post not showing up

Moderator:

I'd like to know why my repsonse to David Dyer-Bennet's 25 Nov 2003 
01:45:59 in the Digital thread is not showing up in the newsgroup. I sent 
two newsgroup messages today (three, actually.) One at 2:12 pm which 
apparently never posted. I sent another unrelated message at 8:05 pm. 
This response to Lou Lesko was posted *immediately*. Seeing this, I 
resent the first one at 8:23 pm thinking there was an error the first 
time around and messages were now posting. It did not and has not. 

David Dyer-Bennet's last message requires my response. Not only is he 
wrong on certain technical matters, he engaged in some name calling (not 
that I care but my understanding is flaming is prohibited here.) Please 
respect my right to respond and post the following or make sure one of my 
messages as sent gets posted. -- Tom Phillips

This was it:


Subject: Re: Digital
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:45:59 -0800 (PST)
From:  David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: rec.photo.moderated moderation hosted by Gweep Systems
Newsgroups: rec.photo.moderated
Followup-To:  rec.photo.moderated
References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8


David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> 
> Tom Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > David, cold stops dye layer fading. Period.
> 
> Nope.  Slows it down, only.  Arrhenius, and all that.

No. It depends entirely on the *temperature*. Image stability curves for 
all Kodak color films (based on the Arrhenius model), whether 
transparency or negative, show *no* dark storage dye fading at 0 degrees 
F. Only slight dye fading at 45 degrees F, while dye fading increases 
long term at 75 degrees F. This is in line with your own stated 
experience, that your color films faded in "air conditioned" room 
temperatures, since all air conditioning does is maintain a temperature 
of about 68 degrees.

> > > Yes, you can reduce the rate of loss by frozen storage, but that's not
> > > as easy as it sounds (I've read about the issues).  But if you're
> > > prepared to provide that level of care, you can probably handle a
> > > digital archive as well, and if you do there's *no* quality loss.
> > >
> > > And, the big point -- you can *never* reduce the loss rate to zero.
> >
> > Except that with an image on film a given lose rate doesn't
> > pragmatically affect the ability to still have and utilize a real image.
> > With digital a given lose rate means you have no image.
> 
> Any analog loss rate results, eventually, in complete loss of the
> image.

No. You're wrong and apparently fail to grasp the issue at hand.

Loss rates in film, regardless of the degree of loss, can be *stopped* by 
cold storage. That means even if you have a film image with some dye 
fading or Vinegar Syndrome, it's (1) still a usable image, whereas that 
same degree of loss makes a digital image completely unretrievable and 
unusable, and (2) still preservable since cold storage at 0 degrees F and 
lower stops the rate of loss. Even though the image stability curves 
showing this are derived from a scientific testing model (reference: 
"Predicting Long Term Storage Dye Stability Characteristics of Color 
Photographic Products from Short Term Tests." Bard, Larson, Hammond, and 
C. Packard, The Journal of Applied Photography, 1980), it ain't rocket 
science. Freeze something it ****STOPS**** decay. That why we still find 
Woolly Mammoths perfectly preserved in Siberian glaciers thousands and 
thousands of years after they died and were frozen. And I don't know 
about you, but my freezer is a lot colder than typical glacial ice, at 
least minus 20 degrees F.

> > > "Real" images are something that happens in my head, and I don't
> > > really care how the data was stored.
> >
> > I beg to differ :) And so does the ISO. A real image is a tangible image
> > on film, not one "previsualized" or stored as data on a computer.
> > Example, if you scan the Mona Lisa you have a digital representation of
> > the Mona Lisa, not an actual painting. The International Organization
> > for Standardization (draft ISO 12231 Photography Electronic Still
> > Picture Imaging Terminology) in fact states that electronic cameras
> > produce digital signals which *represent* still pictures or still
> > pictures as data on removable media such as a memory cards, magnetic
> > disks, etc. Digital images are representative images, since they're not
> > real images until they are output on either paper or film.
> 
> You're wrong on both points, and the ISO is irrelevant (and what you
> quote them as saying doesn't address my points at all anyway).

Even allowing for esotericism, I think I get it. You believe all you need 
to do is imagine an image in your head for it to be a "real" image as 
thus captured; an "optical" image. Sure, it's an image, but not a 
tangible one. The reality is, no digital image is a real, tangible image. 
It's magnetic bits on a hard drive that are translated into ones and 
zeros by software. Then you turn your conputer on and software reads and 
displays those one and zeros as representing the optical image you saw. 
Still not a "real" image, though. CRT's don't form or project optical 
images, they display data in pixel form. Then when you print it out on 
your inkjet it becomes a tangible image, but since it's ink it's still 
not a real photograph but a sprayed reproduction of the data it 
represents.

