddisk too. Actualy on two different computers. So it was a piece of cake to move these files to a new computer.

Digital is a different and new medium. We must learn how to use it. A good backup system will solve almost all possible problems. I have just finished a backup procedure myself, using portable HD's and several computers. If one computer or portable HD fails, I always have a copy on another computer or portable HD.

Yes, I know film is more simple to preserve, but remember in most of the cases there is only one copy! I have seen horrible water damage on Super-8 film! It does not even have to be a nature disaster. A small leak somewhere can be enough to ruin your precious films.

Fred.

[MovieStuff]

Yes, I know film is more simple to preserve....

I think that is part of the misunderstood mythology of film. You really can't "preserve" film at all. It is like food in a refrigerator, you can slow down the decaying process but, in actuality, the image is changing right before your eyes. There is, quite literally, nothing you can do to prevent it even if you are vigilant about the process. The idea that films left in someone's drawer for 50 years look the same is really not true. I can guarantee they look a bit different, even if that difference is only minor in nature. The ability to access those films today is more a function of ebay than it is any inherent design built into the film by its inventors whereas digital is infinitely preservable because it can be copied over and over without generational loss.

I'm not saying this to slam film but, rather, to point out that film is fragile and needs to be cared for in a sort of "hospice" frame of mind. You can make it more comfortable and slow down the progression of its demise but, compared to digital that never ages and has tools to allow it to always look the same, film will ultimately whither and die like a head of lettuce left in the refrigerator. It should never be taken for granted that you can just put it in a box and forget about it.

Roger

[BonnutFilmStudio]

Yes, I've found that the best to archive is:

Primary: Original motion picture negatives or reversal prints
Secondary: Telecined footage on HDD or SSD.
Tertiary: Backed up on Blu-Ray

You can get BD burners for less than $200 now and they even do DL. The latter two archive mediums are always going to be changed as the tech changes but if all else fails the prints are there.

As for audio, I still use MiniDisc to create recordings and so that becomes the Primary. people bash ATRAC becuase it's sample rate is 22Khz but spoken word doesn't deliver tones above 22Khz unless it's someone singing at a crazy pitch. Higher sample rates are important for violins or unique sound effects. There are Sony MD units that have seen use from 1992 to present being used 25 times a day and still in working order and the MDs themselves are rated for 50 years of life. As obsolete as they are they've also outlived CDs and DVDs in certain weather conditions:

I live in what can best be described as a harsh climate for electronics and media, close to the ocean, high humidity, high average temperatures, and a high salt concentration, in 15 years I have lost about 300 to 400 CD's due to the reflective layer dissolving, in ten years I have not lost a single MD, a couple have taken unexpected sapt water baths, sill running

That's a quote from a guy who lives in the Cayman Islands.

This whole speech is slightly off topic but neat none the less.

[Mitch Perkins]

You really can't "preserve" film at all. It is like food in a refrigerator, you can slow down the decaying process but, in actuality, the image is changing right before your eyes.

Simply a great point!

The ability to access those films today is more a function of ebay than it is any inherent design built into the film by its inventors whereas digital is infinitely preservable because it can be copied over and over without generational loss.

OTOH, if things fail on a grand scale (no more/unreliable power grid), the design of film will make it possibly one of the only accessible media - a dark tent, hand-cranked projector, sunlight-sucking lens tube....we may not be able to make any more of the stuff, but we can watch what we already have. Though we may be too busy gathering tubers to have any movie-watching time...

Mitch

[Angus]

Really? Most people don't, even now. And if they do, they don't know where they are. And if they know where they are, they don't know how to look at them to tell what picture is what.

Really? I've never come across anyone who can't recognise faces when they hold a neg up to the light. Its true that many people don't appreciate that the neg carries more detail than the print and is a better archive than the print...but most people I know simply stuff the envleopes they get from the lab into a drawer/cupboard complete with negs and prints. They may not take special care of them...but they don't have to.

That is the essence of my point. People are used to not having to take much care of their photographs, because they don't want to have to spend time and mental energty on it.

I know plenty of people, not specifically into photography as a hobby, who have negatives going back many decades. They haven't taken special care of them, they were put into a box or cupboard and more or less forgotten. But the negs survive and prints could be made. Simply holding them up to the light is enough to see what the subject is.

With a digital archive, I agree you can make multiple copies but Joe Public doesn't want to do that. Nor does he want to look through an endless selection of badly labelled or un-labelled discs/tapes in order to see whats on them.

I'm not saying you cannot archive digital data, clearly you can. But its more difficult and requires more effort than negatives and slides...and if the recent history of the photo industry tells us anything, it is that people like convenience and lack of effort.

I currently have over 12gig of digital photos on my hard drive, and I don't even much like digital photography (though I admit my Nikon DSLR is rather nifty). That's quite an effort to back up, and I do quite rigirously make two backups...one to DVDs every 3 months and one every day to an external HD.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

I currently have over 12gig of digital photos on my hard drive, and I don't even much like digital photography (though I admit my Nikon DSLR is rather nifty). That's quite an effort to back up, and I do quite rigirously make two backups...one to DVDs every 3 months and one every day to an external HD.

Wow. Why are you copying the same photos every day? And a new set of DVDs every 3 months... That has got to be some kind of world record. I had no idea people were that backup-crazy! 8O

[MovieStuff]

Really? Most people don't, even now. And if they do, they don't know where they are. And if they know where they are, they don't know how to look at them to tell what picture is what.

Really? I've never come across anyone who can't recognise faces when they hold a neg up to the light.....

I didn't mean it literally. The context of my statement is that there are two sides to every argument about film vs digital. When someone points out the benefits of film, there is always a counter argument that points out the weaknesses. The same for digital. But the weaknesses in digital preservation are about what people don't do, even if they can. The weaknesses in film preservation are about what people can't do, even if they want to.

Its true that many people don't appreciate that the neg carries more detail than the print and is a better archive than the print...but most people I know simply stuff the envleopes they get from the lab into a drawer/cupboard complete with negs and prints. They may not take special care of them...but they don't have to.

But that's the myth that does more harm than good. A history of negs that survived being stuffed in a cupboard for 50 years would only mean something if there was no counter history of negs being degrading after being stored in just the same fashion. For each tale of success, there is an equal tale of failure because there is nothing the inventors of film designed into it to guarantee access or survivability after X number of years. And any kind of copy degrades the film image more than the general effect of time, itself. So all one can really do, even under the best of conditions, is watch their film images slowly deteriorate. There is nothing to prevent it. But digital was created with the specific intent to migrate and copy without loss as many times as is required to maintain the desired data. Obviously, both digital and film take effort to maintain but there is no tool that will guarantee non-degraded future access to film imagery.

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

read this interesting article the other day which brings home the problems of using modern electronic formats for archival purposes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project

[...]

Also google "digital dilemma" - despite what the "little guy" is told here and elsewhere, he likely has some concerns, given that the "big boys" do indeed have concerns......

With film there is a standard; "digital" can mean any number of proprietary formats.

at least with film as long as the original it kept in good condition whatever the technology of the future is at least it will be fairly easy to get an image from it.

Yes, pictures are for *us*, for humans.

We *neglect things that are or will be important to us*.

It is clearly "digital's fault" that it is not designed to withstand this neglect. If it were designed for robots programmed to auto-migrate granny's picture, it would be perfect, though currently zero data loss is not guaranteed "across the board"......

Millions of people will not migrate their digital pictures. One may not personally care, but humanity loses the documents nonetheless. It is a loss, and one that would be greatly lessened if the documents were film, which is designed to withstand decades of human neglect.

Mitch