Why Contax and/or Zeiss at all?

[fastfashn]

" Hard drives typically last 5 years. My experience with CD-ROMS is that they are suppose to last 20 to 100 years! I have a cd-rom I used recently that was at least 6 years old w/ no problems. And magnetic tape last about 20 years.

So ... I would feel much, much more secure w/ a digital file then a slide if I had good backups in place.

Michael. B.S.C.<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">• is this fungus that eats CDs... Also, I don't doubt there will be a form of CD (data) in 20 years, but I wonder if the readers in 20 or 30 years will read your CD? Right now DVD is in process of wiping out the standard CD reader. There is a blue laser DVD player coming out soon that will allow for much greater storage on DVDs, so the current DVD players probably have another five good years of life left before they are phased out. Let's say that in twenty years there are three generations of format between the current CD and whatever comes out in twenty years...

Maybe everything will go solid state - some kind of high density EEPROM in the terabyte memory range range - so you can download and save directly to solid-state Ipod-like device that has no place to put a spinning disc all.

Computer hardware manufacturers are in the business of making profits, not keeping old format storage media alive. Even if you still have an old, working CD reader, will Windows or a Mac OS support it with drivers for OS-XVII?

Dana Curtis Kincaid Pinnacle Systems Technical Support Indy

 

[jsmisc]

Those are pretty amazing, and perhaps frightening suggestions. If it = is possible that they might come true (and I am sure that it is) would = it not be sensible to keep shooting on film as I am doing and using a = scanner since properly kept slides and negatives will last for years and = years and will always be "readable". That way you have the best of both = worlds.

John

 

[ou1954]

Posted by John Strain on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 7:20 pm:

Those are pretty amazing, and perhaps frightening suggestions. If it is possible that they might come true (and I am sure that it is) would it not be sensible to keep shooting on film as I am doing and using a scanner since properly kept slides and negatives will last for years and years and will always be "readable". That way you have the best of both worlds.

John

Well, I've had some sad things happen to slides. If you want to look at what might happen to some slides in 40 or so years, have a look here:

http://www.rollei-gallery.net/daw/folder-3894.html

Those were Ektachrome 64 slides properly stored. In some cases nothing bad happened. One interesting thing is that all the Agfachrome 64 slides taken during that same time frame, 1963 or so, never developed any problems.

Don Williams

 

[jsmisc]

Thanks Don,

I will have a look at your site if I may. Some of my slides have = deteriorated as well but at least is possible to get information from = them and pictures from the 19th century still amaze me - not mine I = hasten to add. If in the future it might not be possible to read digital = images at all, this might be something of an artistic disaster.

John

 

[coyot]

>Dana,

Take a look at 8 mm film. 8 mm systems have not really been sold for over 20 years, yet you can find services to convert 8mm to Video (or DVD).

Owning over 200 CD's w/ data, you can be sure that I am not going to discard ALL my systems with cd-readers in the future. I'll keep something around, tied to my network, that will read cd's.

No sweat. Being able to get digital files of your photos in the future (i.e. 20 to 30 years) will not be an insurmountable task.

The worst case secnerio would be to copy you old stuff to a new medium (such as copying your cd-roms to dvd media).

michael.

 

[ou1954]

Thanks Don,

I will have a look at your site if I may. Some of my slides have deteriorated as well but at least is possible to get information from them and pictures from the 19th century still amaze me - not mine I hasten to add. If in the future it might not be possible to read >digital images at all, this might be something of an artistic >disaster. > >John

John,

I suspect that digital storage will continue to improve faster than most prints and digital images degrade, so I don't see any real problem with either medium.

One interesting point, true or not. I just had some work done by a private lab which claims 500 years life on digital prints made with pigmented inks. We won't be able to fully test that however unless some improvements are made to human preservation at the same time.

I do have a box of old prints, including tintypes, which are probably 100 years old. Haven't looked at them in a while but I would bet that even the tintypes have recoverable images.

Don Williams

 

[Colin645]

Don, As a diehard Kodak user,(Kodachrome only) until Velvia came along, I have only ever shot one roll of Ektachrome in my 49yrs of photography and the samething happened to some of my slides. Film was used in the early 1970's
Colin

 

[jsmisc]

Don,
A 500 year life would be amazing. I wonder how they test it to arrive at their estimate.
John

 

[dxl]

Well I would like to thank Dirk for his original post why he chose Contax. I have spent months scouring over the internet searching for information about what it is in the glass that makes contax lenses produce the quality of pics they do and have learned more from his article than months of searching have left me. I have not been able to find much information concerning what actually is different about the glass. Must be closely kept guarded trade secrets? There is a difference I can tell that I do not see in other brands excepting possibly Leica however Leica costs are prohibitive to me. Thanks Dirk.......regards dxl

 

[coodeville]

Here's why............