Are you ready for 2062?

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>For the negative one thing I am quite sure that in 2062 one can only print the negative via the technique scan then digitally print. I don't think it's possible to make optical print then.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

<br />Why not?</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I predict that in 2062 there will be no supplies for film photography, no new film, no printing paper, no chemicals. So you still have some perfectly functioning enlargers but can't make optical print. If you have a negative the only way to make print is to scan it and then print the same way as whatever they print digital file at that time. </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>In fact right now, I don't know where to send in a negative to have prints made optically. I could do it myself but I couldn't buy the chemical local here in Dallas, TX. Mail order houses refuse to ship chemicals due to some source of rules by the DOT. </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Even now there are books and resources for making your own emulsions. Although I don't suppose that will help in ordinary photography, if someone in 2062 is sufficiently motivated, then even without ready made supplies, a print could be made. Some emulsion, chemicals, paper, and a home made enlarger or contact prints for larger negatives, and a print will come about. Even without a print, a negative can always at least be read for information. It is never entirely lost as long as you have it.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>There's more to light sensitive media than what we call "film" and silver gelatin papers. Some older printing media - now usually referred to as <a href="http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/">"alternative processes"</a> - are relatively easy to make with chemicals that have been available for centuries.</p>

<p>For your legacy photos - assuming you know anyone who'll take responsibility for your photography after you're gone - one good way to provide for future generations is to make 8x10 negatives from your best photos, digital or film captures. Study the archival methods for preparing and storing these negatives.</p>

<p>Years from now, anyone who cares to make prints using light sensitive media can still prepare their own cyanotypes, argyrotypes or other user friendly processes. Some of these don't require particularly hazardous materials or special equipment for coatings. Overall the level of difficulty is comparable to artists prepping their own egg tempera or oil painting media, wood or other ground, canvas or homemade papers.</p>

<p>If you use reversal papers or make paper negatives for use with larger format pinhole cameras, you don't even need a sophisticated mechanical camera - let alone an electronic camera that may be dead from bad capacitors and solder joints decades from now.</p>

[mark_kronquist]

<p>I regularly use my great, great grandfather's Premo View Camera from just before the turn of the last century with cut sheet file (it is full plate), old glass plates and film, photo paper and even blue print paper. Is it as convenient as my D3 or V Series Blads or Leica? No. Does it produce interesting images well over a century after it was made? Ubetcha. Does it attract comments? Of course. Can others master it? Certainly. I am in my 40's and hope to see 2062. All the classic arts still exist. (Google Camp Tintype). Someone, somewhere will be making silver images...</p>

[maciek_stankiewicz]

<p>No worries, I'll have my Minolta SRT... Hopefully I'll not start collecting digital cameras :)</p>

[rossb]

<p>It's only 50 years from now. I have family photos that are already 100 years old and if my kids look after them they will be fine in another 50. I have a lot of photos that I took 50 years ago that are in great shape. Negatives and photos. I cannot think of any reason they will not last. I do have a 2 year span that I was using Longs drugs for processing and those photos are turning yellow and vanishing. I am re-scanning them however. I guess Longs was cutting corners somewhere using junk paper I suppose.. That was about 30 years ago give or take a bit. </p>

<p>However film is looking kind of shaky at the moment but I figure it will prevail in one way or another. Myself I am going to start shooting Illford when Kodak locks the doors. I say that as I don't believe their yard sale is going to bring in the millions they need. But I also figure if Kodak film goes down then the other companies will pick up the customer base and strengthen their business. But we shall see how it all works out.</p>

<p> </p>

[royall_berndt]

<p>Some of my CDs storing digital images have failed after only two years. </p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>I'm ready for tomorrow. 2062 is too far away.<br>

That's the reason why I am still using and enjoying slide film.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The real question is whether our files are readable right now? And by whom?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Vigilence is not enough, eternal paranoia is the price of liberty.</p>

</blockquote>

[brian_m.1]

<p>That's why I periodically print select digital photos. My photo albums are growing! My problem comes up a lot sooner. My Canon EOS 650 Quartz Dateback stops counting years in a few years(don't know the exact year).</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Sometimes when we need to answer questions about the future, it is most beneficial to look to the past. We are asking questions about whether or not current image technologies will be reproducible in 50 years. Well, what image technologies existed 50 years ago that can be reproduced today? How about a hundred years ago? How about all the way back to the beginning of photography? The answer is obvious, isn't it? Emulsion based images have always been with us since the beginning of photography, and thus there is no reason to believe that they will not continue to be -- or at least the ability to reproduce from them. Other technologies come and go. Remember the platter-sized laser disks from the 1970s? How about the Kinescopes from the 1950s? In another decade or so we can probably ask the same question about VHS. If anything, if history is to be a guide at all, it is the state-of-the-art technologies that we should be concerned about for their longevity more so than the tried and proven stuff.</p>

<p>For me, however, the argument is academic. I certainly won't be around in 2062. Hell, even my 21yo daughter will be a septuagenarian. But I'll tell you this: if we're really and truly serious about maintaining image archives that are largely immune to both dependence on technology and time, we should think really seriously about taking Kodachrome technology out of the enfeebled hands of Kodak, and restarting it for the common good.</p>

<p> </p>