PDA

View Full Version : George Eastman Spinning In His Grave



Frank Bagbey
31-Jan-2009, 04:39
The once-mighty Kodak announced the closing of their photofinishing subsidiary, Qualex, and the three remaining photofinishing operations that provided service to the United States. George Eastman must be spinning in his grave! Kodak was built upon photofinishing, from Mom and Pop drugstores, to early camera stores, to Kodak stores and massive photofinishing operations. Surely, this must be a battle the digiheads at Kodak have won. Which begs the questions, the Kodak digiheads ask, if Kodak does not provide photofinishing, why manufacture film, equipment, darkroom chemicals, paper, or anything else related to or supporting non-digitial photography?
The day will come that college business classes will study Kodak as an example of how to kill yourself one step at a time. Why not, for example, mop up all the photofinishing business left, even if it gets down to having one central operation in the United States? With new or remodeled Walmart stores eliminating one hour processing, why not go after all that business? Why leave all the processing business to Walgreens and Target stores, and others, not to mention centralized Fuji processing operations for Walmart? Why not try to sell the photofinishing operations to someone who cares and sees the remaining potential? Yes, Kodak, cut one vein at a time and before long all your blood is gone!

Gene McCluney
31-Jan-2009, 04:52
Are new/remodeled Wal-Mart stores really eliminating their one-hour labs?

falth j
31-Jan-2009, 07:47
A little history from my perspective...

About six years ago, I bought a Nikon F5, and since the only outlet for film in town was at w-mart, where there was a wide selection of negative film types from which to choose.

W-mart never sold transparency film at this store.

At the time w-mart had a half side of a gondola, or approximately twenty-five lineal feet of shelving about five feet high loaded with film on shelves, and peg-board from which to make a choice and purchase.

I often talked with the film processor clerk and he said that the day after Christmas, he could expect to process over 500 rolls of film, which tapered down to about 200 rolls of film a day for the next two weeks.

His lab threw out the old processors about four years ago, and installed the latest, greatest, state of the art equipment.

On any given day, on average, he said they processed about 100 rolls of film a day.

Over the intervening years, daily processing dropped off.

I noticed that the shelf space allotted to film decreasing almost on a monthly basis.

The most notable change occurred when Polaroid announced that it was going out of the film business.

At the time the shelving space for film dropped dramatically.

Now, there is barely two four foot long shelves that have film on them.

This past Christmas, I asked the clerk about how many rolls of film they had processed, and the answer was less than thirty!

A decline from 500 rolls to less than 30 rolls of film processed for the day after Christmas, leaves little doubt as to what has happened to the film market here, and then spread those kind of percentages across all of the w-mart operation, it leads to a stark reality of what has happened to the market for film in the span of just five or six short years...

Nathan Potter
31-Jan-2009, 08:18
Shakespeare predicted the death of film even more eloquently then I can.

"This thought is as a death which cannot choose,
But weeps to have that which it fears to lose"

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Frank Petronio
31-Jan-2009, 09:02
All the other local custom labs have closed and Edgar started doing more mail order, his lab is doing great. http://www.4photolab.com/

BTW, they might move George Eastman's grave. He is buried outside a factory on Lake Avenue on the edge of Kodak Park, which is shrinking through building demolition (so they don't have to pay taxes.)

ljsegil
31-Jan-2009, 09:03
Or as per Garcia/Hunter
"Such a long, long time to be gone and a short time to be there"
LJS

John Kasaian
31-Jan-2009, 09:22
Life goes on, lads!

If I have a concern it is about processing b&w film. I "road tested" a few rolls of new TMax 400 in the 35mm and had it processed at a local photo store (with an excellent reputation, btw.)
The prints came out terribly grainy---not what I'd expected.

OK I probably asked for this.

Shooting LF I find that I need to mail order just about everything I use, and processing and printing my own stuff, which I'm used to.
BUT what of the photographers who still shoot 35mm and want to try Kodak's latest and greatest B&W film in the family Nikon?

Unless they pack it off to a custom lab, they might likely be disappointed (which certainly isn't good news for Kodak) so a potential customer might pass on the project.

We don't live in George Eastman's time. As a saavy "cutting edge" tycoon, George would likely have the foresight to keep Kodak "cutting edge" as well if he were alive and kicking today. Too bad the chiefs at Kodak aren't made of the same stuff as the original George.

Sad, but does it matter? Kodak is the sentimental favorite (mine, anyway) but sentimentality often leads to banality.

