Archive Natural History.

[geogphotos]

Is there any point in copying old film images of Natural History for Archive when more modern digital equivalents exist?

[DDoug]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Is there any point in copying old film images of Natural History for Archive when more modern digital equivalents exist?

I was in a Facebook conversation with a friend in Kerala who was my guide there years ago. I mentioned some photos I'd taken of a sort of procession in a village on Vembanad Lake but hadn't uploaded as archival since the village and people still exist. He said the society, infrastructure and many other aspects had changed a lot since then so the same photos couldn't be duplicated on digital today. To me, that's the test as to whether it qualifies as archival. So now, part of my Covid-19 activity is digitizing old slides (that and venturing as far as the back yard to shoot bugs and flowers).

 

Is that the question you were asking?

Edited June 21, 2020 by DDoug
spelling

[Mr Standfast]

As a straight forward record shot, maybe not. If there is a vintage aspect to the colour or some other differentiating factor which broadens the appeal, it could have a chance.

 

Stay safe!

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, DDoug said:

I was in a Facebook conversation with a friend in Kerala who was my guide there years ago. I mentioned some photos I'd taken of a sort of procession in a village on Vembanad Lake but hadn't uploaded as archival since the village and people still exist. He said the society, infrastructure and many other aspects had changed a lot since then so the same photos couldn't be duplicated on digital today. To me, that's the test as to whether it qualifies as archival. So now, part of my Covid-19 activity is digitizing old slides (that and venturing as far as the back yard to shoot bugs and flowers).

 

Is that the question you were asking?

 

 

Thanks. I was thinking more about subjects that haven't changed but are on film that probably wouldn't pass QC these days because they have dust marks and spots - images of flowers, caterpillars, birds, mammals etc

 

Are these 'straightforward' sort of shots on film essentially redundant as stock unless as Mr Standfast says there is some differentiating factor which make the shot exceptional/unusual/rare.

 

I suppose that the answer must be 'Yes'

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by geogphotos

[Allan Bell]

 

In these days of fast disappearing wildlife it would be prudent to check to see if you have anything depicting lost wildlife lines however small.

 

Allan

 

[geogphotos]

8 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

In these days of fast disappearing wildlife it would be prudent to check to see if you have anything depicting lost wildlife lines however small.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Good point Allan. Thanks

[spacecadet]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Thanks. I was thinking more about subjects that haven't changed but are on film that probably wouldn't pass QC these days because they have dust marks and spots - images of flowers, caterpillars, birds, mammals etc

 

Are these 'straightforward' sort of shots on film essentially redundant as stock unless as Mr Standfast says there is some differentiating factor which make the shot exceptional/unusual/rare.

 

I suppose that the answer must be 'Yes'

 

Er, yes, it is "yes" for me. In my book archive must be that, not just old. A building if it's no longer there or greatly changed, a landscape maybe if there's now a cement works spoiling it.

I don't think you've yet put up a single image that doesn't qualify.

[geogphotos]

24 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Er, yes, it is "yes" for me. In my book archive must be that, not just old. A building if it's no longer there or greatly changed, a landscape maybe if there's now a cement works spoiling it.

I don't think you've yet put up a single image that doesn't qualify.

 

 

On second thoughts some of the ones of the Arabian desert from a helicopter might be questioned but having pics from a helicopter isn't something that I often have. 😊

 

And I also think, rightly or wrongly, that having established that the pictures are part of a person's worthwhile photography archive that a little bit of leeway is allowable. 

[spacecadet]

30 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

On second thoughts some of the ones of the Arabian desert from a helicopter might be questioned but having pics from a helicopter isn't something that I often have. 😊

 

And I also think, rightly or wrongly, that having established that the pictures are part of a person's worthwhile photography archive that a little bit of leeway is allowable. 

IIRC they're quite historical as well, being from the start of the oil business in the Gulf.

As to that, I was thinking of my own indistinguished images. I agree with you that they're part of the deal. The mere fact that you're asking the question means you're hardly likely to spam the archival "section".

