Archiving Film and Digital

I was recently reading an article on the archival difference between film and digital photographs. The story slant was why it is better to shoot film rather than digital.

The author made the point that " Flash memory cards and hard drives may lose data after ten or twenty years of use, and everyone knows they are susceptible to failures and other problems. Data recovery systems have vastly improved, but when you risk losing the original digital negative, it can be frightening".

This statement is partially true, since everyone does know that hard drives and flash memory cards are susceptible to failures and other problems. But no one is likely to use a hard drive for twenty or even ten years. In addition, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will need to recover data from a hard drive that has been sitting in the garage for fifteen years.

Why is this so unlikely? Because computer users, as a general rule, tend to periodically upgrade their computer systems and those new systems come with bigger, faster, and supposedly more reliable than before hard drives. Oddly, no one asks for smaller hard drives with a new computer, regardless of what year it is. The repeating upgrades are part of a vicious cycle.

When a user upgrades, all the important files are transferred to the new, bigger hard drive. In short order they start using programs that take advantage of the new technology platform to create bigger files. They back up on whatever media makes sense at the time, a progression of events that brought them from 5.25" floppy drives to one and two terrabyte drives, so far. None of the important data is left behind. If you forgot to bring along that 1 megapixel photo of aunt Margaret's shoe when you upgraded to a machine running Windows XP, it probably wasn't important.

Of course the downcurve of the cycle is when the computer no longer measures up to the current operating system, and can't take advantage of the new whiz-bang applications that run only on the new operating system/hardware. Then its time to upgrade again. And transfer your files to the new system with the huge new storage capacity.

So the files aren't lost. You just won't have your "original digital negative". So what? By definition, a copy of a digital file is the same as the "original". It doesn't matter if it is originally stored on a machine running Windows 3.0, then transferred through a succession of years, floppy discs, CDs, DVDs, and eight hard drives to end up stored on the current Windows 7 machine. You still have the original. Barring a general collapse of world civilization, your great grandchildren will be able to look at your images in a hundred years, just like properly archived film.

Film Versus Digital is a "controversy" that breeds Web stories, print magazine articles, and blog posts like this one. But there is no controversy. Its made up. Film and digital are two very different processes. There is no winner or loser, just two different avenues of approach to photography.

It's like comparing hammers to lasers. Both will eventually reduce a boulder to a pile of pea gravel, but are used in different ways which result in the same end product, thousands of pieces of pea gravel.

One Minute

When making sunset or sunrise photographs, a few seconds can make a great or small difference in the quality of the light. It doesn't matter much how obvious or subtle the difference. What matters is that the light quality is ever shifting, ever mutating from one state to another.

The changing light is what makes it interesting and is the reason why we will stand out in the elements with a camera in our hands, watching the land, sky and clouds, along with the movements of the sun, moon, planets and stars for long stretches of time. We know from experience that at some time around dusk or dawn the quality of light will peak, will be at its best for a fleeting moment, and if we're paying attention, we'll capture that light.

After all, if the light did not change, one could step outside once, make a single photograph, then give up landscape photography altogether (at least in a single locale). Boring. Few of us would have the incentinve to pick up our cameras at all, assuming that humanity bothered to invent the photographic process to begin with, rather than leave imaging to the painters, wood block printers, and crayon scribblers.

Those of us perverse enough to pursue landscape photography despite the unchanging light would find ourselves thinking about transportation as much as light-capturing devices. We would be hurrying from one spot to another on the surface of this planet or above it in our automobiles, airplanes, and helicopters, or on our motorcycles, bikes, and skateboards, frantically making photos in various places, trying to capture something different.

The photographs in this post are pairs of landscapes made at a nominal time of one minute apart to illustrate the shifting of light quality.

Darkness

The photographs in this post are night landscapes. Click on a photograph to view a larger version.
View: Old Chinatown, Riverside, California.

View: East. From March Air Museum.

View: East toward Riverside and Box Springs Mountain.

View: East. Shamel Ash branches in my front yard.

View: West toward Corona from Mount Rubidoux.

View: Jupiter, Venus and Luna. From my front yard.

View: West. Joshua Tree, California.

View: West toward Corona from Mount Rubidoux.

View: Venus. South from my yard.

View: Landing lights on March Air Force Base.

View: East toward Moreno Valley, California.

View: West. Joshua Tree National Monument.

View: East from March Air Museum.

View: Thumbnail moon from Riverside, California.

View: East. Mojave Desert.

View: East from my front yard.

View: West from the San Bernardino Mountains.

View: East from Orangecrest area of Riverside, California.

From The Saddle

WARNING! This post describes a photographic technique that is dangerous. Attempting to duplicate this technique could result in injuries. It could also be fatal. The author does not recommend it, and does not accept any responsibility for anyone who undertakes the duplication of this technique.

