Digital Frames: Thoughts

[trenternst]

I shoot digital. I present proofs digitally. Now, I am considering taking the last step, and

presenting the final files digitally as well, with a digital frame. To customers that are

interested, of course.

 

Other than the obvious size limitation (5X7 is most common, 8X10 is doable, and there's a

couple real expensive larger versions), and the fact that you're limited to one perspective

(portrait or landscape), does anyone have any comments about these? Preferably first-

hand.

 

I haven't seen many of these in action, so I need guidance.

 

Here's my big issue, if I do go for it: I want to be able to present the couple with a CD or

CF card with *all* the good images on it. Or better yet, with it already pre-loaded.

 

There are a couple of these frames that allow you to run off CF cards, so I could just get a

512 or 1 gig CF card, and load up. Trouble is, the ones that run off a CF card are ta-hacky.

 

There are a couple really elegant looking frames with wood or brushed metal. Trouble is,

they run off internal memory, with a limit of about 50 pics.

 

Anybody ever done this sort of thing? Is it feasable? Does it work? Am I just being silly? I

love the idea of having a framed wedding picture that every couple of hours changes. Are

there any elegant looking frames that will run off CD/CF, or am I outaluck? (If there are

some you know, names and web addresses would be nice.)

 

Thank you.

[al_kaplan1]

Have you thought about what you're going to tell these couples a few years from now when trying to find the old fashioned hardware to read a CD or a CF card might require a visit to the pawn shop? Have you considered the fact that the information stored on CD's isn't stable and may be unreadable in a few years? Digital is still a rapidly evolving technology. Old fashioned prints might be boring and just sit there but at least you can see the picture without electricity. Someday their grandchildren might run across a box of strange silver discs and an "empty" picture frame in the attic. Just a thought...

[andre j.]

Trent,

<P>

<a href="http://shopping.yahoo.com/search;

_ylc=X3oDMTFsM3J2MmFzBF9TAzk2MDc5MjYwBGsDZGlnaXRhbCBwaWN0dXJlIGZyYW1lcwR

zZWMDa2IEc2xrA3RpdGxl?p=digital+picture+frames" target="blank">Click here</a> for

a link to a ton of links.

<P>

If a client orders one, fine! If not, nothing lost!

<P>

I tried a Sandisk Photo Album (under $50) which plugs into your TV and which accepts 2

CF cards and allows the user to select images from one and save their choices to the

other. I thought it might be a faster, more user friendly way for a client to select proofs (as

opposed to online galleries which can be slow even on a high-speed connection). In the

end I decided it was just too clunky, with a lot of wires, a remote, etc... Hi PITA factor.

<P>

My clients seem to like the 30 minute DVD slideshows I create to the music they provide

me on CD. That way they aren't limited to a 5" x 7" lcd frame, they watch it on their

widescreen TV with the subwoofer sound system!

<P>

Al - digital data can easily be migrated to any new storage media that comes down the

pike. Data on a floppy disk (remember those?) can be transferred to a CD and then from

there to a DVD and then from there to a CF card and then from there to an iPod Photo, and

then from there to a USB memory stick and then from there to 2052 Blippity-Do XT.

<P> You'll always be able to get your picture if it's digital - because it's all 1s and 0s....

Multiple copies in multiple places is your best security plan. That way if your house burns

to the ground, you've still got a copy somewhere else (like a safety deposit box, or your

mom's house, or at the office.)

[fotografz]

Digital CAN be migrated IF the people do it ... which past history suggests they WON'T.

 

Few people I restore photos for even have the negatives. If it weren't for the faded, dog

eared prints they'd have nothing ... sometimes of their own wedding let alone of some

ancestors.

 

A recent check with some of our past, all digital clients revealed they had not copied their

CD-ROMs to DVD and placed them in a second location as we had suggested. Not one of

them had done it. And I sure the hell am not doing it for them. I have 20,000 wedding

images. Migrating that many photos every 5 years for free just isn't going to happen.

 

I have a big box of 8X10s I made of my kids when they were just babies. They were B&Ws

which I had double washed and selenium toned. They are as pristine as the day I dried

them on an archival screen. That was 35 years ago. I just scanned some 2 X 3 prints and

made 5X7s for my 84 year old mother-in-law. They were photos of her as a child, then as

a Navy nurse in WWII. One print was 75 years old and just fine except for a bent corner.

 

It's the year 2085. Do you know where Grandmas photos are? I have my doubts anyone

will know.<div></div>

[EricM]

It's the funny thing about internet forums. A responder never really knows who or what the original poster is...

 

Al, Trent is an editor, writer, photographer, desktop publisher, graphic artist, graphic designer, web producer, web developer?.what have I left out? Oh, a teacher and other thiings. What's the first version of Photoshop you used Trent? 2.5? Or, how much did that Polaroid neg scanner, the first on the block, cost way back then? Yeah Trent, go back to analog and start pasting those prints onto flats!