We have the large, medium and small format tools we need. It takes a bit of planning and work to "roll your own" but I find it worthwhile. Snapshots are soon likely going to be 100% digital as has nearly all commercial gone. I would not be surprised if, not too far down the road, traditional photography will be offered in schools as being some quiant and obscure art form, like intaglio or some such.

This dosen't bother me in the least, other than the very tragic loss of jobs in the supporting industry :(

Be happy! Make pictures! :)

D. Bryant
31-Jan-2009, 09:44
George Eastman must be spinning in his grave! Yes, Kodak, cut one vein at a time and before long all your blood is gone!

Frank,

My father-in-law worked for Eastman Kodak for 33 years and he thinks that Eastman should push digital as hard as they can; he has no romantic notions about film.

Film based recreational photography and film based commercial photography are dead as far as a growth market are concerned. Motion pictures are slowly beginning to go entirely digital for shooting and distribution. Medical and scientific imaging are shifting to digital.

Digital photography is here to stay and if Kodak doesn't follow that market then they will be out of business.

Companies, especially large companies such as Kodak have to re-invent themselves every few years if they want to continue as a successful business.

It's time to accept the fact that things have changed in photography.

Don Bryant

jnantz
31-Jan-2009, 09:51
but their ink jet printers they sell inbetween shows on the cartoon network
seem to be selling like hotcakes! pigment ink, and a printer that costs
very little, and makes "archival" prints.

Mark Woods
31-Jan-2009, 10:21
There is more origination of films in digital format, but there is no archiving. Film is still the only archive medium. The storage rate is significantly different in cost. Digital storage is about 20 times more expensive per year than film -- and it's still not archived. When the content migration and technological migration is figured in, whatever you may've saved by originating in digital capture is long gone after a few years in the post/archive world.

Gordon Moat
31-Jan-2009, 11:26
I saw the local Target stores move to Fuji processors a few years ago. Seems like that is a huge slice of market share gone. It would be interesting to see the current numbers from Fujifilm.

Digital consumer product profit margins are really terrible compared to other products, and competition has fueled these low profits as companies tried to grab market share. How many camera companies have been bought out, or are simply gone entirely. Camera phones are the biggest volume sellers, yet I have never seen an image printed from one of these. I think the average consumer doesn't care about archival issues, printed pictures, or even retaining images of their lives.

Anyway, we are here on LF Forum as the niche exception to photography as practiced by the masses. In some ways, we can be ambassadors of large format, depending upon our interactions in public. Get enough people curious and interested, and keep the prices within reach, then a niche can survive and maintain.

If we took Wallstreet reports of downturns to be indications of anything, we might conclude there would be no more cars made by the end of this year. That same (il)logic could be applied to many products. The average person in the developed world is simply not buying anything at the moment that is not essential.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Brian Ellis
31-Jan-2009, 11:46
Eastman was roundly criticized by the photography establishment in his day for many of the same reasons a small handful of people criticize digital photography today. Making photography too easy, producing an inferior product, bringing photography to the masses, putting portrait studios and other traditional commercial types out of business . . . those accusations and more were leveled at Eastman by the commercial and fine art photography establishment of the day. In that sense Eastman Kodak could be said to have been the digital photography business of the early 20th century.

mrladewig
2-Feb-2009, 20:47
There is no doubt that the digital market is taking over in the family snapshots area. For most people it is simply easier to get a decent result from a P&S camera than a film one. I don't take the drop in Walgreens or Walmart processors to be a signal of doom, but rather a transition in the focus of the market. Kodak is today going to need to sell their film product based on the real quality it brings. I don't think they would continue their investment in film if there were not a reasonable expectation that their R&D would be recovered.

At the same time, I agree that they need to continue to work to be on the cutting edge of digital technology. They've got some great products on the market right now, but some real stinkers too. Their P&S cameras don't seem to be on par with the competition on image quality and are rarely included in various comparisons. But their digital frames are really nice. Their new low cost printer will be an interesting player and I think it is a well thought out product. I'd like to see what else they can come up with.

The economy is bad right now for everyone, especially companies that are going through a difficult transition. I am confident that Kodak's film business will endure. There is no way that a $1 billion high profit revenue stream will not be maintained in some fashion.

mandoman7
3-Feb-2009, 07:05
As one who was attempting to make a living from photography in the 80's and 90's, I developed a strong resentment for Kodak's continuous marketing program that stressed the "you can do it yourself" attitude rathering than encouraging a respect for the craft, and the benefits that hiring a professional can offer.

