I grew up with film cameras and like having a negative stored away that will last for possibly one hundred years or longer. Digital has many advantages over film, but what is the integrity of the image over the decades? How long will a jpg last, etc...?

With redundant back up in several locations (best practice digital data backup?) and renewal when new popular standard came out, probably would last until some EM storm hit earth on global scale.

Wouldn’t film also rot ?

Tried both (film a short while only though) and would probably love shooting with film. But the variable cost would soar sky high. Wouldn’t really want to do that for not so important photos that I’d still want to take (with digital, almost 0 cost).

I never dealt ith film photography. I am new in this hobby.
But, just a thought: if I have film negatives, I can use the latest technology to make photos, with digital, whatever you shot today is the best it can be. So, having film negatives in 2025 I would get better processing than today, and with digital we are stock in today's technology which is old as I am typing this post. ;-)))

Which would be a good film camera to start with?
Is a Polaroid camera a film camera?

Polaroid instamatic cameras are not very good, if my memory serves me correctly. Use 8mm Cannon, Pentax, etc...if they make them anymore? Many of these old film cameras are collector’s items.

nSeika says:

"Wouldn’t film also rot ?"

Yes it will, if not stored properly. However we have negatives of various types that have lasted over 150 years.

BTW,

Welcome to the group and thanks for posting the comment.

Had Polaroid photo back in Elementary school school trip. The colour degrade after probably months only (climate thing?). There’s also no negative to reproduce it.

Old film camera without collector’s value (history, limited production) should cost cheap enough. And if you go with Nikon SLR, you could use your lenses too (with full manual mode), just remember even the cheap bunch of these old film cameras are full frame in digital term.


“Yes it will, if not stored properly. However we have negatives of various types that have lasted over 150 years. ”

So proper storage would be the key :)
Data rot or format becoming obsolete is rather overrated. Compatibility should last long enough, and batch conversion program should pop up somewhere inbetween the ages.

Although as in Ken Rockwell’s article, data already in digital format doesn’t get better like analog format that can be digitized again with more advanced technology in the future.

I grew up with film cameras.
Much prefer the digital, can review the shot immediately and then adjust not only exposure, but composition.

bump

David C. Foster wrote

I grew up with film cameras and like having a negative stored away that will last for possibly one hundred years or longer. Digital has many advantages over film, but what is the integrity of the image over the decades? How long will a jpg last, etc...?

Depending on how your neg's are stored they may only last a few decades, and that only means physically as the chemicals that make up the colors can and do degrade often in just a few years.

Your JPG format files are also far more likely to be able to made use of than your film in the coming years. Fewer and fewer labs exist to process film, in the end it will be like 8/16mm home movies. Many people have some of these laying around in a closet somewhere, but are far less likely to have a projector anymore and the cost for conversion to digital is pricey. VCR taped home moveis fall pretty much into a similar category.

Ohhh... film Vs. digital...

Surprisingly civilised here amazingly...

Personally I love film, and if I could I'd shoot it exclusively, but the practicalities of when I actually want to submit an image make that impossible really.

Shooting film well makes you a better digital shooter than you would be otherwise (in my experience).

"Your JPG format files are also far more likely to be able to made use of than your film in the coming years. Fewer and fewer labs exist to process film, in the end it will be like 8/16mm home movies. Many people have some of these laying around in a closet somewhere, but are far less likely to have a projector anymore and the cost for conversion to digital is pricey. VCR taped home moveis fall pretty much into a similar category.

But film is far from dying out, just take a look at I Shoot Film, a flickr group which is probs one of the busiest on the site. More people are developing at home than they used to (out of the people using film).

I am going back into film, mostly black and white, after 6 years in DSLR The films are inexpensive from Freestyle; home developing costs peanuts, and I can do 4 x 36 exposures in 20 minutes, then scan and get more detailing and dynamic range than digital.

Black and white negatives from year 1850 are still good, so my negatives should survive to 2200, if anyone cares.

The cameras and lenses for film are dirt cheap now, and as good as the best DSLR's. Look at Rollei, Blad, Nikon SP, Leica M3 and my new favorite, EOS 3 with eye controlled focus; DSLR's are no further ahead.
I'm doing this for total involvement in making good images, with better ones yet to come.

James,

"Black and white negatives from year 1850 are still good, so my negatives should survive to 2200, if anyone cares."

I have to agree about the long term survival of digital photographs. I've lost more digital than I ever took with film. And still I have all the negatives and hard copy from film.

negatives
are only as good as where they are stored
but in theory should out last ditigal unless you print etc

David C. Foster:

that is still a ditigal image FYI
as the end product
you can also produce a ditigal negative for storage ( yes cost )

and i agree film camera's are almost at give away prices. i pass one up almost everyweek at a yard sale

Anthony,

Seems to be many more collectors of film cameras…as if they are antiques?

maybe this is out of context of traffic but my camera doesn't bode well in wet weather, and today is a prime example of why I want a weather field camera... but will I be at an advantage by going photo frame or should I stick to a crop sensor (shooting a Nikon D90 atm)

anyone got a view on the mirrorless 4/3 dslrs?

Quite simple, you just shoot on film, better if with a rangefinder, ok if with an SLR. But you do shoot film. You don't want to spend (at least) half the time watching at the pictures you've just taken, do you...
And btw, my best lens for street is a 35mm.

Film is just a luxury. Lovely for producing commercial prints for the nouveau riche, especially in tasteful B&W, but as a medium which can have an effect, it is now virtually useless, except as a subject of elite patronage by art editors looking for a feature.
The only story film is now used to tell is that of itself, and those who 'make a statement' by using it. But the images themselves 'state' nothing new, and don't explore the medium any more than it already has been. In fact, they depend on digitisation to be known at all.
So what's the point other than difference for the sake of it?

