# Vintage photography...curious about other people's views



## Jim Walczak (Nov 7, 2015)

Ok...please forgive me if I get a tad philosophical or nostalgic here...this just seems like it would be an interesting topic for discussion and I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions.  Also please keep in mind that I'm something of an oddball (for those who haven't read any of my comments/threads) and I do often have some rather unconventional views...in other words, don't take my comments _too _seriously.  Please bear with me...this could get a bit weird! LOL!

Alrighty...this may sound kind of weird, but as a photographer who also happens to be an art lover, in recent years I've found myself studying (for lack of a better word) a lot of vintage photographs that I often see in places like restaurants or fast food chains.  I will admit here that I do have a strong appreciation for nostalgia...I -LOVE- looking at images from bygone eras.  Even before I started taking my own photography seriously  (let alone considered it as something of a business), I often found myself looking at old pictures of, say amusement parks.  Having grown up a native Ohio resident, there are a couple of long defunct amusement parks...older Ohio residents may remember the names "Euclid Beach", "Chippewa Lake" or even the more recently defunct "Geauga Lake".  I have always found myself rather fascinated by images of these places.  Even as a young kid, my family would go to Cedar Point (which MANY may have heard of) and stand around in their Town Hall, gazing at pictures of the park dating back as far as the late 1800's.  And this doesn't apply to JUST amusement parks...I seem to have a fascination with old photos in general.  I even have a really old shot of a couple standing in from of a car that I found in an OLD camera case I purchased at a thrift store.  For all intensive purposes, it's _just a snap shot_ and judging by the car in the background (not to mention the photo paper used) I'd put the image around the late 30's, early 40's.   The picture is well framed, properly exposed, sharp, etc., however it's not really anything spectacular...it's just a couple standing in a driveway in front of a car, but I often find myself just staring at that shot.  _Something_ about that shot just captivates my attention whenever I look at it.  I honestly can't say -why- such images have always fascinated me, only that they do.

Ok...reminiscent tangent aside....again been looking at a lot of images lately that I see in a lot of restaurants (I said this was gonna get weird, LOL).  I'm talking about places like McD's, Dairy Queen, Waffle House, etc., etc..  In some cases, such as DQ and Waffle House, many of the pics are often little more than historic shots of the chains themselves...a local DQ for example has a fair number of pictures of various DQ's throughout the years, dating back to the company's establishment in the late 30's, with franchises that came about in the mid 40's and 50's.  Again I can't say why exactly, but such images really seem to hold my attention.  Some of the images are in fact quite interesting...a local Quizno's for example has a framed shot of a couple of guys on a ladder, loading some REALLY BIG rolls of cheese onto shelves for "aging"(and I mean BIG...talkin' rolls of mozzarella that look to be a good 6 feet wide!)...it's actually a rather fascinating image to look at. Likewise a local McD's had a shot of a couple on a motor scooter...it really has NOTHING to do with McD's, or even hamburgers, but it's a fun shot.  That said however, not all such shots are really great...many are rather mundane and a few a pretty bad.

This is where we get to the point of this little ramble of mine...in another thread here on TPF, a user had posted a link to some vintage surfing photography, specifically "*LeRoy Grannis. Surf Photography of the 1960s and 1970s*" (here's the link).  The first shot that came up was a wide shot of a beach...cars in the foreground, a few people on the beach in the mid ground and lots of surfers riding the waved in the background. On the one hand, I -really- love that image...it has a lot of visual interest for me (particularly with the vintage cars in the foreground...love that old Woodie down front there and the old VW "Bugs"!) and the rather subdued colors give it that "vintage feel"...I really stared at that shot for quite a while, which of course, is what good photography is all about.  _ON THE OTHER HAND_, it also got me to thinking...always a dangerous thing...if I were to shoot such an image myself today, in all likelihood....I'd probably delete it.   As a _vintage photo_, it has a great deal of appeal to me, however if this were shot in a contemporary setting, I would probably find myself wondering exactly what the point of such a shot is.  Does that make sense??

This got me to thinking about a lot of other historic photos I've seen...for example a number of shots I was looking at earlier this summer at the Mohican Museum in Loudonville Ohio, where they built those old Flxible buses.  Again in terms of vintage photography, many of the images they had displayed had a great deal of appeal to me and I spent a fair amount of time just studying them, however from the view point of a contemporary digital photographer, if I were to shoot such images myself, I'd probably delete them thinking there was little point or perhaps that they lacked my personal sense of artistic flair (LOL).  I guess this leads me to a few questions...

How many people out there do have a similar taste for old/vintage photography such as I've described here...and can you explain why?  What's the appeal?  I can't really explain my own fascination, so I'm curious if others have worked it out....

For those who do have such an appreciation, what do you think would  create such an appeal with a vintage shot, that would be equally unappealing with more contemporary work?  Is it just the "sense of history" or is there something more refined or subtle?  



I don't think there's any real right or wrong here...I'm just curious about the views and opinions of others on this one...and sorry that got so long, but I wanted to give folks a proper frame of reference (slight pun intended).

I look forward to the responses!


----------



## Designer (Nov 7, 2015)

I think for many of us we are more fascinated by the subject than looking at the photographs objectively.

In the cover shot you referenced, he captured the foreground, the middle ground, and the background, and also framed a group of surfers up and riding.  Aside from that, it is mostly just a record shot of a day at the beach.

These days when someone says; "nothing special here" we often will delete that image or at least won't show it around.  Digital is quick and cheap, so throw away the mundane and hope for a few keepers.

