RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings

["Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

Thanks for your input on the Kodachromes.  I just noted it to point out that
the statement by Derek Clarke, like most statements of this sort, are true
under certain conditions and not as universal unqualified statements as his
statement implies:"I think you'll find that nothing will last as long as
Kodachromes."  Epson's archivial claims for the 1270 should serve as a case
in point where archival longevity statemetns were true only under the stated
lab conditions and did not account for ozone or gaseous pollutions.

As for Brian Eno's comments, I agree with them  for the most part.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Dave King
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 12:05 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings


Kodachrome has better dark storage than E-6.  E-6 is better for use in
slide projectors, but any valuable transparency should be duped for
"slide" projection anyway.

Brian Eno (the musician) points out the most relevant issue regarding
the digital vs analogue archiving issue.  He said something to the
effect that "analogue degrades gracefully, digital catastrophically".
The idea of re-doing a digital archive every so many years isn't
practical in my view.  What happens to the archive when you get hit by
that bus with your name on it?  So many valuable artifacts have lain
in obscurity for years before "discovery".  Current digital will
likely not survive that, and the purpose of a true archive is survival
beyond the life of the creator.  Even badly faded analogue artifacts
can be restored, if need be.  Once digital is dead, it's dead, Fred.

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: laurie <laurie@advancenet.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings


> I forget which is the case; but Kodachromes only had either
longevity with
> respect to dark storage or longevity with respect to lightfastness
as
> compared to E-6 but not both.  While the Kodachrome process is
entirely
> different from E-6 which may stabilize the dyes as you say, it is
always
> possible that there is an inherent limitation in dyes which
restricts
> stability of one type versus another; whereupon the manufacturer has
to make
> compromises.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 4:24 AM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Cc: derek_c@cix.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
>
>
> Unfortunately I think you'll find that nothing will last as long as
> Kodachromes.
>
> The completely different process used means that the dyes can be
made more
> stable.
>
> And it looks to me that Kodachrome is slowly on the way out.
>
> Soon the only game in town for longevity will be digital re-copied
to more
> modern media and possibly converted to a more modern file format
every
> five years or so...
>
>
> artistic@ampsc.com (Arthur Entlich) wrote:
>
> > Silly me, I used almost exclusively Kodachrome back in the 60's
70's
> > and 80's.  I only really moved to E-6 films after they convinced
me I
> > could trust them (in the 1990's), (other than Afga slides which
used
> > some weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me, and
will
> > need to be dealt with via digital repair (for what is left of the
> > image).  Even the Agfa stuff made me nervous enough to go back and
> > reshoot on Kodachrome before I left the area (good intuition that
> > time...)
> >
> > I do have some 40+ year old slides from childhood that are looking
> > pretty ratty and some negs from the 70's and early 80's that need
a bit
> > of help, but these are in the minority.
> >
> > I think today's slides and negs (properly processed!!! and stored)
will
> > remain very effective images for a long time to come.  If they
last as
> > well as my 1970's Kodachromes, I'll be overjoyed.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > Isaac Crawford wrote:
> >
> > > Hersch Nitikman wrote:
> > >
> > >> For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been
scanning
> > > my
> > >> personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly
from
> > >> the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of
my
> > >> 30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration
of
> > >> Color) very badly. Ed Hamrick's independent version in Vuescan
has
> > >> done some remarkable things for me, turning slides that were
very
> > > much
> > >> faded to a predominantly magenta image into very much more
believable
> > >> ones. I would not count on slides and negatives to be truly
> > > 'archival'
> > >> unless stored under 'archival' conditions, and maybe not even
then.
> > >> Storing and renewing a digital image on quality media every few
years
> > >> still seems like the best means now available.
> > >> Hersch
> > >
> > >
> > > This is an interesting idea that doesn't get talked about as
much.
> > > B&W
> > > film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff.
Many
> > > people
> > > lump "film" all into one group when obviously there are
differences
> > > between films. Maybe digital is the best way to preserve
accurate
> > > colors...
> > >
> > > Isaac
> >
> >
> >
>