When data solutions are compromised by current trends in magnetic storage, analog film seems to be the superior winner for long-term archiving. Magnetic solutions such as CD, DVD or Hard drive peripherals cannot compete in a market that is compacted by false advertising, which perpetuates data storage as the eternal solution for saving your precious photographs or hard earned images.
The life expectancy of magnetic storage is about five years, at which time it must be duplicated to sustain its magnetic tolerance. This is an impractical method of storage when negatives can be printed 100 years in the future with no loss of image content.
The immediacy of what digital provides, has in effect, circumvented the conventional method of picture taking, by allowing us another way to take photographs. The savings of processing film is not that practical when you must invest in a computer to see the images you took on your new digital camera. If you measure the cost of $2,000.00 in film and processing it would take an average individual shooting (4) rolls of film a week approximately (1) year to make up for the cost of a computer. In effect, your cash outlay doesn?t really return itself that quickly and when it does, your still stuck with paper and ink costs, which are currently astronomical. There is no free lunch for switching. Films resolution and ?bright white forgiveness? is what makes film different than digital. Film sees more comfortably the transitions that digital abruptly captures.
Years ago we used to complain about how video looked so crummy and film appeared so good. We adjusted ourselves to see the soft transitions of film and dislike the cold inert images of video. Video camera engineers strived to make the cameras more film friendly by offering the capture more film like.
The truth is that digital cameras, in the same effect, are nothing more than high contrast video stills. We can argue than film has already approached the resolution of film, but the underlying truth is that film is a superb medium that cannot be duplicated by digital capture. The chemistries reaction to capturing light cannot be cloned by CCD?s or conventional capture electronics. The race has been on to perfect the cells so that the truest ambiance of color and resolution can be imitated by what you see in real life.
Film does not possess the practical possibility of rendering life as we see it, for the rendition of films available only portray, through their chemistry, the results that we enjoy. Film is a philosophy, as practical as the human mind, discerning the fragments of life that inspire our intellectual senses. We had created a palette, that by the application of familiar use, we found the medium of our creativeness.
Digital synthesis does not provide these degrees of satisfaction. The manipulated image, will only Photoshop ourselves into something that approaches these incredible films.
We always try to outdo ourselves by doing the same thing fancier, quicker, but not necessarily better.
When one walks into an art museum, you see the greatest works ever created and perhaps never duplicated. These artists used a minimal amount of primary colors in which their palettes were born.
Today we offer hundreds if not thousands of pre-mixed colors, which stunt the artist from learning how to mix them to get the same result. Removing the individual from the application removes the science of it all. If we proceed into the future, glazed by our perfections we will never know the truth of its creative existence.
Just because a button is there, and when applied the effect is given, we feel we can spend more time creating the image, but in truth, the consequence is getting from point A to point B, almost unconscious.
We must be responsible for our endeavors as artist and approach the artistry as a practical and simple solution. Film is photography, because it was born so. We cannot re-invent the wheel. Unless you believe a BMW or Ferrari will change the distance from where you are traveling.
Digital has its place in science, because it is necessary. What makes photography so captivating is in the portrayal of the idea. We can change the common saw to a chain, but the definition of the conclusion remains the same.
You can say, if only Leonardo had a computer, what would he have done then.
Leonardo would have not abandoned his creative spirit, which traveled from brain to hand, or heart to head, which ever sufficed, for the mere explanation of the self-dependent human tool, known as the inner self.
I believe that science can put itself on a collision course with practical simplicity. It takes and idea which is transformed by the will, to endure with the tools of our century. It is our prerogative to chase these concepts with whatever tools are available to us. Others seeking to find something of importance in an image can translate the sterility of art.
We should never be offended by the conclusion of our thoughts. I for one understand the creative importance of the process. It is the ladder that one must stand on to permit the obstacles to become plastic, so that we may form them. The credentials of creative freedom are different to different people.
Film will never disappear because the results are part of our plotting. We must teach others the value of film by comparison and through the workshop.
Even if we move into a millennium of 3D Holographic capture, we will still scribe our benefits in art by the very nature of its simplicity. Picasso strived to draw as if a child, searching for the naﶥ vein of his perpetual drive.