 

As usual, I can't help you much bro, but just wanted to say "Nice to see you man!"

 

E

[bill_knippenberg1]

Marc,

The photo of your mother reminds me of all the old photos

hanging in the Navy hospital in Charleston; I find myself slowing

way down to look at them everytime I'm there.

 

We Band of Angels by Elizabeth M. Norman is a great book about

American nurses that were captured in the Philippines during

WW II.

 

Trent, I think that is really great idea. Maybe there is a niche

business here, and it could be expanded to any catagory. It

seems that I have seen this type of thing used for scenics where

the view changes every few minutes but I do not remember

where.

[kevin m.]

There are all kinds of people who want their weddings photographed. Some are traditionalists who appreciate hand made B&W silver prints, and some love the latest technical gadgetry, so I could certainly see how a digital picture frame would appeal to them, longevity issues be damned.

[johnmarkpainter]

<<Most of his work was commercial and corporate,>>

 

Poor guy....if he had only seen the light, his work would have artful....

 

jmp

[mdickerson]

<p><i>A recent check with some of our past, all digital clients revealed they had not copied their CD-ROMs to DVD and placed them in a second location as we had suggested. Not one of them had done it.</i></p>

 

<p>No doubt .. I know very well from work, nobody backs up anything. It doesn't matter if it is an undergraduate working on their bachelor's thesis or a tenured professor (that really should know better) writing a $2M grant application.</p>

 

<p>But, what is the context here? How many film customers have a second album or a set of prints stored in a second location? Whatever the answer is, I'll wager even fewer of them have a backup set of negatives.</p>

[al_kaplan1]

I'm picking up more black & white work lately, traditional B&W film and gelatin silver prints, of outdoor portraits and family groups.They're people who want the long lasting attributes of the process, and they're willing to pay quite nicely too. Much more than I could get for color prints. And then there's the money I make from printing up my old B&W negatives of rock stars, authors, artists and political figures from the 1960's and 1970's. Most weren't famous then either.

 

I guess I just feel that you owe it to your clients to explain that they need to renew the digital storage media from time to time (which Marc does) and keep up to date on the hardware to access the data. Most digital photographers gloss right over the issue.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

For myself I have all my work on external hard disks plus on CD off site, I will be checking and copying them in about a year to make sure. I give my clients the CD's with all the warning bumf they are presented in proper cases, using high quality CD's and warning them not to write on them, I don't attach labels and the CD case cover is acid free. If they don't bother to look after it then I don't feel any guilt, when I managed a lab we often had to repair and print from neglected and damaged wedding negs. I make sure that I have them properly stored and they can have as many copies as they want, which is better than giving the negs for them to neglect.

 

The files are Jpg's which will be readable for a while. Although Al's point is valid, I don't think it will be easy to get negs printed in 50 years time either. Most minilabs will not have the ability just as only pro labs can print 126 format nowadays. Ilfords decline and halting resurrection as well as kodaks migration from film does not fill me with confidence as to the ready availability of chemicals and paper 50 years hence for enlarger printing or home developing. Hell, digital is only a few years old and Ilford is having trouble, 50 years from now whether you like it or not it's going to be probably as hard to get a B&W neg printed as it will be to get a jpg printed.

[dain_binder1]

Trent,

 

I think it is a really great idea. I am not sure were you can get them and things. Go for it!

[gaetano catelli]

<center><img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/bea-1951-1a.jpg"><br><br>Aunt Bea -- August 1951</center>

[EricM]

"It's the year 2085. Do you know where Grandmas photos are? I have my doubts anyone will know."

 

Sure. Why do you want know? The relevance? My grand kids will know where my discs are. They'll each have a copy.

[trenternst]

Whee!!!

 

Boy, ask a simple question, start a full-on war. Sorry about that.

 

I was actually hoping for *first-hand* information, mostly on screen brightness, picture

clarity, usability...that sort of thing, as well as if it's possible to find a nice looking frame

that I can load all the pictures on, as opposed to a white/blue plastic thing. Having

thought about it a bit more, I don't think it's *that* problematic if the frame only displays

50 pictures in order. If they have a DVD proof, they can always stick that into their DVD

player to watch all the pictures.

 

What I am hearing is these are not sweeping the wedding market by storm, which usually

means that there is a good reason. I'll probably still stick it in as an option, but not expect

many people to go for it.

 

Thanks everybody. You can now go back to your regularly scheduled argument.

[fotografz]

Trent, I briefly looked into the display frames, but didn't get very far due to the cost for a

decent looking one added to the costs of providing a hard copy. I would not even consider

the e-frame as a stand alone option for the reasons Al mentioned. I also considered the

Photo iPod notion so the bride could carry their entire wedding coverage in their purse to

show everyone. Also waaaay to much money as an add on unless it was a super premium

wedding.