As mentioned in the My Photographs post, I sometimes take photographs “from the saddle” with my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX01. The FX01 is well suited for this, since it has fairly good image stabilization and will fire a burst of six frames. It also is easily operated with one hand. The following photo, a “self-portrait”, was taken in New Mexico. The sun was at the right angle to throw this shadow on the road beside me.


I originally tried to mount this camera on the motorcycle with a simple handlebar mount, but realized that it would be subjected to constant vibration for the duration of the time it was mounted. It would probably break the camera quickly. My eventual solution turned out to be the use of a simple neck strap. I found a strap that would allow the camera to dangle at the level of my stomach.
The following photo was taken on the Avenue of the Giants in Northern California – those are redwoods dwarfing the motorcycles and the road below.

To repeat: This is dangerous a dangerous undertaking. I’ve been riding motorcycles since 1962 and I sometimes choose to run the risk, accepting full personal responsibility for it.
When I see something I want to shoot (and there is little traffic and no hairpin turns), I set the cruise control to maintain a steady speed and keep my right hand on the throttle, then grab the camera with my left hand, slide the power switch on the top to the On position, point the camera in the desired direction, and hold down the shutter button (which is also on the top of the camera).
Being quite familiar with the camera, I can take photographs without looking at it, which is comforting, since I don’t like to take my eyes off the road while riding. If something disturbing happens, I can drop the camera and put my left hand back on the handlebar grip. Because the neck strap is not too long, the camera will drop to my stomach, rather than smacking into the gas tank.
The following photo was taken on Route 38 while climbing the long grade up into the San Bernardino Mountains.

The next photo shows Brandon McKee riding north on Route 395 along the eastern flank of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

The following photo shows Danny Underwood waiting for a train to pass in Amboy, California.

My Photographs

My photographs are usually displayed “as made”. On occasion, I will crop or level a photo, but that is as far as I will go. In most cases when I have to crop or level, I feel that I have failed in some small way to make the photograph I intended.

I have zero interest in photoshopping my photographs. From my viewpoint, a photo that is heavily altered in PhotoShop or another graphics program becomes something else. It is a graphic or an image. But though it may have started life as a photograph, it is no longer a photograph.

For the Gearheads
The tools I currently use are a Nikon D200 and a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX01. Both cameras are somewhat out of date, and they are quite different from each other. I use them for different things. They both fit my hands well and suit my purpose, which is to help make what I consider to be good photographs.
The D200 was a state-of-the-art DSLR in 2005. I bought it when the price came down to the point where it fit my budget. It’s a solid tool and it helps me make the photographs I intend.
The FX01 was a gift from my wife Lisa. She gave it to me just before I went on a 19-day ride to the East Coast and back in 2006. It’s a very small point and shoot camera with a good wide angle lens. It will fit in my jacket pocket, and suspended on a neck strap, I can operate it while riding my motorcycle. I know that sounds dangerous, but I only photograph from the saddle when there is no appreciable road traffic, which means I’m away from the cities – usually out in the desert or mountains.

For the Non-Gearheads
The above information about my tools doesn’t matter. To paraphrase Paul Kantner (I think), “It doesn’t mean shit to a tree.” They are just tools. Hammers and wrenches.
If you think that you must run out and get the newest, shiny cameras every time your favorite manufacturer releases a new model, please do. That kind of rampant consumerism is what keeps Canon, Nikon, and Pentax in the black, and helps them keep producing improved cameras which are useful to the rest of us when we want to buy a new camera every few years.
If, on the other hand, you’d like to disabuse yourself of the idea that you always have to have the newest toy, read about making good photographs at http:// kenrockwell.com.

Keep in mind that Ken apparently has the money to buy any equipment he wants, unlike the vast majority of us, but that allows him to give a lot of information away to the general public. Useful information (what a concept!), particularly when you are shopping for equipment.

About This Blog

This blog’s primary emphasis will fall on photography and motorcycling. Other subjects including slide guitar, writing, and hiking Mount Rubidoux, will pop up on occasion.

Why Blog?

I’m a compulsive communicator. There are probably support groups for the condition, but I haven’t looked for one. For nearly two decades, I have been in the habit of frequently sending email, often with photographs embedded, to a small group of friends and relatives.

For me, sharing photographs is nearly as satisfying as making them. When I am at the point where I want to show them, it’s always a problem trying to decide which people on my email list would like to see particular photos. I don’t want to spam anyone, so I rarely send a photo to everyone in my address book. With a blog, it should be easier, since people will be able to decide what photos they are personally interested in, and what stories, comments, and ruminations they want to read, or if they want to view the blog at all. It’s out of my hands.