How Long Will Film Be Around?
in Large Format
Posted
The permanent Solution of Film
Richard A. Garcia
When data solutions are compromised by current trends in magnetic storage, analog film seems to be the superior winner for long-term archiving. Magnetic solutions such as CD, DVD or Hard drive peripherals cannot compete in a market that is compacted by false advertising, which perpetuates data storage as the eternal solution for saving your precious photographs or hard earned images.
The life expectancy of magnetic storage is about five years, at which time it must be duplicated to sustain its magnetic tolerance. This is an impractical method of storage when negatives can be printed 100 years in the future with no loss of image content.
The immediacy of what digital provides, has in effect, circumvented the conventional method of picture taking, by allowing us another way to take photographs. The savings of processing film is not that practical when you must invest in a computer to see the images you took on your new digital camera. If you measure the cost of $2,000.00 in film and processing it would take an average individual shooting (4) rolls of film a week approximately (1) year to make up for the cost of a computer. In effect, your cash outlay doesn?t really return itself that quickly and when it does, your still stuck with paper and ink costs, which are currently astronomical. There is no free lunch for switching. Films resolution and ?bright white forgiveness? is what makes film different than digital. Film sees more comfortably the transitions that digital abruptly captures.
Years ago we used to complain about how video looked so crummy and film appeared so good. We adjusted ourselves to see the soft transitions of film and dislike the cold inert images of video. Video camera engineers strived to make the cameras more film friendly by offering the capture more film like.
The truth is that digital cameras, in the same effect, are nothing more than high contrast video stills. We can argue than film has already approached the resolution of film, but the underlying truth is that film is a superb medium that cannot be duplicated by digital capture. The chemistries reaction to capturing light cannot be cloned by CCD?s or conventional capture electronics. The race has been on to perfect the cells so that the truest ambiance of color and resolution can be imitated by what you see in real life.
Film does not possess the practical possibility of rendering life as we see it, for the rendition of films available only portray, through their chemistry, the results that we enjoy. Film is a philosophy, as practical as the human mind, discerning the fragments of life that inspire our intellectual senses. We had created a palette, that by the application of familiar use, we found the medium of our creativeness.
Digital synthesis does not provide these degrees of satisfaction. The manipulated image, will only Photoshop ourselves into something that approaches these incredible films.
We always try to outdo ourselves by doing the same thing fancier, quicker, but not necessarily better.
When one walks into an art museum, you see the greatest works ever created and perhaps never duplicated. These artists used a minimal amount of primary colors in which their palettes were born.
Today we offer hundreds if not thousands of pre-mixed colors, which stunt the artist from learning how to mix them to get the same result. Removing the individual from the application removes the science of it all. If we proceed into the future, glazed by our perfections we will never know the truth of its creative existence.
Just because a button is there, and when applied the effect is given, we feel we can spend more time creating the image, but in truth, the consequence is getting from point A to point B, almost unconscious.
We must be responsible for our endeavors as artist and approach the artistry as a practical and simple solution. Film is photography, because it was born so. We cannot re-invent the wheel. Unless you believe a BMW or Ferrari will change the distance from where you are traveling.
Digital has its place in science, because it is necessary. What makes photography so captivating is in the portrayal of the idea. We can change the common saw to a chain, but the definition of the conclusion remains the same.
You can say, if only Leonardo had a computer, what would he have done then.
Leonardo would have not abandoned his creative spirit, which traveled from brain to hand, or heart to head, which ever sufficed, for the mere explanation of the self-dependent human tool, known as the inner self.
I believe that science can put itself on a collision course with practical simplicity. It takes and idea which is transformed by the will, to endure with the tools of our century. It is our prerogative to chase these concepts with whatever tools are available to us. Others seeking to find something of importance in an image can translate the sterility of art.
We should never be offended by the conclusion of our thoughts. I for one understand the creative importance of the process. It is the ladder that one must stand on to permit the obstacles to become plastic, so that we may form them. The credentials of creative freedom are different to different people.
Film will never disappear because the results are part of our plotting. We must teach others the value of film by comparison and through the workshop.
Even if we move into a millennium of 3D Holographic capture, we will still scribe our benefits in art by the very nature of its simplicity. Picasso strived to draw as if a child, searching for the naﶥ vein of his perpetual drive.