In the film days, we had more invested in the photograph to begin with, so we tended to keep more of them.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 7, 2015)

I'm always looking  at old shots new digital shots hold no interest for me, my friend has taken lots of shots like you mention from the 60s to today which he calls record shots he shows them when our film group gets together once a month. He used to live in a place called Stoke which is very famous for pottery when he started taking shots of Stoke there was bottle kilns everywhere the shots he showed us last time there was probably only 3


----------



## Derrel (Nov 7, 2015)

I've read a couple articles that suggest digital photography does not help us see a realistic representation of the era because so,so many people delete any and all substandard images, leaving only the "selects". The idea goes that in the future, digital archives will show us a highly filtered, unrealistic, highly curated interpretation of reality.

Old photos do somehow seem to possess an aura, a certain something, that makes them seem interesting, even if the subject matter or the scenes are rather mundane. I'm not sure why that is so, but I've noticed that historical photos are fascinating, both to me, and to my friends.


----------



## dennybeall (Nov 7, 2015)

I came in possession of a bunch of very old photos, most are of my near and distant relatives and mostly damaged.  Fun and interesting to do the repairs with Photoshop but the content is what I find fascinating. The clothing on the people is different and the "things" in the background have a very different look to them. Folks look like they're having fun and not a cellphone or laptop anywhere to be seen..............


----------



## limr (Nov 7, 2015)

I think for me, looking at vintage photos is almost like the closest humanity will ever get to time travel. We don't get to see the future (until it's the present, anyway  ) but we _do _get to see the past, and sometimes really far into the past. It may be an image of a time and a place that I'll never personally experience but that I still get to witness, and that makes me feel connected to a larger sense of humanity and the world. And maybe I like _taking_ photos that have a vintage look probably because I tend to feel nostalgia even for the moments that aren't past yet, so even when I'm taking the shot, it feels like I'm already imagining it as a moment in the past. I dunno, maybe it's a Portuguese thing. We've got one of those "untranslatable" words for this feeling: _saudade._

Funny you mention old photos of fast food places and diners  One of the last remaining Howard Johnson restaurants in the entire country. (Lake George, NY). Taken earlier this year with a Polaroid Land Camera. I know it's a technically flawed picture, but I still love it.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 8, 2015)

Here's some of my vintage photo collection, i was given a box full of 5x4 glass plates after scanning them i realise they are from the town where i live and one of them could be of a famous snooker player when he was a young lad





















And what it looks like today


----------



## Jim Walczak (Nov 8, 2015)

Derrel said:


> I've read a couple articles that suggest digital photography does not help us see a realistic representation of the era because so,so many people delete any and all substandard images, leaving only the "selects". The idea goes that in the future, digital archives will show us a highly filtered, unrealistic, highly curated interpretation of reality.
> 
> Old photos do somehow seem to possess an aura, a certain something, that makes them seem interesting, even if the subject matter or the scenes are rather mundane. I'm not sure why that is so, but I've noticed that historical photos are fascinating, both to me, and to my friends.





Hhmmm.  I think what you and Designer are essentially saying is that digital photography has not only changed how we take pictures (a great many of us at least), but how we_ think_ about photography as well...and yea, I think that makes sense.  In the "old days"...back in my mid to late teens when I started getting into 35mm, I (usually) worked thru a local lab at the time and even into the early/mid 90's I was still shooting film (like most of us) and basically I payed for prints of ALL my shots, whether I shot 1 roll or 20.  I did some blow ups of the _good_ shots (like the shots of the pyramid at Chichin Itza when my wife and I went to Cancun for our honeymoon), but whether it was a really great shot or not, I kept *everything*. Today, yes...I do certainly blow a few shots right off the camera, long before they make it to the computer, let alone to prints.

It's kind of interesting as again, I do find many of those older shots rather interesting, if not quite interguing...shots that again, if I were to capture myself today, I would likely delete.  Do you (or Designer) think that suggests more people take photography a bit more seriously today...or is it perhaps just a byproduct of the technology?  One of my former college professors (and still a good friend) is a big believer in the concept that with every great advance in technology, there's always a few draw backs as well...the invention of the automobile being a prime example.  Cars are GREAT transportation for many people, however with the invention of cars also came issues with pollution and even the idea that we humans don't exersize the way our ancestors did when they had to walk everywhere. Likewise with "art" (as in the classical art from the "masters"), he suggested that perhaps we've lost the concept of an original piece of art work and the concept of a specific piece of art work being created to be displayed in a specific given space (i.e. Caravaggio's that were intended for display in a specific space in a church).  Could this perhaps be a byproduct of digital photography...the loss of this historic reference/record/snapshot?  An interesting thought on its own.....


----------



## Jim Walczak (Nov 8, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> I came in possession of a bunch of very old photos, most are of my near and distant relatives and mostly damaged.  Fun and interesting to do the repairs with Photoshop but the content is what I find fascinating. The clothing on the people is different and the "things" in the background have a very different look to them. Folks look like they're having fun and not a cellphone or laptop anywhere to be seen..............




Like yourself I also do Photoshop "restorations" and a couple years back I came into possession of a rather sizable collection of family photos after my father passed away...in fact I had to sit down with one of my Aunts to go thru them and identify who was in the shots, as no one in my immediate family had ANY clue (my Aunt Jewel is 93 and the oldest surviving member of the family on my mother's side so she knew about 90% of the images).  From a family point of view, it was...ummm....rather "educational"...I -never- would have considered my mother as a 40's "pin up girl", LOL!!!!  Wow...there are some things that even a 50 year old kid should never know about his parents!!!  There was also one really sensational portrait of another Aunt that had actually been hand colored...another shot that I've studied rather extensively since coming into my possession.  At some point I'm going to assemble all the shots as a single album or catalog, along with all the info referenced so I can pass it down to my grand niece.