I never really felt that the company was on my side. Although there was a respected standard to the film quality, at that time there was a reduction in the products for b/w processing (paper & film) while Ilford and other european companies were coming up with great new products.

It also seemed that their products were consistently developed with a strategy towards maintaining some sort of propietary position, where the films could only be processed through their facilities (kodachrome, disc cameras), rather than create products that maintain and encourage existing procedures. Products that might give them an upperhand rather than developing the industry at large. Readyloads for limited varieties of films, for example, rather than broader assortments of films using existing holders that everyone has already (a product that's now been cancelled).

Jumping from this impulse to the next, while failing to provide for the group that has been a basic source of income seems to me to be a good reason for a company to go under.

JY

evan clarke
3-Feb-2009, 13:44
There is no doubt that the digital market is taking over in the family snapshots area. For most people it is simply easier to get a decent result from a P&S camera than a film one.

When bandwidth increases enough that quality digital video can be sent via the web as easily as still pictures are now, snap shooters will drop still photography like a rock....EC

Tim Gray
13-Feb-2009, 07:57
Are new/remodeled Wal-Mart stores really eliminating their one-hour labs?

The Targets and Walmarts in my area have indeed eliminated their one hour labs.

Philly suburbs.

ghost
23-Feb-2009, 19:35
Hi guys- nice to have found this forum...

here is my perspective-


I for one, am glad that Wal-mart does not carry the ART SUPPLIES i need for my FINE ART hobby.

I am glad that the art supplies I use have no relationship to cell phone features and the average consumer slob, or worse yet "pro-digi-photographer" (gag).

The future business model for Bergger, Ilford, etc is to be carried in Pearl art stores, maybe Michael's, etc. etc...

The Windson-Newton oil paint co. turns a profit every year.

Hopefully some of the coating machines and formulas at Kodak are sold to smaller companies like this, instead of being destroyed... but like it or no, Kodak is getting out of film (and I agree that this is the beginning of the end, their digi products are nothing special).

I am glad for the d****al imaging revolution for consumers. I believe it serves to clearly define and seperate what I do from the average a****le and gives my work the same handmade value as other art forms.

It's a shame they took the word "photography", but let them have it-

how about simply "silver-gelatine based artwork" :)

aphexafx
23-Feb-2009, 20:53
So, ghost, anyone who has found other things to do with their lives besides what you do with your film cameras, and who wants to participate in their own lives by recording it digitally with an affordable digital camera, is an asshole?

Makes sense.

Stupid a****les for taking the word as well. I mean, the entire process is identical except for the recording medium, how dare they call it photography as well!

Makes sense.

Do you accept commercial, production, and fashion photographers into your elite? Or are they a****les as well for daring to use digital cameras?

Well, it's understandable...because everyone else is stupid if they donít care to lug out twelve pound cameras and $5 sheets of film when their children smile, or they are renting a studio space for hundreds of dollars an hour.

Also, glad you've discovered how to star-out the word d****al, because that will make the stupid a****les and the stupid technology go away for sure.

:D

Marko
23-Feb-2009, 21:06
Please don't feed the trolls!

ghost
27-Feb-2009, 16:24
YES- that's exactly what i was trying to say! Everyone is an a****le except me, unless I happen to be using my d****al camera, in which case I am an a****le too!:)

Kidding aside, it is kind of nice that lugging around the LF stuff,(I'm not sure that makes you elite,insane maybe) is now so clearly DIFFERENT than the way we take snaps of our kids...and rather than bemoan the fact thet Wal Mart no longer carries these supplies, maybe it would make sense to celebrate that we now have small companies like the Formulary... specifically geared towards this different, not better- pursuit. Our remaining pro photo store in Baltimore has all thier film and chems now in a section by themselves, which the have labeled "Fine Art Section" on their site... I think it's kinda nice.

neil poulsen
28-Feb-2009, 19:34
Shakespeare predicted the death of film even more eloquently then I can.

"This thought is as a death which cannot choose,
But weeps to have that which it fears to lose"

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

I dunno what this means. Can you splain it?

skeporg
1-Mar-2009, 09:37
I dunno what this means. Can you splain it?

Film [anthropomorphically] is going to die.
It knows this.
It cries in its beer...
For a life that was,
And is;
But won't be.

Gordon Moat
1-Mar-2009, 17:12
So oil paints must be really, really, really dead. Perhaps you can explain why I can still buy them?

