Should I get rid of my M4P?

[al_kaplan1]

I guess we'll just have to wait another 30 or 40 years to see if all those digital images stored on CD's, DVD's and two sets of hard drives are still uncorrupted and retrievable. At least it's obvious what negatives and contact sheets are. Just hope that your grandchildren don't throw out all your boxes full of "old-fashioned little silvery discs" after they try to check out the music on a friend's ancient CD player.

[chandos_michael_brown]

The estimated average per capita income in China is $6500USD (I don't know the median income, but I suspect that it's pretty scary), which is to say that the hottest selling automobile in China represents very nearly the yearly income of an "average" consumer . According to the CIA factbook, roughly 10% of the population accounts for nearly 30% of all consumer spending. Doubtless this number should be revised upwards, but even so, a very small percentage of Chinese can afford digital (and the infrastructure to support it). Let's assume, then,that that digital is economically accessible to 300+ million Chinese, this leaves another nearly billion potential consumers of less technologically dependent photographic media (hence, I suspect, Kodak's interest in establishing market shares there).

 

The bulk of consumer spending occurs, of course, in urban and industrial centers (where most tourists and travellers congregate). Nearly half the population of China is engaged in agricultural labor in the country side. I don't doubt that vistors encounter a great number of high-tech consumer products in these places, but to say that this represents the national economy seems to me a stretch.

 

I'm not sure that I consider India an "emerging" economy, though I could be persuaded otherwise. Though its per capita income is about half that of China's, it does appear to possess a far larger middle class (and a broader base of consumer spending) but I don't know enough to say more. I've spoken about this directly with one of my colleagues here at the College, who is both a native of India, and a superb scholar of its history, and who returns regularly, but I'm open to other points of view.

 

I'm off to Hong Kong in November to set up a series of exchanges with various Chinese universities (or at least to try to). I know already, though, that "electronic" classrooms and the like are scarce on the Mainland, and part of our enterprise is to see what we can to help to develop these.

 

The problem with anecdotal reporting, is, of course, that it's just that. I spent a year and a half in the Netherlands (teaching at the University of Leiden--living in Leiden and in Hemstede, poshy places on the whole). Any generalization about the Dutch that I might have been inclined to make on my observations of those places collapsed as soon as I visited the grand flea-market in Alkmaar.

 

I find, ultimately, that the numbers are most persuasive in establishing the general context for personal observations.

 

YMMV.

 

Cheers!

 

Chandos

[Brad_]

<I>At least it's obvious what negatives and contact sheets are.</I><P>

 

Yep, especially if you were unfortunate enough to be living in parts of the gulf states last

year. No doubt millions of irreplaceable negatives lost forever.

[dan flanders]

I have been playing with photography in generas and Leicas in particular longer than Al, but he has been making his living with his while I used mine mainly for hobby purposes. True, I used my cameras to record the progress of the buildings I drew on paper, but it was the drawings that made the living; not the photos. When my architecture had to cope with the computer revolution I spent fifteen grand on a word processor that was obsolete and worthless when the PC's came along but each year or so I had to re-tool to keep up with digital progress and last year's tools eventually wound up in the landfill. Today I use PC's, cell phones, GPS, and a lot of modern wonders but when it comes to cameras, the Foth Derby I got for graduation back in '40 and the Leica III I got when in college are still operative and capable of lasting at least the resto of my days. I never considered them investments it the sense of stocks and other securities but as valued tools that would not have to be replaced every year or so. <p> I have the axe my GGGGGgrandfather brought over from France in 1692! Of course it has had ten new handles and three new heads -- but it's still the same axe!

[al_kaplan1]

Brad, the question was getting rid of an M4P, something you haven't come near to dealing with in your answers. We all know that you have a good eye for images and are handy with tweaking the "Leica look" out of your digital exposures.

 

Natural disasters will continue to destroy things. My negatives are stored where it'd take one hell of a flood to destroy them, a lot of my images exist as prints, and they're kept someplace else, and yes, some exist as scans stored still elsewhere. All we can do is make the effort.