----------



## Jim Walczak (Nov 8, 2015)

limr said:


> Funny you mention old photos of fast food places and diners  One of the last remaining Howard Johnson restaurants in the entire country. (Lake George, NY). Taken earlier this year with a Polaroid Land Camera. I know it's a technically flawed picture, but I still love it.




HoJo's!!!  Ya know, I never actually stayed at one, however there is a rather sentimental story here (and maybe that's part of what "old pictures" are all about...the stories they tell and bring to mind).  The 2nd band I was in back in my late teens (and the very first time I was ever on stage as a musician) actually came about as the drummer worked with a guitar player...at a Howard Johnson's.  Here 30+ years later, the guitar player, George Sayer, is still a very dear friend (even though he moved to Luxembourg many years ago).  Funny how you can associate a long friendship with something like a HoJo's.

Reminiscences aside, I think your comment "I know it's a technically flawed picture, but..."..I think that get's to the heart of some of this.  You said it was taken earlier this year (where on Earth did you find film for a Landcamera???? I thought they stopped making that stuff ages ago...), but you felt the need to apologize for it's technical short comings.  Perhaps this is just a speculative opinion, but I think that if most average people (with a Landcamera) had of taken that some 30 or 40 odd years ago, they probably wouldn't have thought too much about the technical aspect of the shot...today however we feel some need to quantify such a shot. It's rather interesting how our opinions and attitudes towards photography have changed over the years.

...and yea...I love that shot too!


BTW...ya know I actually just tossed out my Dad's old Polaroid cameras a couple years back when Dad died...he had a Landcamera and some kind of "Instamatic" or something (not to mention an old Kodak "disk camera" and a few others...never did find his medium format though...THAT I would have kept).  I figured I wouldn't be able to find film for them and with my digitals, probably wouldn't have used them even if I did.  


This is turning out to be an really interesting topic...it's making me re-evaluate some of my own thoughts about photography as a concept.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Nov 8, 2015)

My Mom gave me a box of old negatives that I've been scanning. They're pretty much all family photos (thus far).

Technically, they're disasters. But, and the family connection aside, they offer a glimpse into how things were back then (apparently, my Uncle Ray always wore a tie), and I think that's kind of cool.


----------



## Designer (Nov 8, 2015)

Jim Walczak said:


> Do you (or Designer) think that suggests more people take photography a bit more seriously today...or is it perhaps just a byproduct of the technology?


With more people owning and using "cameras" in the digital age, I think people are swamped with photographic images, and do not hold any of them in high regard, even though some are fabulous.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2015)

Jim Walczak said:


> Reminiscences aside, I think your comment "I know it's a technically flawed picture, but..."..I think that get's to the heart of some of this.  You said it was taken earlier this year (where on Earth did you find film for a Landcamera???? I thought they stopped making that stuff ages ago...), but you felt the need to apologize for it's technical short comings.  Perhaps this is just a speculative opinion, but I think that if most average people (with a Landcamera) had of taken that some 30 or 40 odd years ago, they probably wouldn't have thought too much about the technical aspect of the shot...today however we feel some need to quantify such a shot. It's rather interesting how our opinions and attitudes towards photography have changed over the years.
> 
> ...and yea...I love that shot too!



First, thanks  Second, Polaroid stopped making film but Fujifilm still makes peel-apart pack film for Land Cameras. They recently discontinued their black and white (which is a shame because it's a beautiful film) but their color emulsion seems to be going pretty strong. I have a stash of the black and white and buy a pack of the remaining stock when I can, and I do quite a bit with the color as well. The camera belonged to my father. He bought it in 1965 and you'd have to pry that thing out of my cold dead hands to ever get me to give it up 

Finally, I do think you're right that most people wouldn't have cared about the technical aspects too much. I think their modern-day counterparts, however, aren't those of us interested in photography and trying for technically and/or artistically good photos. Instead, there are millions of people taking snaps on their phones now, and they're not really worried about technical aspects either, but they are holding devices that allow them to take a ton of shots until they finally get one that's "good enough" - everyone has their eyes open, no one has derp face, light isn't too dark or light... Today's technology allows photos to be more technically perfect without paying for each shot, and so I think that is what people have become concerned with. Digital cameras and editing software can take "perfect" images now and perhaps technical flaws now look like incompetence instead of gear limitations or artistic choice. 

What it comes down to for me is that I don't care about "perfect" pictures. It does look like I was apologizing for the technical flaws of the photo, but I didn't really mean to apologize - just recognize that I took the picture knowing full well that it wouldn't pass muster with some because of the technical flaws, but not caring about that because I _wanted_ a picture that looked like that. I love it _because_ of how it looks. To be perfectly honest, many of today's smooth, super sharp, vivid color photography leaves me cold because I don't take pictures to get a "perfect" image but rather to capture a feeling and a moment. I think more vintage photographs were similar - photos were expensive and many people didn't know much about cameras but they still took them out when it mattered: special events or happy moments or unusual moments, and if the photo was flawed, so what? The picture was flawed but still meaningful enough to save. I guess those moments and those flawed photographs feel more real to me than today's super-manipulated, technically perfect images that are so easy to take and produce that it's almost meaningless. And I guess that _has_ influenced my own work in a way that I don't think I would have realized without this thread, so thanks for starting it!


