Digital Photography from 20,000 Feet
by Wesley Fink on September 25, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Digital Challenges: What Needs to be Improved
Despite the huge leaps in digital technology in the past few years, there are still a few issues remaining. Most of the sensor makers and camera/lens manufacturers are working on these issues. You should keep them in mind when looking at digital SLRs, because they are the areas where development is needed.
Dynamic Range
Compared to film SLRs, digital SLRs still cannot match the dynamic range of film. Dynamic range is the difference between the brightest highlights and darkest shadow detail in an image. Most manufacturers are working very hard to provide improved dynamic range, but there is no consensus yet on what works or will work best to fix this problem. Solutions vary from the extra set of pixels designed just to capture highlight detail in the Fuji S3 PRO (for Nikon lenses), to the Bionz image processor in the new Sony A100 electronics, and the D-Lighting feature in the new Nikon D80 that can be used to improve shadow or highlight detail.
Most users are not really aware of this issue, and sensor and camera makers are not making a big deal about it unless they have a feature that improves this weakness. However, if you examine a high contrast image from film next to the digital image you will see highlights blowing out on the digital image and less shadow detail in the digital image. Digital has improved greatly in this area, and will no doubt continue to improve, but the dynamic range difference is still about 1.5 to 3 stops better with film than digital.
In shopping for a digital SLR you might pay attention to those that claim to address this issues and what they have done.
Dirt on the Sensor
One of the early problems identified by users of digital SLRs with interchangeable lenses was that the sensor could easily get dirty in the process of changing lenses. Unlike film cameras, where this issue went away with a film change, a dirty sensor will make all future photographs spotted with specks. This issue is particularly troublesome in digital cameras, because the sensor coatings are very delicate and the SLR needs to be returned to the manufacturer for cleaning dust from the sensor.
Most manufacturers have software tools to minimize this problem, mathematically "removing the spot and filling in with calculated pixels", but the first manufacturer to address it on the prevention end was Olympus with their wave filter. They provided a protective coating on the sensor and also used ultrasonic vibrations to clean the sensor on start-up to remove any dust that may have gotten through.
Sony also introduced a protective coating and start-up vibration feature to protect from and remove dust on their new 10.2 megapixel A100. Pentax and Samsung have apparently licensed the Sony system, as they have announced similar mechanisms on their new 10.2 Sony-sensor cameras. Even Canon, who denied for quite a while that there was a dust problem, is now providing the "EOS Integrated Cleaning System" on their new 10 megapixel Rebel XTi. The XTi uses special antistatic sensor coatings and an ultrasonic cleaner much like Olympus.
Auto White Balance
White Balance was not really discussed in this introductory guide, but digital cameras, unlike film, allow the user to set the color temperature or color balance of the sensor. With film you had to choose daylight (or flash), tungsten, Fluorescent, and other color balances when you selected film. In digital imaging you select the "color temperature" when you shoot. You can also leave the color temperature on Auto and let the camera choose - or be really fancy and measure color temperature (most SLRs have this capability) and set a Custom temperature.
Most users leave it on Auto, but we have yet to see a digital SLR that does a decent job with common indoor lamps and lights (tungsten) on the Auto setting. Almost all Auto settings seem to leave an orange cast in the images shot under indoor light. This can normally be corrected in images shot in RAW and some images shot as JPEG, but the easiest solution by far would be an Auto setting that really works. The best solution today is to move off the Auto White Balance setting to Tungsten (Indoor Light) when shooting indoors. Today's cameras do generally apply the correct temperature when the tungsten white balance is selected. Until this is fixed in the majority of Digital SLR cameras we plan to test the Auto setting under indoor lighting in our reviews.
Lens Confusion
This guide should help with confusion about lenses and lens factors, but the problem won't go away until camera and lens makers decide on a standard. Right now digital SLRs are still basically fed with 35mm lenses, even though the sensors are APS C and DX size and have a smaller image circle. It appeared for a while that the industry would settle on this APS C/DX size and eventually name lenses by their equivalent APS C/DX focal lengths once 35mm faded away. Now the outcome is less clear. Some now predict the SLR market will move to two tiers, with APS C/DX SLR cameras as mainstream and full-frame 35mm-size sensors at the Pro end. This certainly would maximize the existing 35mm lens line of the big camera manufacturers and still provide an upgrade path for advanced amateurs. This is the path that Canon appears to be following, but Nikon is still committed to the pro APS C/DX sensor size.