 

So, Brad, since you're our resident digital maven, and since Pantelis is a slide shooter, make some suggestions to him about getting set up with some pro qualty powerpoint projection equipment (including costs) so he can continue to "show slides" after he makes the switch to the new M8.

[Brad_]

<I>Brad, the question was getting rid of an M4P, something you haven't come near to

dealing with in your answers.</I><P>

 

Yep, so why your rant on the lonegvity of music and image CDs and DVDs?

[chandos_michael_brown]

On this question of the permanance of digital verses that of film and its historical value:

 

I am a professional historian, and there is simply no question that the future of information storage and retrieval is in digital. It's common, now, for better or for worse, in American universities to require submission of theses and dissertations in electronic form (many no longer require the submission of hard copy at all). I spent over a month working in the National Archives a couple of summers ago, and it's staggering how much material (especially images) have been converted to digital--in many cases, *only* digital copies are available to researchers. The vast totality of the holdings are still hard copy, but more and more frequently the cost of digitizing is built into the cost of reproduction (a sort of "on demand" system), and, given the fragility of the original sources (and the expense of properly conserving and storing them), this will almost certainly *extend* and *prolong* their usefulness to the future.

 

Readex Incorporated, for instance, familiar to students of history for their microfiche and microfilm facsimilies of early texts, have gone entirely digital (with the capacity for full-text searches), and this is the tip of the iceberg, as a visit to any resonably well-subscribed research library will reveal.

 

If you talk to any acquisiton librarian in a research library, then you'll find that, on the whole, they welcome and encourage this transfer of media. The equivalent of several hundred linear feet of book storage is now available on a few CDs or DVDs. You don't see many libraries enlarging their physical plant to accomodate the logorrhea of the present age. Instead they warehouse books and printed material offsite, thus complicating access. I'll take the digital Evans Early American Imprints online, thank you; it's far cheaper and more efficient than a trip to the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, and it's far easier on the books themselves.

 

Cheers!

 

Chandos

[eliot_rosen1]

Chandos, saying it again and again doesn't make it true. M6 and M6TTLs are more expensive than they were 2-3 years ago. As are the 35 mm Summicrons (eg., 2nd, 3rd, 4th versions, and ASPH) and the 50 mm Summicrons (eg., Weztlar black version and current formula with or without built-in hood). The 35 mm summiluxes and all of the 28 mm lenses are also higher in value. These are just some of the examples of lenses that are not rare collectors items that are more expensive than they used to be. BTW, the 35 mm 4th version Summicron is still not a low production item, that hasn't changed since yesterday. :-)

[chandos_michael_brown]

Eliot,

 

Clearly you don't trouble to read my posts carefully, so I feel no especial need to respond to yours.

[eliot_rosen1]

Chandos, perhaps you ought to take the trouble to read your own posts rather than complain when others point out the inconsistencies.

[EricM]

Eliot Rosen, 02:25 p.m. "Chandos, saying it again and again doesn't make it true. M6 and M6TTLs are more expensive than they were 2-3 years ago."

 

No way man.

[bob haight]

Al, everytime I say the same thing about digital archival issues, I get laughed at here. Who knows where all those priceless family snaps will be even 20 years from now. Not a digital versus film deal, just a concern over digital longevity and intergration with future technologies.

[vinay_patel]

"Nearly half the population of China is engaged in agricultural labor in the country side."

 

So you're saying that peasant farmers who barely make enough to keep themselves and their families fed and housed, engage in photography as a hobby and buy so much film that Kodak needs to build huge plants to accomodate the demand? Interesting hypothesis, even more interesting to see the facts to back it up.

[al_kaplan1]

Brad, stop the tap dancing routine and tell us the advantages of Powerpoint over slide projection, then address the original question about the M4P. If you don't know then just say so.