Mark Woods
1-Mar-2009, 17:32
Although Kodak is getting out of the film business, Motion Picture Imaging has the highest profit ratio in the company and supports the company's forays into other areas that often fail. Eventually Kodak will spin it off, or it will be the only venture that is making money.

Gordon Moat
1-Mar-2009, 17:46
Kodak's commercial printing and graphics arts business does generate a profit. The only reason their 10-Q statements showed a loss was due to acquisition expenses, because they bought Creo and several other companies already in that business. Also, Kodak has never made any formal announcement about getting out of the film business, but if you have something more substantial, I would bet the SEC and Fujifilm would enjoy reading it.

I respect your opinions, and your accomplishments, but you should be careful when making statements about future product availability. Conjecture in the current environment can only hurt those of us who would like to see certain products continue, at least in the short term. Personally I would be quite fine using only Fujifilm choices in 4x5, but I would greatly prefer having Kodak choices still available.

Disclosure: I do know very high up people at Eastman Kodak, but I am not at liberty to reveal those names. I do not currently own any EK stock.

Ciao!

Mark Woods
1-Mar-2009, 18:32
I should've said, "Kodak appears to be getting out of the film business." I also know some very "high up" people. And the only Kodak stock I own is film.

rguinter
3-Mar-2009, 18:25
Costs of archival be what they may... but what about hard drive crashes? Since 1988 when I bought my first PC I have averaged a minimum of one hard-drive crash per year... losing data every time no matter how careful I am about backups. Last year I lost 1-hard drive, 1-flash drive, and 1-backup external drive all in the same week. Are all of you archiving your precious digital photos with a medium that is going to last? I doubt it. I've also heard that average DVDs and CDs are rated for about a 10-year life expectancy. Now I've got Kodachrome and Fujichrome slides 1 - 4 decades old and they look as good today as the day they were processed. So even now I do all my snapshots with digital... but for my artistic work I'll be sticking with film. At least as long as I can get the film processed since I don't have space or time for a darkroom. Just some thoughts. Bob G.

aphexafx
3-Mar-2009, 20:44
Bob, I suggest you revaluate your choice in hard drives! I have seen one drive crash in my life, and I work with lots of computers every day (I am a programmer). And the crash was not a problem because it was part of a mirrored set. And even still, it was backed up daily to another desktop drive.

A simple backup system is cheap and priceless.

Archival DVD's are rated for much more than 10 years. But that doesn't matter because the beauty of data is that it is not static and can (will) be moved to your newer systems as you upgrade.

For hard archives (where no online version exists in your scheme) you should always move them to newer media as it becomes available.

The next step will be Blu-Ray discs, and when that technology is cheap enough it will be easy to move over to it and reset the archival clock, as it were.

Film will degrade, no matter what you do, but data, being digital, can be preserved to the last bit. That's the beauty of it. But like anything else, it must be maintained. And higher grade hardware will save you much trouble.

(I just remembered that I had another drive quite working some time ago, but still...)

Merg Ross
3-Mar-2009, 21:33
"Film will degrade, no matter what you do, but data, being digital can be preserved to the last bit."

Not so fast!

I was today printing from some of my early negatives, made in the 1950's. There was no degradation that I could discern. The only replacement necessary to the process in the intervening fifty-plus years, was a light bulb. Not a penny spent for upgrades.

Will you be able to replicate your digital output in fifty years for such a modest cost?

Marko
3-Mar-2009, 22:12
"Film will degrade, no matter what you do, but data, being digital can be preserved to the last bit."

Not so fast!

I was today printing from some of my early negatives, made in the 1950's. There was no degradation that I could discern. The only replacement necessary to the process in the intervening fifty-plus years, was a light bulb. Not a penny spent for upgrades.

Will you be able to replicate your digital output in fifty years for such a modest cost?

Merg, your negatives must be b&w, because I tried to scan some of my early color negatives from the '70s and lots of them were so faded that it simply wasn't worth the effort.

My digital images are all in color and should remain identical bit-for-bit for as long as I keep rotating them from the old to the new media and file formats. All three archival copies of them. Should one or even two copies get flooded, burned or physically destroyed in any other manner, there will still be another copy left from which the destroyed ones can be entirely replicated.

The beauty of it is that I can store one copy in the US, the other one in Brazil and the third one in, say China. Or any other place on Earth. I can both store and restore from those places without leaving my chair. All it takes is a little forethought and a periodical effort to maintain the copies.

In a word, it is a different medium with different methods and different set of strengths (and weaknesses).

