Topics

Kodak - Slightly Off Topic...but Only Slightly.


vgnry <vgnry212@...>
 

A T Kott wrote:

It is my understanding that a single 35mm black and white negative
holds the equivalent of 80 megapixels of data in "analog" form
(actually, it is digital when you get down to the molecular level).
A single 2-1/4" X 2-1/4" B&W negative holds 150 megapixels of data.
The negative is also a much better way to store data archivally -
the compact disc technology will probably be long obsolete, while
B&W negatives will still be great. I also understand that a digital
image on a compact disc will only last for about 20 years before it
needs to be removed and placed on new media. Maybe by then, a more
permanent form of storage will have been invented. A digital
picture can be transferred as a jpeg file several times before it
starts to break up - but when it does start to break up, it goes
away in spectacular fashion.


Just another example of instant gratification over craftsmanship and
quality!
I am way off topic here, but I wanted to make a few of observations about this thread:

1. I have many old and wonderful postcard and 616 size B&W negs of railroad
subjects...and absolutely no way to have them printed other than scanning/digitizing. So
longevity may well mean nothing if you can't use the stuff.

2. The idea expressed on this list several times that a well made digital 8X10 won't
measure up to a traditional wet darkroom print is simply rubbish. I have digital prints from
the Otto Perry collection that are fabulous. It all depends on what you start with and what
you do with it. A poorly made print is a poorly made print, whether wet or digital.

3. A JPG file can be transferred, that is to say moved arouund, without degrading the file. it
cannot be repeatedly resaved as a JPG because the saving process recompresses the file
each time, ultimately degrading the file.

The 'instant gratification' shot is beyond belief. The implication that all of the many
publications produced digitally, including railroad publications, not to mention the train
calendars we buy and the historical society publications that could only be done by
desktop publishing software using digitally produced images, are not the product of
craftsmanship and quality...well, what can I say....

There was a day when folks said a resin kit could never match the quality of an injection
molded model.

Bill McClure
Richmond


Paul Hillman
 

Thanks A.T.,

I'd generally understood that water would separate prints, but was just wondering about any of the modern-marvels about such. I have some really good photos of the D&RGW narrow gauge in Durango and Chama, and other RR's, and they've gotten "stuck-together" over a time of storage. Don't want to lose their essence by experimentation.

Paul Hillman

----- Original Message -----
From: proto48er<mailto:atkott@swbell.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 5:54 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Kodak - Slightly Off Topic...but Only Slightly.


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>, "Paul Hillman" <chris_hillman@m<mailto:chris_hillman@m>...>
wrote:
> Yeah, not quite sure what the current, real quality of digital is,
(short of a $3,000.00 digital camera, etc.), but it looks like
the "old" print system is definitely on the way out. I used to
develop my own film and prints a few years back. I still have a 35mm
SLR and love it.
>
> But, I have another film OT question; what's the best way to
separate print-film pictures that are stuck together?
>
> Paul Hillman


Paul - I think you might try soaking the print film pictures in
distilled water - they were developed in water in the first place.
They should separate.

It is my understanding that a single 35mm black and white negative
holds the equivalent of 80 megapixels of data in "analog" form
(actually, it is digital when you get down to the molecular level).
A single 2-1/4" X 2-1/4" B&W negative holds 150 megapixels of data.
The negative is also a much better way to store data archivally -
the compact disc technology will probably be long obsolete, while
B&W negatives will still be great. I also understand that a digital
image on a compact disc will only last for about 20 years before it
needs to be removed and placed on new media. Maybe by then, a more
permanent form of storage will have been invented. A digital
picture can be transferred as a jpeg file several times before it
starts to break up - but when it does start to break up, it goes
away in spectacular fashion.

The above info comes from various articles in "Photo Techniques"
magazine. They are somewhat impartial - also do research on digital
and new wet photography films and papers.

Just another example of instant gratification over craftsmanship and
quality! A.T. Kott






Yahoo! Groups Links


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

It is my understanding that a single 35mm black and white negative
holds the equivalent of 80 megapixels of data in "analog" form
(actually, it is digital when you get down to the molecular level).
A single 2-1/4" X 2-1/4" B&W negative holds 150 megapixels of data.
Sort of. This is ONLY true if the negative is crystal sharp. The great majority, especially 35 mm, are far from truly sharp. In such a case the INFORMATION content may not exceed 5 MB, regardless of how many silver grains there are.

The negative is also a much better way to store data archivally -
the compact disc technology will probably be long obsolete, while
B&W negatives will still be great. I also understand that a digital
image on a compact disc will only last for about 20 years before it
needs to be removed and placed on new media.
I'd agree about the longevity of negatives--same is true of paper records. As for how long a CD will last, well, realistically, no one really knows yet. They certainly ARE subject to heat and humidity: you can add them to the very long list of things best stored in a cool, dry place. (inevitably reminds me of the great Traveling Wilburys song on that topic . . . )

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


proto48er
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Hillman" <chris_hillman@m...>
wrote:
Yeah, not quite sure what the current, real quality of digital is,
(short of a $3,000.00 digital camera, etc.), but it looks like
the "old" print system is definitely on the way out. I used to
develop my own film and prints a few years back. I still have a 35mm
SLR and love it.