If you look closely at the new lenses Sony introduced you will see even more confusion. Sony does not make 35mm film SLR cameras, so there is no reason for them to introduce new lenses designed for 35mm just for the current Minolta film owners. Yet 2 of the 3 new Sony Carl Zeiss lenses are designed for a 35mm image circle. This leads observers to believe that Sony, one of the largest sensor manufacturers in the world, may be hedging their bets on a full-size 35mm sensor Sony SLR. It is also interesting that the major camera makers that have extensive lens lines seem to have slowed their introduction of lenses designed for APS C/DX sensor size. There is no crystal ball, but it will be interesting to see where the digital SLR industry goes in the near future.
The lens confusion and format confusion is likely to continue for a while, since none of the manufacturers except Olympus, with their all-new digital 4/3 system, have truly committed to a new sensor size. If Sony or Nikon introduce a new Pro full-size 35mm sensor in the near future, you can expect the industry to segment as Canon has now done with their 35mm sensor Pro EOS 1D Mark II and EOS 5D versus the rest of the Canon line whish uses an APS C sensor with a 1.6 lens factor.
Gaps in the Lens Lines
Perhaps because of the lens confusion, there are still gaping holes in the lens lines of the APS C/DX format digital SLR cameras. Due to the 1.5/1.6 lens factors the 35mm wide angles are pretty useless on a digital SLR. There is still a need for additional wide angle lenses that are wide angle on APS C/DX. The Sigma 10-20mm and Tamron 11-18mm help, but pickings form the majors are very slim. So are DT size lenses from the majors that address the need for fast fixed-focal-length wide-angles and fast normal lenses. Pentax recently introduced 21mm f3.2 and 40mm f2.8 pancake (flat) lenses for their digital line. Samsung recently announced they would introduce a 35mm F2.0 lens for their digital cameras. These three lenses will bring new options to digital photographers shooting with the Pentax KA mount.
Despite the huge leaps in digital technology in the past few years, there are still a few issues remaining. Most of the sensor makers and camera/lens manufacturers are working on these issues. You should keep them in mind when looking at digital SLRs, because they are the areas where development is needed.
Dynamic Range
Compared to film SLRs, digital SLRs still cannot match the dynamic range of film. Dynamic range is the difference between the brightest highlights and darkest shadow detail in an image. Most manufacturers are working very hard to provide improved dynamic range, but there is no consensus yet on what works or will work best to fix this problem. Solutions vary from the extra set of pixels designed just to capture highlight detail in the Fuji S3 PRO (for Nikon lenses), to the Bionz image processor in the new Sony A100 electronics, and the D-Lighting feature in the new Nikon D80 that can be used to improve shadow or highlight detail.
Most users are not really aware of this issue, and sensor and camera makers are not making a big deal about it unless they have a feature that improves this weakness. However, if you examine a high contrast image from film next to the digital image you will see highlights blowing out on the digital image and less shadow detail in the digital image. Digital has improved greatly in this area, and will no doubt continue to improve, but the dynamic range difference is still about 1.5 to 3 stops better with film than digital.
In shopping for a digital SLR you might pay attention to those that claim to address this issues and what they have done.
Dirt on the Sensor
One of the early problems identified by users of digital SLRs with interchangeable lenses was that the sensor could easily get dirty in the process of changing lenses. Unlike film cameras, where this issue went away with a film change, a dirty sensor will make all future photographs spotted with specks. This issue is particularly troublesome in digital cameras, because the sensor coatings are very delicate and the SLR needs to be returned to the manufacturer for cleaning dust from the sensor.
Most manufacturers have software tools to minimize this problem, mathematically "removing the spot and filling in with calculated pixels", but the first manufacturer to address it on the prevention end was Olympus with their wave filter. They provided a protective coating on the sensor and also used ultrasonic vibrations to clean the sensor on start-up to remove any dust that may have gotten through.
Sony also introduced a protective coating and start-up vibration feature to protect from and remove dust on their new 10.2 megapixel A100. Pentax and Samsung have apparently licensed the Sony system, as they have announced similar mechanisms on their new 10.2 Sony-sensor cameras. Even Canon, who denied for quite a while that there was a dust problem, is now providing the "EOS Integrated Cleaning System" on their new 10 megapixel Rebel XTi. The XTi uses special antistatic sensor coatings and an ultrasonic cleaner much like Olympus.
