Mysterious Digital Dependence

[David Luttmann]

"Oh, but digital cameras will last forever... Yep, thet's why I have one here that can only be read by it's original software as the format hasn't been supported in years. Oh, yes, but the format YOUS uses is better and "standard". Yeah, they've been saying that for 20 years now and it still don't hold any water! "

Just what camera is not readable after a couple of years? Let us all know will you. All the RAW formats have been and are supported now as they were at their inception. JPG & TIF have been around for many, many years.

What standard are you referring to that we've been talking about for 20 years that doesn't hold any water. CD technology has been around since the late 70's....nearly 30 years. JPG standard has been around for 20. The computer and software you used backin 2000 works EXACTLY the same with the camera now. CD readers will be around for the balance of our lifetimes thanx to their huge saturation rate in the market. Quite frankly....I don't care if their are no CD readers in 200 years.

But as I said, let us all know what camera and format has vanished in the last 2 years.

[David Luttmann]

Rich,

Keep searching the net. Take all the time you need.......

[paulr]

One thing that's as true now as it ever was: the loudest rants seem to miss the point by greatest leaps.

I really don't think the original poster was trying to add to the giant slag heap of Crusty Old Men vs. Stupid Kids posts that are already free for the taking on this site. But since that's where it's heading, I'll add one observation, based on famous rants dating back to Plato's time:

Things are always getting better, and things are always getting worse. And there have always been people in love with the idea of progress, who see only the former, and people who who fear change, who see only the latter. Neither of these groups offer a perspective that's of much help to anyone.

Those who worship progress can commit attrocities; those who fear change tend to stagnate and whine endlessely. Both suffer a form of blindness--the former are unaware of their history; the latter simply choose not to learn from it.

[Mark_3632]

I think there are many here who totally missed the point of John's post. He was not saying things were better in the good ol'days or that digital is bad. What he seems to be saying is that things are not built with quality in mind. And people are being sucked into a desire to "have" and to "want" driven by corporations who readily admit that they do not build things to last anymore, that it is completely normal to have to replace electronic items on a regular basis. I was listening to a review of plasma TV's. The guy said the color would begin to deteriorate rapidly after two years but they were well worth the huge price tag.

I for one am with John. I want something to last when I buy it and I will purchase items based on their ability to last. Purchasing something to be on the cutting edge is a reflection of poor spending habits. Money is tight and being a teacher means it always will be. There is no way I can justify jumping on the digital band wagon. As Paulr says he expects to have to replace items and crosses his fingers hoping what he has will last out his current project. There is no way I could afford that attitude. And there is no way that would save me money in the long run.

It seems that the computer industry and those things that are connected to them are prime examples of poor quality ethics.

[Richard Boulware]

Dear Mr. Dave Luttman:

Sir, with all due respect, you missed my point. My point is that one can produce a complex print with analog photography where there is a hands on pattern of dodging and burning in making the print. If one makes ten prints, no two will be exactly the same.

If you use your beloved photoshop, you can get a final finished product and just hit the 'print' button ten times, and you will have ten exact images. Kind of like 'wallpaper'! ( a work of lesser value.)

Digital is a worthy addition to the would of photography, and I think it is just GREAT.

I however, prefer the hand made, individual works...closer to starting a work of art with an empty canvas and a palette of color....although I hardly think they are comparable.

I'll continue to made 'one-of-a-kind' guy.....and you can happily produce your 'wallpaper'

Kindest regards,

[RichSBV]

Dave, I'll answer you this one time only becuase in all that rant, you actually asked one real question.

I have a Kodak DS-50 digital camera. Ever hear of it? I doubt it, but it was the best available in it's day. For those wondering... Even though I still have it and still use it, no, I never really got my money's worth out of it. Mostly because the reason I bought it didn't pan out and it quickly became a novelty for web-pic use only...

As farc as the rant, you display only your ignorance. There are at least 8 common variations on the TIFF format. Non are compatible. There are possibly a dozen or more formats in existence but they're not as common. It is only through the dillengent work of software programmers that you can read most TIFF's. The same applies to JPeg but to a lesser degree.

I remember when TIFF and JPeg came out. People ranted and rave "Not another format!". "It will never catch on". "Why waste the time to support it?", and on, and on.... The same applied to PNG now.

Yes, CD are a bit over 20 years old now (you do love to exagerate, on your side, don't you?). BUt NOT computer CD's! Do you remember 5 1/4 disks. How about 8 inch floppies? Let's see now... Cassestte tape (computer, not music!), the rave of using video tape for computer systems, paper tape, punch cards???? All were the 'standard' that would never go away.

Graphics... How about .bit, .pcx, .bin, .bmp, .wpg, oh-hell I can't even remember all the formats any more. But all wre the 'standard' that would never go away...