[alan c.]

it's not surprising that libraries and other institutions are digitizing their holdings. it

certainly makes it theoretically more accessible. it also makes it cheaper, as you point

out, by not having to occupy as much floor space. and institutions hopefully have the

resources to update, back-up and duplicate their digital collections enough that they

won't be destroyed by obsolescence, decaying CDs or hard drives, and so on.

 

but there are several problems with this, nonetheless. one is that individuals and

smaller institutions obviously don't have the wealth and staff of a big library or

museum collection. it's a question of scale. small-time operators attempting to

digitize their collections DO run the risk of it all crumbling to dust long before

negatives, prints, contact sheets will. Yes, even water soaked prints. What makes a

certain kind of sense for a large institution may not for an individual or a small

institution..

 

Secondly, and i think there are many researchers who will attest to this. It is not just

the raw information that is important. It is often the marginalia and unpredicted from

the original documents that tells so much. For example you can read any number of

digitized or translated documents about Nazi Germany. And you will learn whatever it

is you're going for. But only from looking at the original typewritten papers would you

notice details like the fact that German typewriters of that era had a "SS" key -- which

speaks volumes about what life was really like -- and i know, maybe that's not the

best example because you can scan the documents and still see that, etc. But you

understand the point.

 

It was a sad day here in NY when the NY Public Library got rid of its paper card

catalogue. Each card often had handwritten notes by librarians, over the generations.

A humble thing, a card catalogue, to be sure.

 

Perhaps you cannot fight the future, on a large scale. but you certainly can on a small

one. Steam engines and antique cars and airplanes are lovingly maintained by

eccentric fanatics. So it will be with silver based film photography. and i'll be proud to

be one of those fanatics.

[Brad_]

<I>Brad, stop the tap dancing routine and tell us the advantages of Powerpoint over slide

projection</I><P>

 

Why? That would be dumb as rocks to discus on an M4P thread. But then you're always out

front on the off-topic stuff...

[al_kaplan1]

Brad, everybody knows that I'm dumb as rocks. Hell, I'm willing to admit it myself.

[al_kaplan1]

This was pretty off topic too:

 

"Probably helps explain Kodak's poor financials... Do they still make flash bulbs as well?"

 

...but you posted it, Brad. Oh yeah, "discus" is spelled "discuss". Where's your spell-check?

[chandos_michael_brown]

Alex,

 

You're missing a critical point. The archival collections of many universities will remain just that, archival. The Silliman family papers at Yale, for instance, occupy over 27 linear feet of shelf storage, and though I paid to have a chunk of them microfilmed twenty years ago, I doubt they'll be digitized anytime soon. But I will guarantee that Yale now encourages the use of that microfilm--to preserve these two-hundred-year-old mss., and for all I know, they've digitized the microfilms themselves.

 

At the same time, small libraries now have ready access (if they can afford the subsription prices--a big if, I know) to collections undreamt of a decade ago. A couple of mouseclicks takes one to Evans, which reproduces *every* North American imprint through about 1810--not redactions, as you seem think, but digital images of the book itself, including marginalia or idiosyncrises of printing. Similar resources are available for early English imprints and a whole range of other sources. Newspapers and periodical collections are now aggregated and centralized in digital collections. A researcher can now accomplish from his or her desk what fifteen years ago would have required multiple travels to sources. The runs of early periodicals are frequently distributed among several collections; now they're assembled into coherent series.

 

A readily available (though commerical and limited) example of this trend) can be viewed at:

 

http://15thamendment.harpweek.com/

 

For a subscription fee, you can view the entirety of Harper's Weekly from its founding to the early twentiet century, in facsimile, and entirely searchable). Interestingly enough, these searchable data bases *are* text redactions--many of which are outsourced to India).

 

I'm not sure that I find the fonts of WWII era German typewriters to be especially revealing of life in Germany during that era, but I take your point. "History of the Book," an emerging discipline in its own right, indeed concerns itself with the material object, such as you describe, but this is a distinct sub-speciality in the historic profession.