Auto White Balance
White Balance was not really discussed in this introductory guide, but digital cameras, unlike film, allow the user to set the color temperature or color balance of the sensor. With film you had to choose daylight (or flash), tungsten, Fluorescent, and other color balances when you selected film. In digital imaging you select the "color temperature" when you shoot. You can also leave the color temperature on Auto and let the camera choose - or be really fancy and measure color temperature (most SLRs have this capability) and set a Custom temperature.
Most users leave it on Auto, but we have yet to see a digital SLR that does a decent job with common indoor lamps and lights (tungsten) on the Auto setting. Almost all Auto settings seem to leave an orange cast in the images shot under indoor light. This can normally be corrected in images shot in RAW and some images shot as JPEG, but the easiest solution by far would be an Auto setting that really works. The best solution today is to move off the Auto White Balance setting to Tungsten (Indoor Light) when shooting indoors. Today's cameras do generally apply the correct temperature when the tungsten white balance is selected. Until this is fixed in the majority of Digital SLR cameras we plan to test the Auto setting under indoor lighting in our reviews.
Lens Confusion
This guide should help with confusion about lenses and lens factors, but the problem won't go away until camera and lens makers decide on a standard. Right now digital SLRs are still basically fed with 35mm lenses, even though the sensors are APS C and DX size and have a smaller image circle. It appeared for a while that the industry would settle on this APS C/DX size and eventually name lenses by their equivalent APS C/DX focal lengths once 35mm faded away. Now the outcome is less clear. Some now predict the SLR market will move to two tiers, with APS C/DX SLR cameras as mainstream and full-frame 35mm-size sensors at the Pro end. This certainly would maximize the existing 35mm lens line of the big camera manufacturers and still provide an upgrade path for advanced amateurs. This is the path that Canon appears to be following, but Nikon is still committed to the pro APS C/DX sensor size.
If you look closely at the new lenses Sony introduced you will see even more confusion. Sony does not make 35mm film SLR cameras, so there is no reason for them to introduce new lenses designed for 35mm just for the current Minolta film owners. Yet 2 of the 3 new Sony Carl Zeiss lenses are designed for a 35mm image circle. This leads observers to believe that Sony, one of the largest sensor manufacturers in the world, may be hedging their bets on a full-size 35mm sensor Sony SLR. It is also interesting that the major camera makers that have extensive lens lines seem to have slowed their introduction of lenses designed for APS C/DX sensor size. There is no crystal ball, but it will be interesting to see where the digital SLR industry goes in the near future.
The lens confusion and format confusion is likely to continue for a while, since none of the manufacturers except Olympus, with their all-new digital 4/3 system, have truly committed to a new sensor size. If Sony or Nikon introduce a new Pro full-size 35mm sensor in the near future, you can expect the industry to segment as Canon has now done with their 35mm sensor Pro EOS 1D Mark II and EOS 5D versus the rest of the Canon line whish uses an APS C sensor with a 1.6 lens factor.
Gaps in the Lens Lines
Perhaps because of the lens confusion, there are still gaping holes in the lens lines of the APS C/DX format digital SLR cameras. Due to the 1.5/1.6 lens factors the 35mm wide angles are pretty useless on a digital SLR. There is still a need for additional wide angle lenses that are wide angle on APS C/DX. The Sigma 10-20mm and Tamron 11-18mm help, but pickings form the majors are very slim. So are DT size lenses from the majors that address the need for fast fixed-focal-length wide-angles and fast normal lenses. Pentax recently introduced 21mm f3.2 and 40mm f2.8 pancake (flat) lenses for their digital line. Samsung recently announced they would introduce a 35mm F2.0 lens for their digital cameras. These three lenses will bring new options to digital photographers shooting with the Pentax KA mount.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
Sunrise089 - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Wesley - I feel that wgoldfarb makes one very good comment which I may have missed your answer to. He states that if you have decided to take a less technial approach to digital camera reviews compared to your other hardware reviews, and the other editors are suggesting even less technical detail than this article had (shame on you Anand, Derrick, etc, I read many articles by you guys that forced me to do outside research, and it made me a more informed user because of it) then why are you focusing on the higher-end digital camera segment, where the buyers will tend to be much more informed. The only reasons I can see are:1) This is the segment more personally interesting to you, so you're going to cover it
2) This is the segment where the most new products are appearing, so you will have the most to review
3) This is the segment that still opperates at high margins, so more samples will be sent to you to be reviewed and more inside information will be directed your way
4) You have decided to attract the same users who buy DellXPS and Alienware systems - users that have the $$$ to afford a high-end product, but lack the motivation to become an informed consumer, and will therefore buy whatever products they happen to be told to buy.