----------



## dennybeall (Nov 8, 2015)

A comment on the fascination of these old photos.
Here's a sample of the before, on the left, taken in 1919 and the after, on the right, with just a touch of PS.
The clothes and the little lace up boots with happy smiling kids in an alley just a block behind the Library of Congress in 1919. Looks like perhaps a rain barrel? You see new details every time you look at shots like this.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 8, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> A comment on the fascination of these old photos.
> Here's a sample of the before, on the left, taken in 1919 and the after, on the right, with just a touch of PS.
> The clothes and the little lace up boots with happy smiling kids in an alley just a block behind the Library of Congress in 1919. Looks like perhaps a rain barrel? You see new details every time you look at shots like this.View attachment 111212


I much prefer the original, in the original there is a connection between photographer and subject


----------



## terri (Nov 8, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I much prefer the original, in the original there is a connection between photographer and subject


I prefer the original, too, but only because I think the contrast went too far in the one on the right.   I have no issue with cleaning up the foreground shadows, but the detail in the highlights of the clothing are now blown out.   I'd have cleaned up the shadows, done a bit of sharpening (carefully) and left it alone otherwise.   Personal preference.   

/Thread hijack.   

To the OP: I think Leonore hit the nail on the head with her use of the word "connection."    Vintage photos allow us true glimpses into the past, our own or someone else's, that allow us to feel that connection to people and places that were here before us.   Our connective histories are vitally important to us as human beings, and we honor those who came before us, how they lived, the clothes they wore, by preserving these images.    Like Lenny, I prefer a style of photography that seeks to offer that sense of connection to the viewer, even if it gives back only to me.


----------



## dennybeall (Nov 8, 2015)

That photo is just a small file size copy of a photo made brighter to illustrate an article on photo restoration - it was not presented as a photo for C&C.
Keeping the shadow of the photographer does make a connection though - good point.
Thanks


----------



## Derrel (Nov 8, 2015)

dennybeall said:
			
		

> That photo is just a small file size copy of a photo made brighter to illustrate an article on photo restoration - it was not presented as a photo for C&C.
> Keeping the shadow of the photographer does make a connection though - good point.
> Thanks



It's not only the connection with the photographer, due to the presence of his shadow--it ALSO shows a very important point about the history of photography, and the time the shot was made: the old-time convention for amateur photographers and family snapshot shooters was to place the subjects FACING into the sun, and working in open, front lighted conditions....that was "the way it was done" back then, in large part due to the slow film speeds of the day. It was the standard photographic practice of the day, and it resulted in many,many images that included a bit of the photographer's shadow, most especially on the "tall" shots made with those old cameras. _Sun coming over your shoulder and hitting the subject full in the face._

I have a wonderful photo of my grandmother made using the same, exact technique, with her posed about 40 feet from a large barn,m with a rather large photographer's shadow in the foreground. Sometimes, the shadow adds quite a bit in this type of shot.


----------



## Designer (Nov 8, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> Here's a sample of the before, on the left, taken in 1919 and the after, on the right, with just a touch of PS.


I'm quite happy that you removed the shadow.  I like your enhancements and crop.

I will say, though, that the photographer had the presence of mind to frame the children's heads with an open umbrella, even though it wasn't raining, and it probably wasn't intended to shield them from the sun.  More skill than most, I'd say.


----------



## Jim Walczak (Nov 9, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> That photo is just a small file size copy of a photo made brighter to illustrate an article on photo restoration - it was not presented as a photo for C&C.
> Keeping the shadow of the photographer does make a connection though - good point.
> Thanks




Again kind of interesting here in how this may illustrate some people's views about this.  Personally I do prefer the second image myself (although at the risk of further uninvited C&C, I would agree with terri in that there's just a bit too much contrast) BECAUSE the shadows were removed.  That said, I'm not sure I can see the issue of the shadow as being particularly relevant to the historical context.  One the one hand, to some degree we are talking about the differences between the novice and the more seasoned photographer as it pertains to a vintage or historical context...and arguably such a shadow might be indicative of the novice factor.   On the other hand, I can't say the inclusion of that shadow is particularly evocative regarding content either. Even back in my earliest film days, long before the advent of digital, I always tried to avoid such shadows with my own work, because personally I always felt it was a bit "sloppy" (no offense to anyone's sensibilities here), much like the proverbial tree growing out of someone's head or chopped off body limbs, etc..  To me it was always _the photo itself_ that made the sense of connection to the photographer...after all _someone_ had to take it.  Perhaps the shadow itself does make a connection with the photographer in suggesting that this was more likely a snapshot...maybe taken by the children's mother or father (uncle, aunt, grandparent...), however to me at least, it's the children and the setting that make this photo interesting...even in a darkroom, personally I would have cropped that shadow out of there.

It's rather interesting how people would have such different perspectives on such a detail that otherwise seems rather insignificant.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 9, 2015)

It's not insignificant at ALL...the shadow in this case is the photographer's signature...it's like the cave painter's handprint...

Shadowplay is a major theme in photography, and has been since the camera was invented. The photographer appears to have been a grown man, with a bald head. That shadow is his "stamp" on the image. Today we have Facebook pro's who emblazon their images with oversized script watermarks, proclaiming each image to be the product of _Amazing Memories Photography by Katherine_, or _Happy Memories of Fun And Glee Images by Breanna_, and so on...in 1919, that was not the case, but the same principle, the same idea is at work.

When looking at historical, vintage images, it pays to be familiar with the actual era and the actual practices of the time. In other words, it pays to evaluate historical images with some actual knowledge of the era,and what the standards and ideas of the times were.

The Ultimate Guide to Photo Shadow Play: 30 Ways to Show Shadows Some Love | Photojojo


----------



## terri (Nov 9, 2015)

Completely agree with Derrel.    Removing the shadow is treating the shadow as if it were a technical "fault," and I unthinkingly dismissed the connection between the subjects' faces and the person taking the picture (the shadow).    If given this image to "clean up & restore" for a client, it's worth asking them how they feel about the shadow, particularly if the subjects are family members.   I can't babble about "connection" in vintage photography on one hand, yet have a knee-jerk reaction to removing a (so-called) technical flaw like a human shadow.    It's important to keep _all _these things in mind when handling these wonderful prints from the past, so I'm glad this point was expanded on.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 9, 2015)

A photo without shadows is like a kiss without a squeeze


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 9, 2015)

The most interesting vintage photo's I have ever seen were pictures of civil war battlefield scenes and hospitals. It was a huge volume in the reference section at the Chicago main Library. It was fascinating and some day I am going back to review again. 

