Re: OT: corrupted .NEF files
First off, most still photographers would sure take issue with the
"costs more to shoot and store" point. Secondly, the issues of archiving
an entire motion picture (24 frames per second for two hours...you do
the math) are a lot different from the concerns of those of us who just
want to make sure we can still make another print in 40 years.
Let's be realistic. You can drive yourself nuts trying to ensure that
your images will be available down the road but, digitally speaking,
it's not a big deal to build some reliable redundancy into your system.
And if you do want hard copy archives of those special images, why not
make good archival inkjet prints that you can store away somewhere? They
could always be scanned for reproduction down the road if needed. A heck
of a lot of info is stored in a sharp, smooth surface print.
And last but but not least, some of us might be better served putting
that time and energy into trying to MAKE images worthy of concern in the
first place. A well preserved boring image will always be a boring
image, no matter how permanent we make it. Lord knows I have plenty of
negs and digital files that NOBODY is ever going to want to see
Greg Schmitz wrote on 11/8/06, 6:48 PM:
> Perhaps the motion picture industry, which has
> steadfastly resisted attempts to get them to go digital (digital costs
> more to shoot and store and most seem to feel digital does not look as
> good as film) is a few steps ahead of still photographers when it
> comes to a "practical" view of digital vs. film; not sure? Oh, the
> guy from WB noted that film was the most practical way to store images
> because all you have to do to retrieve the image is look at it.