But, I have another film OT question; what's the best way to
separate print-film pictures that are stuck together?

Paul Hillman

Paul - I think you might try soaking the print film pictures in
distilled water - they were developed in water in the first place.
They should separate.

It is my understanding that a single 35mm black and white negative
holds the equivalent of 80 megapixels of data in "analog" form
(actually, it is digital when you get down to the molecular level).
A single 2-1/4" X 2-1/4" B&W negative holds 150 megapixels of data.
The negative is also a much better way to store data archivally -
the compact disc technology will probably be long obsolete, while
B&W negatives will still be great. I also understand that a digital
image on a compact disc will only last for about 20 years before it
needs to be removed and placed on new media. Maybe by then, a more
permanent form of storage will have been invented. A digital
picture can be transferred as a jpeg file several times before it
starts to break up - but when it does start to break up, it goes
away in spectacular fashion.

The above info comes from various articles in "Photo Techniques"
magazine. They are somewhat impartial - also do research on digital
and new wet photography films and papers.

Just another example of instant gratification over craftsmanship and
quality! A.T. Kott


Paul Hillman
 

Yeah, not quite sure what the current, real quality of digital is, (short of a $3,000.00 digital camera, etc.), but it looks like the "old" print system is definitely on the way out. I used to develop my own film and prints a few years back. I still have a 35mm SLR and love it.

But, I have another film OT question; what's the best way to separate print-film pictures that are stuck together?

Paul Hillman

----- Original Message -----
From: Beckert, Shawn<mailto:shawn.beckert@disney.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 2:26 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Kodak - Slightly Off Topic...but Only Slightly.


Guys,

This article is taken from USA Today. You might want to take a look:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-08-25-kodak-cuts_x.htm<http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-08-25-kodak-cuts_x.htm>

The freight car connection should be obvious. If things keep going the way they
are, there might not *be* a Bob's Photo in a few years. Or John C. LaRue, or Jay
Williams. etc. Not to be Chicken Little (hey, there's an idea for a movie), but
it looks like we better start buying photographs like crazy or we find someone
who still makes printing paper (and chemicals) and work out a deal.

At some point we'll be forced to accept digitally printed photos. I already have
some, and I'm just not impressed.Unless the quality of digital printing improves
drastically (and who knows, maybe it will), I think we're in for a dry spell as
far as this facet of our hobby goes.

This is not meant to stir a debate (which will get Mike upset), but I think people
here should be aware of what's coming. Not a pretty picture - no pun intended.

Shawn Beckert





Yahoo! Groups Links


Adam Maas <mykroft@...>
 

Beckert, Shawn wrote:
Guys,
This article is taken from USA Today. You might want to take a look:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-08-25-kodak-cuts_x.htm
The freight car connection should be obvious. If things keep going the way they
are, there might not *be* a Bob's Photo in a few years. Or John C. LaRue, or Jay
Williams. etc. Not to be Chicken Little (hey, there's an idea for a movie), but
it looks like we better start buying photographs like crazy or we find someone who still makes printing paper (and chemicals) and work out a deal.
At some point we'll be forced to accept digitally printed photos. I already have some, and I'm just not impressed.Unless the quality of digital printing improves drastically (and who knows, maybe it will), I think we're in for a dry spell as
far as this facet of our hobby goes.
This is not meant to stir a debate (which will get Mike upset), but I think people here should be aware of what's coming. Not a pretty picture - no pun intended.
Shawn Beckert
If you're getting your photos printed at a minilab, you're already getting digital prints. All the modern minilabs scan the negs and then print digitally to photo paper. This side of the business is not declining much, but kodak isn't as big a player as it used to be, with Fuji leading and Noritsu and Agfa also playing. The major change here is simply in volume, most folks now come in and print 75+ digital shots rather than a roll at a time.

Film however is dead from a mainstream perspective. It will be the domain of the artist and purist within a coupel of years (From a new sales perspective, film cameras essentially died in 2004, the P&S market is gone and the SLR market is dying).

-Adam


Shawn Beckert
 

Guys,

This article is taken from USA Today. You might want to take a look:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-08-25-kodak-cuts_x.htm

The freight car connection should be obvious. If things keep going the way they
are, there might not *be* a Bob's Photo in a few years. Or John C. LaRue, or Jay
Williams. etc. Not to be Chicken Little (hey, there's an idea for a movie), but
it looks like we better start buying photographs like crazy or we find someone
who still makes printing paper (and chemicals) and work out a deal.

At some point we'll be forced to accept digitally printed photos. I already have
some, and I'm just not impressed.Unless the quality of digital printing improves
drastically (and who knows, maybe it will), I think we're in for a dry spell as
far as this facet of our hobby goes.

This is not meant to stir a debate (which will get Mike upset), but I think people
here should be aware of what's coming. Not a pretty picture - no pun intended.

Shawn Beckert