Throughout the years, I frequently have bought vintage photo's from antique stores for reference material in art projects. 

Even today, I prefer the look of film. In my opinion, it is more translucent, especially tin type stuff. Digital has more of an opaque visual for me. Nothing wrong, just different. Developing techniques have always fascinated me and remind me of watercolors / pen and ink. 

It was mentioned it's about subject, composition and I agree. Looking back in time has a quality to it. Wonder what digital photography will look like to people 50 years from now? Wonder how today's old photos will be viewed as well?

Once I am comfortable and confident with my DSLR, I will go back to film. At this point in my noobness, I still prefer film. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## dennybeall (Nov 9, 2015)

The year is 1919, the camera is a black box with a single piece of ground glass for a lens, the film is B&W. Just capturing the scene was a win, "Uncle Joe" was not worried about shadows.


----------



## Jim Walczak (Nov 10, 2015)

jcdeboever said:


> Wonder what digital photography will look like to people 50 years from now? Wonder how today's old photos will be viewed as well?




Also a very good question...with some of the responses here, I was thinking about that a bit myself.  This is purely a speculative opinion, but if I had to make a guess, I suspect we will see some various phases with the development of photography.  One the one hand, the technology continues to develop (no pun intended there)...the consumer digital realm is already creeping into the 30+ mp range, with medium format digital having already hit 80 mp and we're even seeing the likes of 3D imaging systems.  This alone could suggest that in another 50 to 100 years, people may look at current DSLR photography as "primative", much the way a modern shooter might view something like an old Kodak "Brownie" or even Polaroids (no offense limr).  For all we know, people may even have data ports installed in the side of their heads, so they won't even have to "look" at a picture...simply have it downloaded into their brains (don't laugh...look at all the people with Blue Tooth headsets that are practically glued to their ears!).  The work of today will certainly have a fascination for some (as we've seen in this thread regarding what's currently considered vintage) and will likely be completely over-looked by others in favor of whatever is "new", "cool" or "totally fab" when it comes around.  On the other hand, we've also seen that modern technology doesn't always usurp technologies of the past.  There's still a lot of folks out there who do indeed prefer film and even with the advent of digital picture frames, where you can display multiple photos on a single device, as well as the proliferation of websites where you can upload, store and share your digital images,  I suspect most of us still plenty of traditional framed prints, if not the proverbial shoe box full of "snap shots".  Sure, for some folks today, that shoe box is really a "smart phone", but MANY still enjoy the beauty of physical prints and I really don't see the classic "photo album" going away any time soon.

As something of an art history buff, I would also be so bold as to suggest that, with art in general at least, there seems to be repeating cycles.  Going back to the ancient Greeks for example, with the likes of sculptors such as Praxiteles, even that long ago, there was an emphasis on realism (at least regarding the human form), or at least idealism.  Unlike other ancient cultures where forms were often distorted or geometric, with the work of the ancient Greeks (and later Roman copies), we began to see work that did indeed bear a close resemblance to reality.  During later eras however, such as the Byzantine for example, such notions were virtually abandoned, however we then saw a resurgence with this sense of realism with both the early Dutch painters and later, the Renaissance in Italy (ala da Vinci).  This sense of realism continued to develop even further with folks like Caravaggio and Gentileschi, however as the sense of artistic freedom began to take dominance with artists, we start to see the likes of Van Gogh, Monet. Renoir, etc., till we finally hit people such as Picasso and "The Fauves",  where any sense of realism was virtually abandoned, leading even later to concepts of total abstract such as the work of Jackson Pollock.  But then when we get into the 1970's we also see a resurgence in the dedication to realism with the likes of Ralph Goings, Don Eddie and other "hyperrealists"...paintings that do indeed look like photographs.  From the standpoint of art, in short - the wheel turns and what goes around, comes around.

I think that just as we see people today who are still dedicated to film and even those who take photography to more conceptual extremes with the likes of Lomography and Photoshop manipulations, while we will likely have people who embrace the latest, greatest tools and tech of their time, there will always be those who have an appreciation, if not dedication to to those who came before them.  If anything, I think the question is, will my 5 mp pixel Sony or 8 mp Canon Rebel XT hold up as long as those old Kodak Brownies have...and will I still be able to get batteries for the silly things? LOL!!! 

Again just some speculation.  Thoughts?


----------



## timor (Nov 18, 2015)

Jim, you just changed direction of this thread. LOL But good, I like the fire burning in you...
From enjoying old photos now we are at the philosophy of art. In the case you missed this, here is the link:




It explains (by proxy) how realism was taken away from painters by photography. Realism resurgence in late 20th century has different philosophical bases, than this from da Vinci times.

Couple days ago I had the opportunity to do service to a total stranger. Met in photo store she was asking the sales person to make for her prints from old negative. He offered no help, but I did. Negative was old, 60 years old in fact and in not the best shape, but still printable. Here it is:



 

There is not much I can do about all the problems. Digital restoration helped with the scratches, but the major problem of over exposure, over development and total lack of sharpness would probably require a lot of digital work with probably uncertain outcome. Nevertheless picture carries enourmous emotional value for the owner of the negative as it is the only surviving image of her father and discovered that it exists just recently. For most folks out there it is doesn't matter, how the picture was made. What counts is survivability. Negatives and paper prints have limited lifespan, but long enough for 3-4 generations. Digital file has unlimited lifespan, but requires some regular maintenance of the hardware carrying it. How average people will go about that ?