Options 1,2, and 3 will still attract a more informed consumer who desires technical detail, and by denying them that you are in effect offering reviews of one class of product written in a style for an entirely different class.
Option 4 has never been AT's approach, and furthermore, the "more money than brains" class probably won't seek out any product reviews anyways, prefering to simply buy the more expensive version of the camera their coworker has recently been showing off.
Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
There is a misunderstanding here. I did not mean a lower degree of technical expertise, I meant a different way of approaching digital camera reviews. Sites like dpreview do an excellent job at what they do, as many point out here. We hope to bring a different and a bit unique approach to these reviews, and not just try to emulate other sites.As for #3, I confess I have personally bought the stuff I will be reviewing so far, a Sony and a Nikon D80, so that kills that argument :) #4 doesn't even deserve comment, it is not my style or Anand's, though we are all too often ready to condemn mass market computers without truly looking first.
What some of you are forgetting here is there is a great void between sites that eat, breathe and live digital cameras and many of our readers who really want some solid info on digital cameras, but who find some of the super technical sites less than approachable. These readers want solid info to help them buy what they need, but they have not yet reached the level of photo knowledge where they are ready to argue "exposing to the right" makes digital photography different from film photography. It's a valid point, and I get what "exposing to the right" means from the link to Luminous Landscape, but I think it will be a while before that perspective is a major part of our Digital Camera reviews.
I have received a huge number of emails with very good suggestions for Digital Camera testing, and we do appreciate your comments. We can't do it all, but we are very interested in what you have to say.
As an aside Derek is busy with his wife in the hospital having their first baby and Anand is now in San Francisco covering IDF.
wgoldfarb - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
The issue I was referring to depends on the linear nature of digital sensors, and AFAIK is common to all digital cameras. A full discussion probably does not belong here, but let me try to briefly explain what I meant.
Digital camera sensors are linear devices, whereas we perceive light exponentially. This creates a mismatch between how sensors record an image and how we perceive it, to the point that about half of the perceivable tonal values in an image are recorded in the brightest f-stop of dynamic range of a camera (a typical camera may have about 5 f-stops of dynamic range). Thus, the ideal exposure for a digital sensor is one where the histogram is as far to the right as possible, yet without reaching the point of blown highlights.
I probably did a terrible job of explaining myself in a single paragraph, so a much better explanation http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose...">can be found here.
wgoldfarb - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I understand your problem of trying to meet everyone's needs. But I will try to continue to convince you to go more in the direction I'd like to see (can't blame me, can you? ;-)and
Points very well taken. Still, limiting your reviews to more "basic" skill levels may be a disservice even to those users with basic skills. Cameras chosen based on "basic" knowledge may serve readers well intially, but as they start to learn more (by reading your guides!) they may realize they made a wrong decision because they did not know enough. The problem is, these cameras are expensive, so it is not easy to upgrade them as your knowledge and skills improve. Ideally, you should choose a camera that can fit your current skills, but also those skills you will learn once you start experimenting with your new camera, as well as the many ways in which you might use the camera in the future. Before selecting components for a new rig people here usually determine how they will use their new build: will they overclock? is it for gaming? Same thing for a camera. If I know I will only use my camera in Auto mode for casual family events, I will probably choose a very different camera than if I think I may eventually try some more advanced settings or different types of photography. But if I don't know anything about those advanced modes I will be unable to make that decision.
