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 again...ever. ;^) Dan 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. -- www.DanBurkholder.com www.TinyTutorials.com
|