Depends on your values and priorities.
If you demand that your work make you as much money as possible, the greatest neg in the world could rot under your bed unseen.
If you want to make the most effect, and share your work, the JPEG of the same image will be immortal.
JPEG is probably the most stable format. As all those dead RAW archives prove.

Note a 4/3 system is not really a dslr as there is no mirror.

I believe it's a stepping stone technology: cheaper and getting still cheaper to manufacture than larger formats (with and without mirrors). As the mirrorless technology improves the DSLR will be relegated to the scrap heap to be replaced by full frame and beyond mirrorless cameras.

But anything 4/3 or larger with changeable lenses will be a special purpose camera for the very few real pros or for the consumer as a luxury hobbyist item. And you know this crowd will not use 4/3 when there is bigger to be had.


IMHO new technologies are just starting in the last 3 years to produce: much thinner higher quality zoom optics; more sensitive sensors; faster processing; larger data band width and ubiquitous seeming unlimited cloud storage. In another 5 to 10 years the 4/3 will be obsolete replaced by cell phones. New optics, sensors, software algorithms and computational power will be able to duplicate the look of all but the top end optical systems. The higher end DSLR (and mirrorless) will have moved on to a more data rich environment.

Raw was never a standard format it was camera specific format.

Jpg on the other hand is a standard that came out of the age of 20 meg hard drives and 1200 baud modems. It will be soon as obsolete as a cd. The jpeg standard is information poor. Current technology DSLR produce files that have much more information then can be crammed into a jpeg. What is used and what is thrown away is decided by the camera manufacturer plus by the last century jpeg compression technology based on the discrete cosine transform.

Many of the digital standards of the last century will soon fall like a house of cards with any 'immortal' images lost unseen in the vast digital trash heap of civilization. Only those that tell a story worth remembering will have any chance of endurance, even here jpegs will be considered low rez and of poor quality.

There are some negs from the 1830's. Will electronic, no matter what format, still be around after that much time has passed...who knows?

So what's new? 99% of everything ever published was never seen again, and deservedly so.
But sharing will ensure some cross-platform archiving of images that matter, by those who care.
And since electronic images can be printed by the same process as film, those who want to archive them that way can do so.
There is no sign of JPEG wearing out. No outdated files which cannot be accessed.
But those who relied on RAW have a history of being swindled by their manufacturers. The Joint Photographic Experts Group is not that kind of organisation.
As for whether we will all be around in 150 years, if we're not, neither will the film archives. If we are, there's no reason to expect that we won't be able to decipher some lines of primitive C20th code.

Considering your continuing rant against B&W and film you are showing great ignorance on the subject of technical obsolescence.

What's new is that it is no longer 99% (more like another 3 decimal points of 9s)and even compared to film JPEG is vastly substandard and is becoming rapidly more so.

Cross-platform archiving of images is babble plenty of jpegs exist or did exist on virtually unreadable magnetic tape, optical, floppy or burned out hard drive media. You might mean distributed cloud but I'm not a mind reader.

I grew up with film cameras and despite the move to digital I still look back on my time with my old OM-10 with great fondness. Despite such fondness I just upgraded my EOS 400D to a 7D rather than even begin to consider moving back towards film.

Just as audiophiles debate the differences between analogue and digital music technology, we, as photographers, can debate the same differences in image recording until the cows come home, and go back out to pasture again... at the end of the day there are pros and cons to each. Personally I would much prefer to enjoy my own preference and fully understand and respect the differences of opinion that others may have of their own preference. The most important factor, for me, is that the images continue to get recorded.

Metrix X: "Note a 4/3 system is not really a dslr as there is no mirror." Quite wrong mate, the 4/3 (now defunct) system is a 100% dSLR system. You might have talked about the m4/3 (mirrirless, micro 4/3 system of cameras such as Olympus Pen, Olympus OM-D, Panasonic Lumix GH2, etc.)

matteoprez I believe the original post was referring to the current technology and not to the defunct technology. Nowdays I believe the common usage implies the m.

amjamjazz:

Long live film mate, long flive film.

p.s. And if you do have to shoot digital, don't be an idiot & shoot RAW.

Just pointing out the blindingly obvious.
Your ignorant ravings about 'standards' have no basis in fact, just in your sentimental glorification of an elitist past golden age which never existed. The standard of photography is at least up to that of the film past, and expanding into new areas courtesy of the digitisation which makes you so insecure.
Your fetishisation of film is just the desire to restrict photography to the camera club gallery wall and gravure glossies. An obsession with what is now more a form of 2D silver sculpture than photography. But that elitist battle is long lost. As is the attempt to make the present look like the past by stripping away its colour.
Sharing images for archive is perfectly practicable, and should appeal to your 'law of the jungle' instincts, surely? It is standard practice since Caruso's wax cylinders and works just as well for digital images. Better, since copies of digital information degrades less at each copy, if at all.
It just depends on whether you put money before communication.

I agree. Film is lovely. So what?
As for RAW, get it right in camera and the difference between a final JPEG and processed RAW is anal.
But in difficult situations, backup RAWs are a godsend. And far outstrip anything possible in the darkroom with film.

I will ignore the rest of your rant about what you in your arrogance, ignorance and insecurity believe are other people's motives and just say I have been involved with digital imaging standards for reproduction and archiving on a professional level for many years now. You on the other hand do not appear to know what a fact is.

play nicely, boys and girls...