 

I am not inexperienced concerning digital. I have never made a platinum print, but know it is a somewhat

difficult process. I didn't need to do one to know that. Permanence of file storage IS an

issue when dealing with a service that traditionally has a long life expectancy. The

implication of Trent's post was to go the final step and even present a wedding

electronically, implying there would be no hard copies.

 

Being an open public forum (as opposed to asking a question and having people e-mail

answers), a LOT of people read these threads. Just because some people here have

committed all their resources and time to go digital, therefore fervently defend their

decision, doesn't mean the medium should go unquestioned. True file back-up, in general, is far to costly for the consuming public or even a

successful wedding photographer.

 

How do I know this? One of my clients is a world renowned provider of secure data

storage for the business community. One of the issues that their scientist and engineers

was dealing with was de-lamination ... including some so called archival brands.

 

In addition, another client is the one of the world's largest printers of financial documents.

When creating documents for filing with the gov. regulatory board both electronic AND

back-up hard copied must be prepared. That's done for a reason. One is immediate and

facilitates speed, the other is the permanent record.

 

Currently, there are very few if any storage options available that are regulated by any

third party gov. or private watch dog. As far as I know, there is no ISO for CDs or DVDs.

 

In addition, RAW digital negs are still all over the place with each proprietary file format...

and despite Adobe's valiant attempts with DNG, remains so as of now. Without the

proprietary software or an editing program that supports the file format, these D negs are

unreadable. With camera companies dropping like flies, or abandoning digital products

like Kodak did with MF backs, and Polaroid did with

scanners, each operating system "upgrade" moves further away from file format usability.

This is a raging problem in the commercial world where older Adobe In-Design files are

sometimes incompatible with the latest version. Same issue with Quark. Also, if one

doesn't keep up with the PS upgrades, newer propritary file formats will not be readable

with older versions. Point being that backward compatibility is NOT an assured policy as

technology advances.

 

Tiffs and J-pegs are standardized formats, but each monitor they are viewed on isn't... and

even if there are some standards for calibration, it doesn't mean the general public uses

them. Even photographers here don't work to a universal calibration standard. Fidelity to

the photographer's intent will be purely guess work in the future IF their work even

survives.

 

Eric's grand kids may know where his disks are, but whether they will be able to reproduce

them (if they're readable at all) is pure speculation on his part, not fact..

 

So IMO, while the mantra of simplicity concerning film may irritate those who've

committed to digital capture, it's a mantra worth repeating for all the folks who visit us as

opposed to the relative handful like myself who are regulars.

 

When I DO provide digital solutions for weddings, I warn the client of the unknowns and

risk factors. I also urge them to duplicate their DVDs, and I print a album as part of my

over-all package so there is some record that may have a better chance of making to their Grand Kids. And I offer the film alternative if they wish it.

 

Perhaps lack of permanence will become an acceptable norm in the future, or it will be

solved by technological advancements (like those being made with recent ink-jet printers),

but as far as I know, wedding clients still expect longevity of final product.

[EricM]

That's all nicely said Marc. And their negs? What do you warn your clients about? Heck, if you trust a c-41 neg over a dvd for longevity and convey this, then carry on.

 

Why is that we think archival is important? Because we?re photog?s and it should be? Losing images doesn?t upset the average person like it does us.

[fotografz]

Yes C41 negs are essentially color technology and it's hard to find information on the

archival properties of these films. But silver based B&W negs, and actual prints are a more

known entity. People may discard or lose negs, but rarely toss out photographs of life's

milestones. My concern is more about electronic only archival storage of a family's

photographic record.

 

What facts do you base the assumption that non photographers don't care if photos last

Eric? Or is that just more speculation? My experience is the opposite, which is real world

experience, not speculation. I see it with all the folks who bring me their photos to restore.

It's an expensive thing for them to do, but they do it just the same because they cherish

the memories and the people in the photos, and want to preserve them for future

generations.

[al_kaplan1]

I suppose that's why when fellow Leica shooter Mikal Grass got married last year he hired Marc to shoot the wedding, and Marc asked me to be second shooter. Marc handled the color end while I ran Tri-X through my Leicas. The Tri-X and gelatin silver prints should last a few years.

 

As for my digital knowledge, I was doing photography for computer related companies back when one Miami company that made modems (late 1960's) had to explain to people that modems "allow computers to talk to one another over the telephone". They were as big as a small desk, but the computer itself filled an entire large room, had a dedicated air conditioning system, and used huge reels of 3.5 inch tape. Data was inputted via punch cards. I did all their photography for a number of years.

 

My wife could write programs in both FORTRAN and COBAL, and our house was the first on the block to have a Radio Shack Color Computer. It utilized a cassette recorder because floppies weren't in common use yet. A small regular TV set was used for a monitor.