An approach that may work is to use different instruments for different people. Readers who "know next to nothing" might benefit more from a number of "guides" to teach them the basics of what they need to know about digital cameras to make a better purchase decision, and to eventually benefit from more thorough reviews. These guides could also help them decide how they will use their camera in the future. Thus, you could have a number of introductory guides for newbies, allowing them to learn the jargon and the basics they need to understand your reviews and make a good purchase decision. If you add AT's outstanding community support, this should be enough for almost any level of knowledge. This is precisely how I started learning about computer hardware. I read lots of beginner's guides (like those to be found in many stickies in AT's forums) and made extensive visits to your forums until I knew enough to understand your reviews and decide what features were important for my needs. If people do that amount of research for GPUs costing $300, they will probably also do it for camera systems costing up to $1000.
Yet another approach that may work is to tailor the review to the camera's market. If you are reviewing an entry level SLR you may serve that camera's audience quite well with a more limited review. Yet, when you review cameras aimed at higher segments of the market, you may conduct more thorough reviews to benefit the more knowledgeable likely buyers of these cameras. Also, having this "advanced" content will allow your beginner users to learn more, and help them push their skills to the next level where they may stop relying on their camera's Auto setting so often.
Don't get me wrong, I do realize the problem you face. But I honestly believe you can add a lot more to the current mix of review sites by doing what you do best: reliable, thorough, in depth reviews.
Agreed. It is not only forgiven, it is even expected. But what is stopping you from also becoming known as a digital SLR review site? ;-) If you apply the same "business model", the same standards and techniques to SLRs that have made you so successful in computer hardware, I am confident you will enjoy the same level of success in the area of digital photography.
Belldandy - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I like your introduction to digital SLR's, well written and covers much of the basics. Others have commented that dpreview is the premier site for photography, which they are very good at, but 2nd or 3rd opinions are always a good thing. Even the pro's may miss out on some details. Detail wise, I believe readers of Anandtech who are interested in digital SLR reviews, will have fairly basic understanding of photographic basics. Certainly maybe not everyone will know the technical differences behind say lens based or sensor based image stabilization, or image quality and noise of different sensor size, sensor type, and say software processing at different ISO. But in depth highly technical reviews is what makes anandtech articles so intriguing and there is bound to be new stuff for all of us to learn.Personally I'm a photo enthusiast using a Fujifilm S3Pro & and Nikon F90x film SLR. It's a slow camera compared to other DSLRs, and perhaps my F90x. The power on time, shutter lag and focus times are all very good, (using my set of Sigma F2.8 zooms at least) however the buffer size for raw images and flush rate to compact flash is painfully slow. My point is most equipment have their strengths / weaknesses and many reviews fail to stress that it is a very good jpeg camera, with high image quality. Have to at least comment on what it was designed for, and whether it's suitable for each individual. Speed alone won't make for better images, and if I needed more speed, switching to jpeg or xD type H cards or lower to standard dynamic range, all provide additional speed for the situation. So perhaps reviews should give pointers on how to bring out the best in each camera.
In this area I totally agree with you on basing your reviews on the target group who will be interested in buying the said camera. Entry level DSLR cameras need to be tested from the basics up with both kit lens and reference for those moving up from point and shoot. Most of their targeted buyers are first time SLR users, some pro's may buy an entry level camera for backup use and rest of the family and some from film slr's. For more pro oriented bodies, more empahsis should be placed on image quality, noise, speed, and other technical details for the more advanced users.
I'd like to see tests of cameras using identical images at different ISO's that we can compare across cameras and Brands, using both reference lens and kit lens as well. Speed of both camera focusing, power on & shutter lag and image processing are important. Viewfinder image quality and built in + external flash operation are significant areas that seperates SLR & Point and shoot experience. Hopefully those can be touched upon for indoor and fill flash shots.
gohepcat - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Good stuff. I'd like to pass on some wisdom I learned a long time ago about photography and I like you to look into it a little more.10 years ago I was turned on to a photographer named Fred Picker. I was never really into his work, but his books and newsletter were outstanding. He was a crotchety old man, but he was a real straight shooter.
One of the things I remember him talking about were lenses. He basically said...forget about lenses. You blur your picture far more by handholding your camera than any small imperfection in your lenses. Also the act of the mirror slamming against the top of the camera causes shake that is larger than the resolution that the lens can provide.