The ISO standards, btw, are determined by the same broad spectrum of 
industry experts and scientists who also produce all the film, cameras, 
digital silicon sensors, inkjet printers, etc. etc., that you use to form 
and reproduce optical images. I'm sure they know the difference between 
an optical image and a tangible image. Film produces optical images. But 
they know that a digital image is not an optical or tangible image as 
such, but rather a voltage (silicon sensors produce a voltage, not an 
"image") regenerated into digital signals via an analog to digital 
converter and regenerated further into stored data (ones and zeros) which 
then *represent* the optical image originally formed by the lens. 

I think that addresses your point quite accurately in scientific terms. 
What exactly you may mean esoterically I can't be 100% certain of.

> > > > > You over-estimate the permanence of film by a *lot*.
> > > >
> > > > No, I don't. The estimate of the permanance of film is from the
> > > > Image Permanance Institute. Get their reports and read. Thousands of
> > > > years are possible. IPI is a *nonprofit* research organization
> > > > staffed by independent scientists. Henry Wilhelm is a paid industry
> > > > consultant and mouthpiece.
> > >
> > > Henry Wilhelm is the guy who *invented* this field of expertise, and
> > > widely recognized as the premiere researcher, whereas I've never
> > > heard of this IPI group.  Okay, googling I see they're a group at RIT,
> > > and I *have* heard of a group doing work in this area at RIT; but they
> > > don't have the stature Wilhelm does in the field -- and they don't
> > > disagree with him much that I've noticed, either.
> >
> > They have more stature.
> 
> Not with anybody I know.

IPI is not-for-profit. They have more objectivity.

> Wilhelm doesn't work for the company polluting my water.  

Know what an "analogy" is?

> He works for
> his own organization.  That organization does contract testing for a
> wide range of clients, including *all* the competing manufacturers of
> quality photo materials.

Not the point. You cannot remain scientifically objective when you're 
commercially paid by a company or client to produce results that company 
or client expects and is paying for. That's what Wilhelm does and what my 
analogy illustrated.

> > Cold dark storage ***stops*** loss. Period.
> 
> That's chemical nonsense, and contrary to everything I've read on the
> topic from anybody.  At temperatures about 0K, anyway.

Then you haven't read much -- at least not the technical documents 
actually required for actual knowledge on this subject. Wilhelm again, I 
presume is your source. Image stability curves based on the Arrhenius 
scientific model show otherwise. Plus it shows you know very little about 
chemistry, since temperature affects chemical reactions...

> > The degree of loss in a film image before storage is irrelevant,
> > since the rate of loss for magnetic media cannot be stopped at
> > all. That's the difference and why film is a better storage medium
> > for images.
> 
> Film is a lousy archival storage medium for images.  We're seeing that
> more and more, and that's why there's so much work in rescuing decayed
> movies, 

You seem to be only repeating your own propagandistic spin. The *reason* 
there's a need for motion picture film restoration is becuase all those 
movies were treated badly by a profit-conscious industry who stored them 
improperly without any thought to their preservation. If you throw your 
silver tea serving set into a hot, dank bunker it also will decay and 
need restoring. You claim doesn't mean anything.

> > I think the whole point of this discussion is film as stored will
> > outlast digital as stored.
> 
> Yes, that's your claim.  But it develops as we go that to actually get
> film to last any decent time at all, it requires far more difficult
> and specialized storage than digital media do.
> 
> Film *as stored* is a lousy medium, which is why most people's
> color snapshots from the 60s are mostly gone now.

Magnetic hard drives are a lousier medium. CD-Rs only slightly better. 
Lucky if a CD-R lasts 40 years before it's stamped layers come apart.

> > With film you're only dependent on avoiding the extremes of climate
> > to maintain usable images. With digital you're dependent on the ups
> > and downs of the availablity and economics of the technology and
> > power source. In an environment where all things are otherwise equal
> > (such as your attic), an image on film *will* without doubt outlast
> > an image stored on electronic media. Perhaps by decades.
> 
> CDs will probably outlast color film in untended storage.

No, they won't. Note we're talking about *CD-Rs*, not commercially 
pressed CD's which while more stable are prohibitively expensive for 
individual storage purposes. A commercially pressed CD may last 100 
years. A CD-R will not. PLUS the technology used to read those CD-Rs 
changes and is changing at a very fast pace. Even if they last, the 
economics of an industry that produces technology merely for short term 
profit and not for archival storage of your precious images *predicts* 
you won't be able to find a compact disk drive that will actually be able 
to read and retrieve those 50 year old images on CD-R.

> I've washed and cleaned CDs many times.  I have 20-year-old audio CDs
> that still play fine, too -- every single one of them, hundreds.  Not
> a one has quit on me yet, despite finger smudges and very occasional
> worse problems.

Obviously you don't know there's a difference between commercially 
pressed CDs and the typical CD-R used for storage.

> I don't believe it.  19th century images are B&W film, which is
> immensely more stable than color film.

Wrong. What you obviously don't know about 19th century photography is a 
lot. Most 19th century images are on plates. Film wasn't invented until 
the 1880s. And there are color photographs 150 years old.