----------



## desertrattm2r12 (Dec 27, 2015)

Digital images (including mine) are ephemeral. They will not last. The images are unstable like early (silent film era) nitrate film stock that was highly flammable and tended to turn to dust if not stored correctly.
I have at least 200 5.25 inch computer floppy disks that will not fit any of my modern computers and the data on them is dead. The software used for most of it is long buried in the dustbin of history. Before that I used 8.25 inch floppy disks at work and they are dinosaurs.
This will be the barren generation who will leave almost nothing to their grandkids in the way of images.They will judge us in years ahead from the "bang bang" and the "if it bleeds it leads" of TV because the TV Robber Barons have a multi-billion dollar motive to save their junk.
The great majority of silent films is lost. Most radio shows are lost. The only recordings of the radio dramas are when the big networks recorded the 4 p.m. show to play it again at 8 p.m. for the West Coast audience. And nobody took much thought about saving the records. Many are in private hands of people who just took them home for fun.
Color feature films fade and many are lost. Curiously, the glorious Technicolor films will last because Technicolor was filmed at first on strips of b&w film and then 3 strips of b&w film. Different colored filters over the lenses allowed them to produce glorious (but unreal) Technicolor.
Early TV made copies of live TV shows and others via Kinoscope. They videotaped a TV set with lousy results.
Progress will do you in every time,


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 28, 2015)

desertrattm2r12 said:


> Digital images (including mine) are ephemeral. They will not last. The images are unstable like early (silent film era) nitrate film stock that was highly flammable and tended to turn to dust if not stored correctly.
> I have at least 200 5.25 inch computer floppy disks that will not fit any of my modern computers and the data on them is dead. The software used for most of it is long buried in the dustbin of history.


That data is far from dead.  It may be inaccessible because you don't want to (or don't have the drives anymore, to) take the effort to move it from one medium to a more modern medium, but its not like it is lost.  I have several old drives, 1.44, 5.25, etc... they are still very functional on modern equipment, and if that does not work, I have one old PC I keep just for these kinds of situations that has a 5.25" drive that is fully functional.

The difference was that in the past, once that physical negative was damaged or cracked into a million pieces, it *was* forever lost.  Just because you have data on a medium that you no longer own, this does not mean that someone else does not.  Part of the responsibility for keeping those memories alive is making sure they are all brought forward in time, in terms of how they are preserved.  In this case, digital media is ridiculously easy and near idiot-proof to keep, just move the original data to a modern medium... as long as you do that, your memories are preserved.

In the case of digital format, JPG was the first format that ever came out on digital cameras, it is still supported today (that said, I challenge anyone to send me an uknown file format that I cannot read.  There are many applications out there that can read pretty much any file format).  If it is a proprietary format (I don't know, some old version of RAW or something), again, it falls to the owner to translate this data into a modern format so that this data is preserved.  It all comes down to acknowledging that if you *want to*, you can take steps to never lose those precious memories irrespective of what their current format is, analog, digital or physical medium.  

I have some 1960's family films.  Touch the roll and the film crumbles.  I need to find some way to transfer that to digital where it is safer.  It's going to take a different kind of projector to not totally destroy the film before I can get it on to digital media.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 28, 2015)

JerryPH said:


> That data is far from dead.  It may be inaccessible because you don't want to take the effort to move it from one medium to a more modern medium, but its not like it is lost.  I have several old drives, 1.44, 5.25, etc... they are still very functional on modern equipment, and if that does not work, I have one old PC I keep just for these kinds of situations that has a 5.25" drive that is fully functional.....




Sometimes, the data is dead not because it cannot be read, but because those who know how to read it are dead.

NASA is a perfect example.  While they still have the data from many of the early space probes, there's no one still alive who is able to interpret any of it.

We are living in the Digital Dark Ages.  Most of our digital stuff won't be around in 5 years.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 28, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Most of our digital stuff won't be around in 5 years.


I don't see that at all.  I agree with Jerry.

I still have the very first scans I ever did, made some 25 years ago.  They are scans of physical photos of my daughter, and some other select photos I'd shot.

I just always made sure I had redundant copies on multiple backups, and updated any file formats or media types as needed.  They were scanned to my new (huge at the time) 20MB hard drive, and backed up to 5.25", then eventually copied to to 1.44", then zip, then CD, then DVD.

My hard drive array has grown over that period of time from that whopping 20MB drive to 16 drives that total over 30TB of space to work with, and further backup to 2 separate cloud services.  The first thing I do when I bring photos into my computer from my camera's card is run a backup of them to a redundant drive.

Unless electronics stop working forever, our digital stuff will be around for as long as anyone cares enough to take the minimal step needed in order to preserve it.  The minimal step is: Backup, backup, backup, backup - to new media as available, converting to new formats if warranted.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 28, 2015)

Buckster said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Most of our digital stuff won't be around in 5 years.
> ...



I'm talking digital files in general.... not just images.

You're not taking into account that 99% of people don't take the time to preserve what they have.  I, too, have files on my computer dating back to the early 90's.  But most people just let their stuff go. Either their hard drive crashes and they never pony up for a recovery, or they accidently delete files and never know it.  Whatever reason, the fact you YOU have a rigorous back-up routine doesn't mean everyone else does. And sadly, most don't.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 28, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I'm talking digital files in general.... not just images.
> 
> You're not taking into account that 99% of people don't take the time to preserve what they have.  I, too, have files on my computer dating back to the early 90's.  But most people just let their stuff go. Either their hard drive crashes and they never pony up for a recovery, or they accidently delete files and never know it.  Whatever reason, the fact you YOU have a rigorous back-up routine doesn't mean everyone else does. And sadly, most don't.


Quite right.

I took "*our* digital stuff" literally.