I love the digital age, and don't fight it one bit, but I'm sad to see some of the qualities of film disappearing. You still can't really make a digital image as good as my $100 sixty year old Rolliflex with Tri-X pan (a 60 year old film)
Tonal range is HUGE, and I hope things improve in that area.
silver - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Excellent ! A good, solid primer capturing some of the basic developments, capabilities and challenges of digital imaging.I'd like to make a couple of points of course and given some of the previous commentary I'll provide a little background on myself. I used to have a photography studio and I'm still often asked to photograph portraits, weddings and such. I currently work for Really Big Computer Co. in a technical role and I still shoot film even though I have a Fuji FinePix S602 digi-cam.
First, if I were a pro again I'd be shooting digital in a heartbeat. It's cheap, fast and easy. The results are instantly gratifying and lead to increasd sales. Boy are there a lot of analogies there ! That said I'm not a pro and I only shoot digital as A) a replacement for Polaroids and B) for use in a digital realm such as website design.
Second, "Image stabilization was first introduced by Nikon and Canon in specialized zoom lenses. These zoom lenses were first designed for pros at pro prices". Wasn't it the longer high magnification lenses such as the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS which is extremely popular with sports photographers that first received stabilization ? And of course I realize that the majority of your readers would no more know the difference between a telephoto and prime lenses than they would between Jimmy Carter and Dubya.
Third, "Digital Challenges: What Needs to be Improved". I think you left out resolution ;>) Digital has certainly come a long way however the actual image resolution still pales when compared to any good film/camera combination.
Fourth, unfortunately you didn't directly mention the other formats of film. When it comes down to it most pro's never bothered with 35mm as it faced the same constraints as does digital which is to say that there is a limit to the amount of visual information that can be acquired per each square millimeter of light sensitive medium. That's why most of us "old timers" used cameras like the RB67 which has a film area that is several times larger than 35mm's dinky 24X36 window. 35mm was deemed adequate for low end weddings, sports, stock and wildlife photography but it was widely recognized that the limitations in image quality was difficult to overcome. Only a few photographers such as Sebastio Selgado, W.E. Smith and H. Cartier-Bresson chose the 35mm format while those that wanted the better tonal scale used medium format cameras such as the Hasselblad's, Mamiya's, Pentax, etc. or even larger cameras such as the 4X5's, 5X7's (still my favorite), the 8X10's and even larger cameras.
I would hope that you touch on the issues of image modification, output ("printing") methods and archival storage. When faced by the "technoratti" I like to paraphrase Lance Armstong and say "It's not about the camera" so in turn I hope that your scope goes well beyond the capturing equipment. In particular image stability which is one of the most poorly illustrated facets of digital imaging, and image archiving which is a huge concern given the extremely limited lifespan of digital files and formats.
Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Thanks for your comments. The best information I could find indicates you are correct that the first image stabilized lenses were designed for the long fast primes. It really doesn't matter for our discussion in the article, but in the interest of historical accuracy I have updated the two sentences on p. 10. They now read "Image stabilization was first introduced by Nikon and Canon in specialized lenses designed for action photography. These lenses were first designed for pros at pro prices, but image stabilization quickly found its way to consumer zoom lenses."As for medium and large format film, I confess I also shot 120/220 when I was selling my images. Things have improved a great deal, but the larger negative still has advantages. I did list these formats in some of the photo charts, but I felt it would just lengthen the article if I spent any time on the large foramts. It is something those shopping for a digital SLR would not likely care much about, although the digital backs for the medium format cameras are incredibly interesting.
We will definitley consider your suggestions as we move forward in Digital Camera reviews.
silver - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
LOL ! I spoke with Fred on several occassions. The last time was immediately prior to him selling Zone VI to Calumet when I bought one of his last cherry wood 4X5's. You had to take Fred with a big grain of salt. He was a shrewd businessman and realized that most photographers wanted "straight talk" instead of scientific facts.I agree about the digital revolution. It's certainly an exciting time. I subscribe to the alt-photo list (http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/)">http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/) where many photographers are combining the capabilities of platinum printing with digital negatives created using inkjet printers. It's all about the image and permenance.
Still, I'll keep shooting film for as long as possible. No hard drive crash is going to ever take out my files again and I can always scan negatives which don't take a computer to look at or batteries to run. Hmmm, kinda like that Rollei of yours !
Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Storing images on a DVD certainly appears more "crash-proof". I don't recall seeing archive times for DVDs, but I do know know corporations who store GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) records on optical, and those must have a minimum 100-year storage life.