Edited June 21, 2020 by spacecadet

[DDoug]

8 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

 If there is a vintage aspect to the colour or some other differentiating factor which broadens the appeal, it could have a chance.

I look at digital images which are sharper than what I used to produce but have all the color richness of television. So I pump the saturation, etc., and it looks like pumped saturation. So I run it by Silkypix film tastes and that's better but I still come back to the [apparent] fact than when it comes to color richness, nothing beats chemistry. Not like I'm going back, just sayin'.

[geogphotos]

On 21/06/2020 at 16:43, DDoug said:

I look at digital images which are sharper than what I used to produce but have all the color richness of television. So I pump the saturation, etc., and it looks like pumped saturation. So I run it by Silkypix film tastes and that's better but I still come back to the [apparent] fact than when it comes to color richness, nothing beats chemistry. Not like I'm going back, just sayin'.

 

 

Doug I know what you mean about the colours in film. For too many years I had lost my appreciation of this. 

[geogphotos]

If anybody is interested there is a large collection of est. 10,000 35mm slides about to be sold on Ebay in the next two hours or so. From enquiries I know that the seller inherited these and is willing to sign a copyright transfer. The vast majority are thought to be nature/wildlife with a smaller amount of social history/ general stuff. They cover 1960s-1990s. 

 

I have decided against buying this as there will be too much that I just don't know about and I don't want to get bogged down in identifying all those plants, insects etc. ( just wouldn't be fair on the forum 😊) I also have no idea of the stock value of this sort of collection but am aware of what a competitive area of photography wildlife is. Wildlife doesn't change does it?

 

I did consider buying them to sell-on in batches with copyright but it is just not really me. 

 

I'm sure that you will find it if you look on Ebay. It's only at around £35 at the moment but there will be some least minute action I expect. If I had wanted it I would probably have bid £200 or so, perhaps more to make sure of winning, in the last 15 seconds. 

Edited June 27, 2020 by geogphotos

[John Morrison]

5 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I would probably have bid £200 or so, perhaps more to make sure of winning, in the last 15 seconds or so. 

 

For eBay bidding I use eSnipe. Just enter how much you're prepared to pay, and let eSnipe enter your bid, automatically, a couple of seconds before the auction ends. It saves any chance of a bidding war... and it's handy when auctions end in the middle of the night.

[geogphotos]

10 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

 

For eBay bidding I use eSnipe. Just enter how much you're prepared to pay, and let eSnipe enter your bid, automatically, a couple of seconds before the auction ends. It saves any chance of a bidding war... and it's handy when auctions end in the middle of the night.

 

Thanks for the tip.

 

This lot will need collecting from Petersfield, Hants. I have absolutely no connection with the seller and no self-interest in this. 

 

However, it does seem a shame to have a collection like this broken up, muddled up and flogged to death - which is most likely what will happen if bought by a dealer.

 

The pics are actually from two photographers. One who passed her collection to the other. She sounds like a really fascinating old Sussex character ( Labour Party member too!). He was involved in the local camera club and I see that they have an annual award for nature photography in his name. 

 

But can these compete with digital photos when the whole genre is so overcrowded?

 

It would be a labour of love and it just isn't my field ( ho ho).

Edited June 27, 2020 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

If anybody wants to know the names of the two photographers to do their own research then feel free to email.

 

www.geographyphotos.com

[geogphotos]

It went for £184 - jumped from around £37 in the last few seconds.

 

I have a sense of relief that I decided not to bid. 

[spacecadet]

2 hours ago, John Morrison said:

 

For eBay bidding I use eSnipe. Just enter how much you're prepared to pay, and let eSnipe enter your bid, automatically, a couple of seconds before the auction ends. It saves any chance of a bidding war... and it's handy when auctions end in the middle of the night.

That one was sniped two seconds out....nerves of steel, went to £184. Geog might have got them with his £200.

[geogphotos]

It's back on sale, currently £0.99

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/114292621798?ul_noapp=true

 

Ends 17 July

Edited July 7, 2020 by geogphotos