----------



## desertrattm2r12 (Dec 28, 2015)

Yeah, well Kodak bet a few billion dollars that their technology would be on top forever.
And Packard was on the top of the heap once. When's the last time you saw that brand rolling down the pike? Detroit auto workers wanted their unions to  negotiate a "f*c* off" day, a day off with pay for any trivial reason they wanted. Those workers have a lot free days now.
In the MS-DOS days I had an off-brand word processor software that automatically changed Macintosh (the computer) to McIntosh (the fruit) and you could not change it back. I guess the propeller heads that wrote the software thought that was very funny. Imagine writing a resume and not noticing their vandalism, presenting yourself as a computer guru and can't even spell one of the major brands right. I dumped that garbage and I think it would be hard to find it today.
Any film negatives from 50 years and more previous to that software still works perfectly fine.
I just bought a Nikon DSLR for 50 bucks. Hummmm...
I think a French guy wrote about the dangers of thinking ours is a perfect world today.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 28, 2015)

desertrattm2r12 said:


> Any film negatives from 50 years and more previous to that software still works perfectly fine.



Not if they're color or rather not if they were color. My earliest digital photos have now outlasted the color negatives I shot at the same time. The only way to preserve those color film images is to digitize them.

Joe


----------



## desertrattm2r12 (Dec 28, 2015)

Yes, I was speaking of b&w. But you can pull a Technicolor and make 3 or 4 b&w images that ca be made back into color, and save them that way, or make copy negatives.


----------



## desertrattm2r12 (Dec 28, 2015)

Did I mention I have color slides from the big press party (1800 members of the press) at the original Disneyland the evening before it opened the middle 1950s? They are just fine. I keep them cool and out of the humidity.
I have color negatives of Jayne Mansfield in her fabulous Pink Palace mansion that I shot in the early 1960s (along with b&w and color slides) and they are all just fine.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 28, 2015)

Film negatives and wet-based printed photographs are not inert.  Over time photographs will fade into plain paper and negatives will entropy into something else.  It is easier to keep digital alive and well than film.  With digital, even though the storage has become completely obsolete, at least there is an outside chance of restoration. When a printed photo fades to white or the emulsion cakes off a negative ... There is no chance of restoration.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 28, 2015)

480sparky said:


> We are living in the Digital Dark Ages.  Most of our digital stuff won't be around in 5 years.



As someone who has been in the IT industry since many years before the internet even existed, I find that hard to believe.  I have one of the first production CDs that I burned back in the 80's and it reads just fine as of this morning.  The day CD burners/readers become defunct, I will move that data to whatever that new medium is.  There is NO generational loss in copying digital data.

In the 70's people were saying that by the year 2000, we'd all be travelling in flying cars, indeed, there is nothing even close to that happening.  As fast as we evolve technologically, a great many things don't change all that fast.  Data storage mediums and JPG formats, as examples, change VERY slowly.

In 5 years, we will be EXACTLY where we are today, advancements aside.  Your example is not globally accurate.  Just because NASA has data they don't understand, does not mean that there is no one globally able to access that data, nor that there isn't anyone willing to invest time, money, etc... to relearn how to access it.  The real secret is... how important is this data?  If it's not important or inaccurate, why waste the time on it?

In the world of photography, photos have particular importance to their owners or the family of the owners.  If they don't take the time to make sure their memories are safe, then they are saying that it is just not all that important to them... not that it is lost.


----------



## limr (Dec 28, 2015)

Nothing is invulnerable. Everything can perish. And any method of storage/preservation is only as good as the people who know how to store the information properly and the ones who know how to retrieve the information properly. There are advantages and disadvantages to preserving film just as there are advantages and disadvantages to preserving digital. When the tech developing Robert Capa's film accidentally melted the emulsion off the bulk of that film, a huge number of images from the D-Day invasion in Normandy were gone forever. At the same time, a box of exposed but undeveloped negatives that were frozen in ice in Antarctica for 100 years still yielded images: 100-Year-Old Negatives Found in Antarctica: Photos : DNews. Digital files can be stored and retrieved for just as long, providing there is technology available that can read the storage medium. The state of those images will be better, I'm sure. But that data can also just as easily be compromised both physically if the card is damaged, or functionally if no one knows how to get to the data.

Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why anyone can be so sure of the benefits/drawbacks of one or the other until enough time passes to provide a more equal comparison. Maybe when we're looking at 100-year-old digital files found on a floppy disk or hard drive in someone's attic or frozen in ice, we can know better what the real advantages or disadvantages are. At this point, it's purely speculative.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 28, 2015)

JerryPH said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > We are living in the Digital Dark Ages.  Most of our digital stuff won't be around in 5 years.
> ...




You miss the point.  Lots of files every day are lost.  Hard drives crash.  People have fires in their homes.  They accidentally delete stuff and are never even aware of it.  Computers are stolen. Hackers wipe drives clean.

You need to look past your own nose.  Just because YOU are digital-savvy doesn't mean everyone is.  I'll bet most people don't have more than one copy of any digital file.  And you of all people should know what that means.

How often does someone sign up here, pleading for help recovering images from a corrupt SD card?

Once again... I'm not speaking specifically about_ any one person_.  Overall, a lot of files *will* disappear.  You can't just claim "I still have files from 1978.....!" and convice yourself that files (all files, everywhere, whomsoever has them) don't vanish.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 28, 2015)

desertrattm2r12 said:


> Did I mention I have color slides from the big press party (1800 members of the press) at the original Disneyland the evening before it opened the middle 1950s? They are just fine. I keep them cool and out of the humidity.
> I have color negatives of Jayne Mansfield in her fabulous Pink Palace mansion that I shot in the early 1960s (along with b&w and color slides) and they are all just fine.