Marko
3-Mar-2009, 22:18
Bob, I suggest you revaluate your choice in hard drives! I have seen one drive crash in my life, and I work with lots of computers every day (I am a programmer). And the crash was not a problem because it was part of a mirrored set. And even still, it was backed up daily to another desktop drive.

A simple backup system is cheap and priceless.

Absolutely. I've been working with computers since the mid-80's and I have seen only a few hard drives go bad. The vast majority got obsoleted and rotated out of use before they failed.

The key to data security is redundancy, there's just no equivalent of a shoebox. We should leave the Flintstones where they belong - to the comic books. ;)

Merg Ross
3-Mar-2009, 22:34
Merg, your negatives must be b&w, because I tried to scan some of my early color negatives from the '70s and lots of them were so faded that it simply wasn't worth the effort.

My digital images are all in color and should remain identical bit-for-bit for as long as I keep rotating them from the old to the new media and file formats. All three archival copies of them. Should one or even two copies get flooded, burned or physically destroyed in any other manner, there will still be another copy left from which the destroyed ones can be entirely replicated.

The beauty of it is that I can store one copy in the US, the other one in Brazil and the third one in, say China. Or any other place on Earth. I can both store and restore from those places without leaving my chair. All it takes is a little forethought and a periodical effort to maintain the copies.

In a word, it is a different medium with different methods and different set of strengths (and weaknesses).

Marko, yes my negatives are b&w, as you may have assumed from visiting my web site.

I am in complete agreement with your summation, perhaps you should have used bold type!!!

My concern has always been the process for retrieval and duplication of digital images in, say, fifty years. On this we can hopefully agree; nobody knows for certain what that process will entail.

Marko
4-Mar-2009, 07:08
Marko, yes my negatives are b&w, as you may have assumed from visiting my web site.

I am in complete agreement with your summation, perhaps you should have used bold type!!!

My concern has always been the process for retrieval and duplication of digital images in, say, fifty years. On this we can hopefully agree; nobody knows for certain what that process will entail.

Merg, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or flippant in any way, I'm sorry if I came across like that! Please write it off on poor wording on my part, but my point still stands - there's more to film than just b&w and there is more to digital backups than a single copy on a CD/DVD.

These are two very different media with very different storage requirements and procedures. Approaching both from a single perspective gives an incomplete picture (no pun intended) of their respective merits, strengths and weaknesses.

A simplified point in case: simplicity and reliability of a shoebox vs. the complexity and involvement of maintaining computer backups. Many people do indeed keep their negatives that way and lots of them do come back into the daylight looking decent, but some - like my color ones - do not. When that gets burned or flooded, they are all gone, no coming back. They catch dust, scratches and stains. They get lost or accidentally tossed away. They keep no annotations with them, those have to be kept separately and be properly referenced, which raises a separate storage issue for the notes themselves.

Compared to the simplicity of the shoebox, digital file storage and security may indeed seem overly complex and unsafe, but only to recreational computer users. Those who use computers for more than games and other casual purposes should familiarize themselves with the basic principles of long-term data storage and retrieval. It is definitely not rocket science, but it does take some careful planning and a little periodic effort for rotation and keeping storage devices and data formats up to date. There are several basic strategies for this, none of them more complicated than following service schedule for modern cars. And like with modern cars, digital files have a potential for lasting much longer and can be more reliable than older ones if cared for properly.

Increased complexity is simply the price for increased versatility and reliability. Whether one likes it or needs it is a different, completely individual matter.

Marko

Andy Eads
4-Mar-2009, 08:25
I think what sent George Eastman spinning in his grave were the gross mis-steps Kodak made relative to digital. Kodak was positioned, given their expertise in dye technology and coating technology to own the inkjet printer market. Instead, HP, Epson and others seized the opportunity. Kodak in the 80's and early 90's was an innovator in many technologies but squandered their position with half hearted marketing and product development. Their purchase of Encad was just one mark of getting in after the real opportunities had already passed. Eastman built his empire by solid research and dynamic marketing. That Kodak is alive at all is due to the efforts of Perez and company. But Kodak will never again be based heavily on silver image products.

Merg Ross
4-Mar-2009, 11:10
[QUOTE=Marko;445874]Merg, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or flippant in any way, I'm sorry if I came across like that! Please write it off on poor wording on my part, but my point still stands - there's more to film than just b&w and there is more to digital backups than a single copy on a CD/DVD.

Marko, I missed any sarcasm, no apology needed!

My old color has not held up well, either. You make a good point.

