Permanence, or at least some amount of...
Permanence, or at least some amount of it, has always been implicit in photography. Inkjet printing was not so desirable in its early days because it lacked permanence. Today’s issues with proprietary RAW files present the same problem because their permanence is unknown. Will today’s RAW files be viable for another ten years? The ability to use RAW files is perhaps the greatest asset of digital photography, yet it is also its greatest weakness. We need well-documented and open standards so we can go back to taking photographs that once again offer an element of permanence.
--
http://www.dmcphoto.com/
login to post comments
Dean M. Chriss – Tue, 2005/05/24 – 6:38am
Permanence has always been a problem in photography - though...
Permanence has always been a problem in photography - though it maybe has been implicit. Color negatives and most slide film ages badly. B&W can be a lot better but requires careful processing. Chemical prints can age badly. So with the issue of raw files isn't really worse than before I think.
The permanence of analog photography is in most cases an illusion. Many of the original negatives of me as a kid, even the B&W ones, are faded badly - the images are almost gone :(
The point is that raw files can offer a lot more of permanence, if the conditions are right, since the original can be duplicated/translated without degradation. So it's more a question of gaining than regaining.
cheers, jan