"But as I said, let us all know what camera and format has vanished in the last 2 years."??? You prove my whole point. Such a limited thought process. What will you do with a CD full of JPegs in 20 years? There won't be a computer on the planet that can read them. In the practical sense anyway, as if anyone needs a paper tape read right now, I still have a functionint teletype in my shed with a "high speed" reader attached ;-)

Dave, no real offense meant, but just how old are you and how long (short?) have you been involved in computers? And I'm sure you'll desperately need the return... I've been involved with computers since the early 70's when the best you could do was buy a kit, see test scroll by (actually, scrolling came later) on a TV or monitor and if you had enough money, you could save/read a program from an audio cassette tape. That's long before the internet, before usenet, before compuserve or delphi, before "digital imaging" and long before people could understand why anyone would want to own such a thing... In the 70's computers were new and fun. I the 80's they got exciting and/or work. In the 90's they became a way to pay the mortgage. Now, they're horribly boring, bloated, slow and time consuming... I trust I'll have to ad nothing more to that!

As far as 'fear'. Paulr, you're 100% right. There will always be fanatic on both sides of just about everything. I see few of them here and most of them are the one spouting digital. The 'silver' folks only seem to get upset when the digital people try to pass of their work as true photography. I am not afraid of anything digital. It just bores me to tears... How exiting can a pixel be??? Not very much when you actually have to play with them all day!

There also nothing wrong with acknowledging and appreciating older processes and thouroughly enoying partaking in them. Be it woodworking, clay, paint, building ship models, trains, tooling leather, or photography. There is as much enjoyment in a process as some people think they get out of the finished product. It may be heresy to some that dwell hereabout, but I enjoy the process much more than the final product. And that process involves light (photons, photo) from beggining to end.....

I think I've said enough on this topic even though I'm sure 'someone' will have some youthful glib reply that I won't bother answering.....

Thanks again John...

[Gene Crumpler]

If you want something that will last a 100 years and be worth twice what you paid for, get a nice rolex watch. I have a 30 year old gold "Date" Rolex watch that you can barely tell from the same model selling today for $16k. I have had it for 4 years and I can sell it for 2 1/2 time what I have in it! Interestingly, the watch has the same design features as the "NEW 2000 president" Many think it is the newest president.

Cameras are not investments, but tools

[Gene Crumpler]

Rich;

I've got you beat on old computers. I was doing full -scale chemical process optimization work at Allied Chemical with punch cards in the early 60"s! I remember when Fortran 4 was the latest thing and no one had any idea what a huristic (sp?) program was.

[paulr]

"I am not afraid of anything digital. It just bores me to tears... How exiting can a pixel be??? Not very much when you actually have to play with them all day! "

However they're intended, I see remarks like these as coming 100% from the fear camp.
There were luddites making remarks just like this one when the dry plate was invented. "I'm not afraid of it; just don't try to pass that nonsense off as real photography!"

I'm sorry, but the world has already moved on. The definition of photography has expanded, as it has done from the begining and as it will continue to do. The fact that it now includes things that didn't exist back in (insert your notion of the golden age here) is of no consequence to anyone but you and others with a similar intolerance for change.

You may consider this reply youthful and glib, but it's based on studying the actual history of this medium we all use, not on wallowing in my private fantasies of how things were or how they should be. Photography indeed has a noble past--one rich with great work and processes and ideas. It would do you well to learn something about it, rather than just blindly condemning its present and its future.

[RichSBV]

Paulr, the 'youthful and glib' wa snot pointed at you, which should have been obvious. I was even agreeing with you and appreciated your remarks, until now. You are totally miundersstanding what I said and misrepresenting what was meant. Anyone who read your last post will see absolutely no relation between what you quoted and your reply. It would seem you do indeed fit into one of those categories!!!

Yes, I make my living with technology writing software 50 to 60 hours a week and I'm a 'luddite'. I'll mark that down in my PDA so I don't forget it!

Because we enjoy an old process makes us 'luddites"??? I think you should re-read the deffinition, or re-read my posts...

You can write intelligent response in conversations Paulr, but you should possibly keep your emotions away from your reasoning and pay more attention to what people actuall write!

Gene... As far as punch cards... I'm really sorry I missed them, Although I have friends that had to use them in college. But ince we brought up the internet and computers (okay, mostly by me), I'll try to call your bet. I have in my shed, one of the easrliest models of the DEC PDP line that was integrated in the beta testing of the 'internet'. That's what was hooked up to the teletype! Oddly enough, the 'net' was never meant to be public... Sometimes I think the original plan was right....

As far as watches go (and paulr will love this one!), I'm a pocket watch fan and never saw the draw of such expensive wrist watches. Although if anyone knows where I can find a 'new' Casio scientific calculator watch, I'd sure love to know. It was one of my most useful tools in it's day...