They are not in their original condition. They have faded. Even if you had freeze-dried them they would still have changed. The basic laws of physics and chemistry do apply.

A digital photo taken at the same time and preserved till today would be in it's original condition.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 28, 2015)

desertrattm2r12 said:


> Yes, I was speaking of b&w. But you can pull a Technicolor and make 3 or 4 b&w images that ca be made back into color, and save them that way, or make copy negatives.



Not without loss. All forms of analog duplication represent a degradation of the original including digitization. All analog data is degrading and unless digitized will eventually turn to dust albeit in some cases over a very long time. No form of analog duplication can prevent that. Digitization arrests that process and renders the data permanent since no amount of duplication will degrade digital data.

The principles are basic and simple:

All analog data is actively degrading.
No form of analog duplication can arrest or prevent analog degradation.
Digital data does not degrade and can be duplicated an infinite number of times without loss. That is a fundamental difference between the two.
To preserve analog data for as long as possible: digitize it.

There are lots of qualifications to the above that involve conservation and usage practices but those are just that -- practices.

Joe

edit: Thinking about practice here and the critique that digital is vulnerable to evolving practice it's worth noting that the method identified above to preserve a color image by creating b&w separations would require a new analog print be made using a dye-transfer process. When in the 1990s did Kodak discontinue supplying dye-transfer materials?


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 1, 2016)

480sparky said:


> You need to look past your own nose.  Just because YOU are digital-savvy doesn't mean everyone is.  I'll bet most people don't have more than one copy of any digital file.  And you of all people should know what that means.
> 
> How often does someone sign up here, pleading for help recovering images from a corrupt SD card?
> 
> Once again... I'm not speaking specifically about_ any one person_.  Overall, a lot of files *will* disappear.  You can't just claim "I still have files from 1978.....!" and convice yourself that files (all files, everywhere, whomsoever has them) don't vanish.



In the past people had to LEARN that if they wanted to keep the colours from their glass plated photos, they had to be stored in dry DARK locations.  Later people had to learn to keep their negatives in dark locations.

Today people need to LEARN how to protect their digital data, either by uploading to cloud locations, doubling up on file copies or trusting professional backup services.

Key word here... LEARN.  If you didn't learn, you lost photos in the past, and will continue to lose photos in the future.  For everyone that you say loses photos, there are 10 people that took the time to do something to protect theirs, so, I am not needing to look past my nose, thanks.  My nose, as a professional wedding photographer, includes me being knowledgeable enough to protect my clients via tens of 0f thousands of dollars in automated redundant hardware that stores copies in multiple physical locations (minimum of 5 copies in 3 locations exist for any of my paid work, and as many as 9 copies exist for personal works that I consider important and irreplaceable).

I will say it again... If you don't care to learn how to protect yourself... you don't care.  The only option after that is to learn to live with the consequences.

In the case of dying storage medium... simple answer.  Buy garbage storage medium with the intent of saving $20, you will lose more than you may be ready to lose.  Strange coincidence... yet another small thing to learn.  

This stuff is far from rocket science in today's well advanced technological world.  If me as a 55 year old man can learn it the more advanced technologies, surely most other average people can (and indeed many do) learn how to make any of dozens of different ways to make a simple copy or backup of their digital data.

The question again is... how important is that data to you and what will you do to protect it? 

My dad taught me early on that each person should take responsibility for their own actions.  Maybe that's why I depend on myself to be as knowledgeable as I need to be, irrespective of if that is how to safely drive a vehicle, how to tie a tie, tie my shoes or how to protect my data from loss.  I suppose everyone cannot be that way... but maybe those that need to... should be.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2016)

JerryPH said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > You need to look past your own nose.  Just because YOU are digital-savvy doesn't mean everyone is.  I'll bet most people don't have more than one copy of any digital file.  And you of all people should know what that means.
> ...



And, unfortunately, many people still have not learned this.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 1, 2016)

I lost about a month of my son's babyhood due to a fatal HD crash...ever since, I have four copies of my digital archive, on two different hard drives, two DVD discs, with one set of the DVD's in locked storage apprx. 50 miles away from here. I consider CD's and / or DVD media to be better in some ways than hard disks because the data is stored in rather small quantities in a non-mechanical type format which is NOT erasable and NOT re-formattable, and which is not an enticing "device" that could be stolen to be re-used...the eggs are divided into many,many,many more baskets than on a large, high-vokume hard disk. I am not convinced of the idea that hard disks are "better than" CD or DVD media, I truly am NOT and that's why I backed up to CD-ROM in the early years, and then to premium FujiFilm-branded DVD-ROM, non-eraseable disc media soon after DVD burners hit the $400 mark.

Yes, burning DVD discs is kind of a PITA, but I have more faith in the ability of even a 100-count spindle of DVD media to be dropped three feet to hold 99% or more of the image files than say a 4-terabyte external drive dropped the same distance. DVD media can easily be stored in a controlled humidity environment in a fairly space-efficient manner, and discs can be indexed pretty easily, and I have faith that the basic DVD format will have hardware that will be readable for years to come. I look back 100 years or so to phonograph records of 78 RPM type...STILL playable, and the media has remained viable for a long, long, long time. 

I think that one also needs to consider that one's most special and most prized images need to be curated much more carefully than say, one's general image production...there's a big diff between your children's birth images, or a child's first and sixth birthday pictures than say a bunch of perhaps 200 random snaps from an unmemorable trip to the lakeshore.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 1, 2016)

I have data files mirrored on a server. Important or irreplaceable files are burned on a double sided blue ray disc and placed in cardboard jacket. Both are then stored in a fireproof safe. I have been using this method since the early 90's. Of course, I went from floppy, to tape, to CD, to DVD, to blue ray. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------

