Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by Roger_Provins, Apr 18, 2015.
Well we know that but see here ...
I can't see it ever dying out completely - just like steam trains and vinyl records and other antiques.
It can be fun to run a roll through a camera but once it's developed, my film becomes digital. I no longer even keep the negs, once I've scanned them, even when "scanning" produces a rubbish 5MP image...
I never throw away negs. For one thing, they don't take up much space when stored in film storage binders, and they're always there as a reference point.
There's always a calamity can befall any system, even film, but I recall that of a friend, who lost her entire photo collection of her family growing up, because of a computer failure. Not everyone is clued up on backup procedures (which I'm sure doesn't apply to anyone here), but all Mary's pictures of her growing family of five over ten years or so were lost(*), and the only ones remaining were those hanging on the walls, plus those from some significant family events that I'd photographed, and could re-supply from my own archives. Destroying film only cuts off another avenue of reproduction. May work for some, but it's not a strategy I'd ever adopt.
(* She'd called the paid-for help line of the manufacturer of her now-out-of-warranty computer, and can you guess the instruction she was given? Yes, press the magic key on start-up to re-install the operating system from a hidden partition, which turned out to be a disk image that restored it to factory condition, and wiped out everything in the process.)
Vinyl is apparently experiencing an increase in sales. Looks like film may be too, but it would be interesting to see the figures.
BTW, is the camera in the background of the heading photo a Vito Automatic?
It rather depends on how many negatives you've actually accumulated!
Given the impending move to a one and a half bedroom cottage from our four bedroom house, I've been brought face to face with the problem of storage. I currently have enough to fill a box this big (and that's a 1Ds to give some idea of its size) about half a dozen times. Rather than try to decide what to keep and what not, I'm digitising everything and shredding the originals - after they've fed through my backup system (see post #4 in this thread: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...atically-to-both-drives&p=1322279#post1322279)
I suppose if you're happy with the scans that's not an issue - but it's not something I'd want to have done a few years back. Scanning tech has improved hugely, so the question is will you lose out on further improvements in that tech or not by no longer having the negs to scan.
I wasn't very careful with my negs for much of my early photography back when I was using a Kodak 126 - so many of mine are lost in time
I still have plenty more to create though.
Been a photographer since about 1966, so have accumulated quite a few ...
I did make a decision early on (before, I guess, I'd even enough common sense to know how valuable it'd turn out to be), to use organised binders with storage sheets, each one numbered and dated, with index sheets. So I know what each film is, when it was processed, and what the process was (if I did it myself), and exposure/lens details. Last year I finished a fairly big undertaking to scan most of them, so they can be easily indexed by Lightroom and I can go straight to the original film book and sheet if I need to re-scan for any reason.
I suspect that physical storage media, like film, will outlast may digitised collections, simply because the proverbial shoebox is self-contained for being passed to posterity, whereas a digital collection requires regular updating and maintenance. When you stop doing the backups, succeeding generations may not continue. Of course, they may have no interest in our photographs, but that's another topic.
With you all the way.
A sad story, and a good reminder why personal stuff should never be stored on the c: drive of a PC, leaving it purely for the operating system and other assorted software packages.
At the very least, partition the drive into two separate logical drives but better still install a second hard drive. £50-ish will buy a 1TB internal hard drive these days . . . not a big expense in the grand scheme of protecting precious photos and other personal data.
What made it doubly depressing was that if she'd told me soon enough, there was a good chance I could have recovered all her photographs, documents, and other data, just by whipping the drive out and cabling it up to my laptop with a cable set I have for just this purpose. I haven't actually told her that, since that would just give her even more of a sinking feeling, but I have said that if anything like that happens again, call me first. (I did do the lecture on backups, naturally.)
I only throw out negs and slides that no good. My procedure now is, when I get a film back from the lab, to scan it at low res., allot index numbers to the shots and then, at the end of the year, burn the index file(s) onto CD. This make searching for a particular shot much easier than going through a written index or going through slide magazines from memory. I also print out the indexed shots as thumbnails and stick them in ringbinders so that I don't need to start the PC every time I need to look for a particular shot. I'm slowly carrying out the same procedure with the rest of my slides and negs and it's interesting what turns up after all these years!
When I need specific shots for prints, exhibitions or whatever I then rescan them to the required size.
I can't say that my slide and neg archive takes up a great deal of space in my flat.
My view. With negatives, which I file in strips if there is a poor one in the middle of the strip I keep it, rather than break the strip. With a transparency, it's simple, it costs money to mount and it takes up space, so why keep something that's of poor quality? An acquaintance boasts of never throwing a slide out, I've only seen his best, I hate to think what the rest are like
I too print index thumbnail sheets and put them in the ringbinders, since it's often easier than cranking up the computer.
Pruning images is a task, whether silver or bits, that's a routine for most, and it's a judgement call whether an image stays or goes. I found it somewhat easier with digital, in the sense that there's rather more encouragement to overdoing it to 'get the shot', resulting in a fair bit of near-duplication (you know, like you've seen on Facebook where people have disgorged the entire contents of their iPhone from Senga's hen do).
The caveat is that the criteria can change unexpectedly, and what seemed bin-able last week can suddenly have a new reason for preservation. Slightly out of focus pictures of a friend or relative who has since passed away suddenly become part of your history, and acquire a value that is beyond the pictorial aesthetic. I've tended, therefore, to err on the side of caution.
I received an updated insert for the current catalogue sent out by Firstcall Photographic and Nikon have just authorised the reintroduction of the Nikon FM10 which was briefly available a few years ago.
Manufactured by Cosinon and I doubt if it is to the construction standards of the FE2/FM2/FE3, but it is the 1st new film camera with a known name being marketed for quite a number of years.
This will be aimed at the educational market, no doubt, for students of photography. Seems like a sensible move for Nikon, too, since it gets a new line of photo recruits using Nikon kit, and Nikon's reputation for extensive backward compatibility with new products makes for an appealing route into Nikon's offerings in the digital lineup too.
I don't know the FM10 (although I have the cute little EM and its more feature-rich sister the FG), but those Cosina-made cameras I have, like the Voigtlander R3A and L series, are workmanlike and serviceable.
It's a pretty ugly looking camera, especially the uppers.
I think I'd rather have a 2nd hand FM2 than a new FM10.
It is a cheaply made basic camera, something of a Ronseal job.
It isn't bad looking to me, but it does look cheap. The FM2 isn't the best built Nikon in some respects, but the mechanisms are certainly durable.
Ol' Cosina haven't half racked up the price on the Voigtlanders, alindsay. Looks like they're determined not to sell many! Agree with your assessment. Cheers, Oly
Hi nimbus, You can feel the difference as soon as the FM10 is in your hands - if you've handled the others. Prices on good s/h FMs/FEs & successors seem to be robust. I've always felt fairly at home when handling one of those and had my return to photography in a serious way been half a decade later, I might have ended up being a Nikonite from Day1. Cheers, Oly
Separate names with a comma.