 

I vividly recall, in going though the Silliman papers, opening a letter, ca. 1802, only to have a lock of reddish hair drop to the desk. In establishing the context, and in examining a set of portraits in the Trumbull Gallery, I satisfied myself that this belonged to Harriet Trumbull, the daughter of the "younger" Trumbull, second of that name to sit as governor of Connecticut. Such moments are precious and digital will never afford them, but I then had to argue with the archivist to preserve its placement in the ms.. She wanted to move it to another collection. Such are the vagaries of history.

 

And please, I don't consider anyone who cleaves to film a fanatic. Many, many of my friends here in Williamsburg are masters and journeymen in the "historic" trades, whose skills are priceless. But to claim that film is somehow "better" than the technologies that *will* replace it (which you haven't done), is simply unsustainable.

 

Cheers!

 

Chandos

[EricM]

Think I'll buy Brad and Al airfare to English Bay and just sit and listen...

<br><br>

<center><img src=" http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/pn030706/images/pano.jpg"></center><br><br>

[chandos_michael_brown]

Vinay,

 

There's many a mile between a photographic "hobbyist" and someone who wishes to preserve some record of his or her experience, for whatever reason.

 

Many, many millions of snapshots are just that: something to send to old 'gammer, or Pop Pop, or what have you. A billion people don't need to buy more than a few rolls of film in a lifetime to keep Kodak happy.

 

But never mind me. Have a look at what Kodak says about its China strategy:

 

http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/94973.htm

 

But, then, what does Kodak know?

 

Cheers!

 

Chandos

[vinay_patel]

"Many, many of my friends here in Williamsburg are masters and journeymen in the "historic" trades, whose skills are priceless."

 

I must say, you live in a strange and enchanting land. Are you under the impression they live like they were in the 18th century once they've punched out and gone home for the day? I'll bet, though I doubt you will admit so, all of them who take even infrequent family snaps, have digital cameras. I am a collector and admirer of film cameras and 20th century photography but reality is what it is.

[michael s.]

Well, Eric - That panorama sure fouled up the thread format, but was well worth it. Very beautiful place.

 

Brad and Al will need a moderator. That's where I come in.

 

I'll send you my address for that extra ticket. :)

[User_502260]

I agree that if you enjoy using the M4P you should keep it. An M4P should always be worth some money because it will never be made again and nothing like it will ever be made again either. Several posters discussed image permanence. Several years ago I got a call from a publishing company. They were trying to sell me a directory from my High School. The directory was available in book form or on CD. The cost of the book was higher but that's what I got. Why? The school is a small one and I am certain I could find any graduate by just making a few phone calls. The information will become more interesting and valuable over time. Years from now the CD will be unreadable and there will be no equipment to read it with even if it did not deteriorate. The local camera store makes digital prints on RA4 paper and claims that the permanence of those photos will be as good as that of RA4 photos made optically. So far I can agree with them. Then I asked about transferring a video to DVD and also asked about blank DVDs with a gold substrate. I was told, by the very young clerk, that I shouldn't worry because the regular (aluminum) DVD would last at least 50 years. If I remember correctly the Ginsu knife was also guaranteed for 50 years.

 

I also sometimes use digital equipment. It is very flexible and is great for getting out photos quickly. As far as I can tell the permanence of the digital files is very poor. Years from now people (our children and grandchildren) will be looking for digital files made in the last few years but I don't think they will find them.

 

I collect and use film cameras and I want to enjoy them as long as I can. Digital equipment or whatever replaces it will be around for a long time and I can always get more comfortable with it later. If I used and enjoyed Leica equipment I would keep the M4P.

[chandos_michael_brown]

Vinay,

 

Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say. I haven't the slightest problem admitting that they all shoot digital, with varying degrees of sophistication. One of them, another serious film amateur, recently went digital, and hasn't looked back.

 

FWIW: here he is in his regimentals, though he's a silversmith by trade:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3742431

 

Uh, isn't this what I've been saying all along?

 

Cheers!

 

Chandos