> > > you said under 60 degrees and low humidity.  And
> > > I've already agreed that digital archives require attention, that
> > > digital media don't work well in untended storage.
> >
> > Dark storage at about 60 - 70 F with 20 - 40% average humidity is AFAIK
> > considered adequate for normal "room" storage conditions. You're black
> > and white negatives and prints are going to last hundreds of years under
> > those conditions. Color film dye layers will fade more slowly than in a
> > hot attic, but they should still be refrigerated if the goal is to
> > actually archive them.
> 
> Yea, B&W will last well in those conditions.  Probably at least as
> long as a CD.  

Black and White film will last virtually *forever* under those 
conditions, if stored properly and not stacked or sealed.

> (The Kodak Gold Ultima CDs, for example, are officially
> claimed by Kodak to be good for 120 years).
> 
> But I can put CDs of the photos in a dozen different places, if it's
> important.

Suit yourself. It's your choice.

> > > > > The issue of having to copy "thousands of photos" is semi-bogus -- 
the
> > > > > new medium is nearly always larger than the old one, so you can just
> > > > > bulk-copy everything.  You don't actually have to deal with each
> > > > > single image separately.
> > > >
> > > > Raw data files can be quite large. I'm not talking about low res
> > > > prosumer JPEGS.
> > >
> > > Neither am I.  My scanned images are 25 megabytes and up, digital
> > > camera originals get as big as 36 megabytes.
> >
> > Mine are a lot bigger than that. A typical scanned image is 80 to 100
> > MB. If I were shooting digital, my images might routinely approach 250
> > MB. Of course it depends on the application, but I'm generally referring
> > to high end digital: Sinar, Better Light, etc., not one-shot prosumer
> > Kodak or Nikon SLRs.
> 
> Interesting, digital-original images are smaller than scanned images
> for the same image quality everywhere else.

No. A typical high end digital in-camera original scan can be up to 250 
MB. You're thinking strictly about one-shot prosumer imaging. I would 
never use such since those images are purely software-algorithm produced 
(i.e., not optically true.) If I shoot digital, I want the detail 
captured by that scan to be 100% accurate and true to the optical image 
as formed by the lens. To do that you have to shoot a high end system 
that can overcome such scanning limitations as Nyquist.

What you call "quality" is in fact a "fake" image. One shot prosumer 
"megapixel" images look good due to enormous software manipulations and 
fixes, but don't and cannot record true optical images like film does.

> > > > > In fact, hard drives are growing so fast that what actually makes
> > > > > sense, for individual photographers, is to keep everything online,
> > > > > with copious and frequent backups.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who stores their images in an online archive (again still
> > > > magnetic media/hard drive), is a risk taker. 
> > >
> > > Huh?  How am I trusting somebody else?  I'm talking about *my*
> > > frigging hard drive sitting in *my* computer on *my* desk.
> >
> > You said "online" archiving storage options. You said it "makes sense."
> > Need to read your own words as posted 15 lines above.
> 
> "Online" means live in my computer now, as opposed to "offline"
> which would mean removable media not currently in the drive.  (I've
> worked in computers 34 years now).

That's not what "online" storage and archiving means in general computer 
business vernacular. Online archiving as a service means storage on 
someone else's system you can then access via modem. According to the 
Dictionary of Computing, "Online" means an active user -- especially on 
the internet.

> > > Your basement will flood first.
> >
> > And that's why we've in fact been warned about terrorists targeting
> > government and industry computer systems and power grids? Right. What
> > was that massive eastern power failure just a little while ago -- a
> > flood? Out here on the western grid we have power failures *routinely*
> > thanks to too many air conditioners and companies like Enron.
> 
> Power grid issues are irrelevant to this discussion.

No, they're not.

> > BTW, my basement cannot flood, as I don't live in a flood plain and only
> > get 10 inches rainfall per year.
> 
> You seem to be an optimist, if not an actual fool.  Your drains can
> back up, for example.

Now you're an expert contractor. The fact you must now resort to name 
calling shows your arguments can't hold water.

> > > And my hard drive isn't dependent on the power grid; yanking power
> > > won't damage it (and besides it's on a UPS, so it'll get shut down
> > > gracefully).
> >
> > The need for generated power to retreive and view and use your images is
> > a need for power, regardless.
> 
> Irrelevant to this discussion.  We're talking about archiving.  A few
> minutes or even few days loss of access to the archive is irrelevant.

Obviously you do little or no commercial photographic work. That explains 
a lot...

> > > > > In 750 years, there will be essentially *no* photographs 
> > > >
> > > > nonsense.
> > >
> > > Wait and see.
> >
> > But you simply have no basis, scientific or otherwise, for predicting
> > that.
> 
> Sure I do. 

Of course, everything in future will be digitized into one "Matrix." 
Nothing "real" will remain. Oh, I forgot, you think cyberspace and 
digitized reality *is* real. In that case, scan yourself and enjoy :)