David Luttmann
4-Mar-2009, 13:52
Hi guys- nice to have found this forum...

here is my perspective-


I for one, am glad that Wal-mart does not carry the ART SUPPLIES i need for my FINE ART hobby.

I am glad that the art supplies I use have no relationship to cell phone features and the average consumer slob, or worse yet "pro-digi-photographer" (gag).

The future business model for Bergger, Ilford, etc is to be carried in Pearl art stores, maybe Michael's, etc. etc...

The Windson-Newton oil paint co. turns a profit every year.

Hopefully some of the coating machines and formulas at Kodak are sold to smaller companies like this, instead of being destroyed... but like it or no, Kodak is getting out of film (and I agree that this is the beginning of the end, their digi products are nothing special).

I am glad for the d****al imaging revolution for consumers. I believe it serves to clearly define and seperate what I do from the average a****le and gives my work the same handmade value as other art forms.

It's a shame they took the word "photography", but let them have it-

how about simply "silver-gelatine based artwork" :)

Jorge....is that you?

Sevo
4-Mar-2009, 14:28
Hopefully some of the coating machines and formulas at Kodak are sold to smaller companies like this, instead of being destroyed...

Destroyed they won't be. But they'll more likely end up in China or in a chromatography film factory than at a "independent" photo film producer - those among them which actually have their own production lines are in one way or other successors to former Kodak competitors. They are more likely to order new, downscaled machinery rather than pick up any of Kodaks which is designed for even bigger runs than the oversized machinery they already have...

Sevo

rguinter
4-Mar-2009, 18:25
Well great news. I'm happy to hear that others have had much better luck with hard drives. Me absolutely not. I have learned to expect... and get... one to two crashes per year. That has been consistent over 20-years now. Most of my drives have been Seagates although who knows for sure what's inside when one buys a new PC. I have an HP Pavilion on the floor now as I type which is 6-months old and already on its second drive. Go figure. The luck of the draw I would say. I am archiving my panoramic scans on DVD with a memorex DVD writer. About the old color slides fading?... must have been Ektachrome. Kodachrome (Boo Hoo) is no longer available... has a life expectancy measured in centuries if properly kept. Fujichrome not quite as long but still very long. So those of you with precious digital photos beware. The day may yet come when your best work vaporizes......... Bob PS. I have a Mac Mini over 4-years old with almost 40gig of iTunes files... still running its original drive. I'm not gonna complain about that one.......

rguinter
4-Mar-2009, 18:38
Absolutely. I've been working with computers since the mid-80's and I have seen only a few hard drives go bad. The vast majority got obsoleted and rotated out of use before they failed.

The key to data security is redundancy, there's just no equivalent of a shoebox. We should leave the Flintstones where they belong - to the comic books. ;)

Marko: I'm happy for you. You must be very lucky. Or I must be very unlucky. Whichever. But as I said I had 1-hard drive, 1-flash drive, and 1-WD 500gig external drive crash all within 3-days. And yes indeed I did lose data. Bob

Marko
4-Mar-2009, 18:44
Well great news. I'm happy to hear that others have had much better luck with hard drives. Me absolutely not. I have learned to expect... and get... one to two crashes per year. That has been consistent over 20-years now. Most of my drives have been Seagates although who knows for sure what's inside when one buys a new PC. I have an HP Pavilion on the floor now as I type which is 6-months old and already on its second drive. Go figure. The luck of the draw I would say.

Magnetic personality, huh? :)


So those of you with precious digital photos beware. The day may yet come when your best work vaporizes.........

So will we, one day. When that happens, what difference will it make if our precious photos (aren't they all precious, btw?) "vaporize" on our hard drives or get tossed out along with the old shoebox by our descendants?


I have a Mac Mini over 4-years old with almost 40gig of iTunes files... still running its original drive. I'm not gonna complain about that one.......

Well, then, there's your solution - switch to Mac! :)

rguinter
5-Mar-2009, 10:31
Magnetic personality, huh? :)

Magnetic?... well perhaps. Or maybe just lots and lots of bytes of data going to and fro. Everything has a life expectancy and failure will fall somewhere within the bell curve for it. PC drives just seem to fail very early in the curve for me both at home and at the office. About my best photographs... I hope they will last long enough that my children and grandchildren are able to enjoy some of them. I'll bet you do too. Bob



So will we, one day. When that happens, what difference will it make if our precious photos (aren't they all precious, btw?) "vaporize" on our hard drives or get tossed out along with the old shoebox by our descendants?



Well, then, there's your solution - switch to Mac! :)