 

When Barry College, another client of mine, first installed a computer lab and offered courses it was summer break and they needed photos for newspaper ads and brochures. Nobody on campus during break knew how to use the computers. I took my 9 year old daughter Elena over there. She hooked up the monitors and keyboards. I set up lights and umbrellas. Shooting from directly behind, with her wearing a "mature looking" blouse and hair style, she got a computer up and running, and I shot the required photographs. Nobody could tell that it was a 9 year old kid. That was 25 years ago.

It's handy technology for what it does well. Trying to use it for other things sometimes makes less sense. Claiming that an average bride could care less about her wedding pix in a couple of years? I doubt it

[gaetano catelli]

i have been following the film vs. digital debate on PN since i joined. i have found it very useful. i now use both.

<p>

last sunday i shot my first 'practice wedding' (a pro was the 'official' photographer). i took about 700 digital pix. there's no way i would've shot, much less slid into negative holders or scanned, 20 rolls of 35 mm or 70 rolls of 120.

<p>

this monday i'm going to be taking casual portraits of the boss of my day job and his wife, in central park. he wants color; he wants b&w; he wants to be able to enlarge to 16x20 without "pixelation" (which he's heard about); but, he's really not sure what he wants to wind up with yet, so he wants to be able to keep his options open. solution: i'll take my RZ 67 with a roll of Tri-X and a roll of NPS. i'll shoot both rolls, maybe a 3rd, hand him the rolls, and leave. end of story.

<p>

last winter i wanted to give a relative a cd of an audio recording i made of a family event some 40 years ago. the original recording medium was 1/4" reel-to-reel tape -- a staple of every recording studio in the country at the time. when i was making calls last winter, i found only one dubbing shop here in nyc that thought they might be able to do it. if they could find their one remaining reel-to-reel recorder wherever it had been buried in the basement. and, if it was still working. and, if i was willing to pay a premium for having them go to the trouble, etc. i wound up shipping the tape back and forth to texas.

<p>

so, with the practice wedding, i'm preparing both a cd and a 4x6 album for the newlyweds. i'm not advising Trent to not use the CF display frame. but, i am suggesting silver-based prints be included, whatever else he does.

<p>

<center><img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/lina/IMG_1879-1a700.jpg"><br>Aunt Bea (<b>NOT</b>) -- 2005</center>

[al_kaplan1]

OK Eric, I started The Big Search. It's slow go because I keep running into other pictures I'm going to want to print, and memories keep flooding back. Well over an hour per box! I just went through a hundred contact sheets from 1969 and early 1970. I know the negs are in good shape because I recently printed some of Janis Joplin. In that box there's also on stage and backstage photos of Donovan, Abbie Hoffman, Reverand Ralph Abernathy, and poet Allen Ginsberg, plus some local rock groups that I should research more in case somebody in one made it big. The Great Hendrix Hunt will continue after lunch.

[o._i.]

If people have the wedding CD, why should they go with your frame when they can buy one of their own? It would seem easier and cheaper just to go with a CD. That way you can include different formats. Also, since most marriages these days don't last more than 5-10 years max, (and those are the "good ones) is it any wonder the couples don't care how long the images last? I've seen cases where they care more about who gets the PS2 than the wedding photos. CD of a failed marriage? Throw it in a box with the Spice Girls and Vanilla Ice. Let's face it: we're a disposable society. At one point in our history stereo opticons were in every house, just like computers are today. By the 1940's the grandkids were throwing away trunks full of the "junk". Now they're sought after antiques. That said, I agree with Al: I have daugerreotypes of my great, great-grandparents on the mantle along with photos my Mom took from the 1940's and '50's and new prints that have been retouched with PS and printed out at my desk. The b&w shots my local "pro" lab has printed are done by a computer controlled machine on color paper, because that is "all they have". I can tell ya there is a world of difference in prints that have been made by light passing through silver crystals. I want to get my own darkroom and do my own b&w prints, as that seems to be becoming a lost art. "Real" b&w prints from a negative look a lot better than ones done on color paper, plus you don't need a $2,000 computer to view them. How long will prints made with an ink jet or laser printer last? Any ideas? I don't know if anyone is making true archival quality paper for them or not. As to how long images on CD's will last? CD's do have a redundant recording, but if the original CD is scratched or damaged and there is no backup, it's the same as losing the original negatives, isn't it? Kodachrome slides were supposed to be good for 99 years before there was any shift in color, but lose the slides and??? Times change and photography changes or "evolves" too, not always for the better. The only constants in life are death, taxes and old farts like us reminiscing about the "good old days"......

[kevin m.]

Trent, if you're looking for a useful answer to your question, try <a href=http://www.digitalweddingforum.com/ubbthreads/> HERE </a>. They offer a free 30-day trial.