Photo Lab Muggles

[+Renegade Knight]

...The article talked about local law enforcement and even the FBI has told large photo labs if they see photo's of anything they deem suspicious to send them copies and notify them right away. ...

 

You can pay your legal fees fending off the Deparment of Homland Security by suing the Photolab for copyright infringment.

[+Renegade Knight]

... no one in GITMO is there for geocaching...so, no your point doesn't really stand to reason.

 

If you are hauled in by the DHS and they confsicate your equipment, you would be hard pressed to get it back. At least one cacher in the fourms was in the right place at the wrong time and caught the wrong attetnion. The last I heard a year had gone by while they tried to get ther laptop and other gear back.

 

If I follow the practice of many chinese and have mattress money and get caught with a bunch of it in my car and can't give them a better explanation than "It's mattress money" I can lose it, never to be seen again.

 

There are a lot of stupid laws and stupid things done to perfectly good people in the name of Homland Security and the War on Drugs.

 

Nobody needs the attention even if they are in no risk of going to jail.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think the crux of the issue the OP posted has been nailed on the head by briansnat. People have a right to report suspect pictures when processing photos....

 

Within limits. I agree. The Photo Lab folks in this thread seem to have the right idea about those limits.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Go digital and home printing.

 

What a relief to be unschackled from the photo labs.

 

Home printing basically sucks when compared to photofinisher's printing. I am referring to ink jet primarily.

 

I suppose if you wanted to spend the money on a special printer it would be different, but how many prints would you have to do to come out ahead economically with a major investment in the hardware and supplies?

 

Even if it comes out to 29C / print, you would no doubt have to print several hundred to "break even."

 

Would you rather live in a police state where you are always safe?

Where would that "safe" police state be? I think the famous quote said "...deserve neither", I would add "you will GET neither."

 

I'll chime in from a cop's perspective:

If a photo lab provided me with a photo showing you holding a bloody knife and a severed head, you would not get "cuffed & stuffed". Arresting someone requires that I have probable cause that you committed a crime. You, holding an ammo can out in the woods does not equal probable cause. If I was handed a suspicious photo, (assuming I had some way of finding you), I would introduce myself, explain my purpose in speaking with you, and ask, "Wazzup?".

 

If you told me to go pound sand, I would leave, unless the photo was suspicious enough for me to obtain a warrant.

I think the real issue here is that people have much less trust of the police than in times past. This mistrust has been learned from press reports and experiences such as the HRS finding "abuse" in every case they "investigate", grandmothers getting shot dead by cops executing "no-knock warrants" (code word for "break-ins"), lacrosse teams being persecuted (sic) for rapes they didn't commit, black suspects being beaten in front of video cameras, and a whole host of other recent (hopefully rare) and unfortunate events. Even a black cop I was talking to recently said he fears being charged with "driving while black" when he is off duty.

 

Personally i believe it is better NOT to be investigated for innocent things because you never know what little thing they are going to pick up on and hound you to death. Fer-instance, when the HRS person says, "spanking is not child abuse" and then puts on the report "child abuse indicated because parent admitted spanking the child."

 

Many of the people who "investigate" things are BUREAUCRATS, not cops. I agree with you that a decent cop will not over step his bounds and will use good common sense in his investigation. I will not give bureaucrats the benefit of that doubt. Many of them are more than willing to "pad their statistics" (which means finding YOU guilty of something) in order to insure their continued funding.

 

And I am a former LEO and have always been active and involved in maintaining the public peace.

[+Sileny Jizda]

I agree ink jet printers are far from quality when it comes to prints. The dye-subs I've seen thus far are limited to 4x6 and run between $99-$150 a printer. Far cheaper than bail money. lol

 

[+sbell111]

I agree ink jet printers are far from quality when it comes to prints. The dye-subs I've seen thus far are limited to 4x6 and run between $99-$150 a printer. Far cheaper than bail money. lol

 

I agree with what you are saying, but for most uses, a good ink jet is 'good enough'. I use a Canon Pixma iP6600D and am very happy with it. I only go to the photo lab if I want something blown up larger than my printer can handle.

[+Knight2000]

I didnt know my photos were ever examined when being developed. How upsetting. I understand people turning in things when they see something strange, but not when they look for something strange. It seems like a police state if they are examining everyones pictures and private lives.

 

Im glad i dont use photo shops anymore.

[+egami]

... no one in GITMO is there for geocaching...so, no your point doesn't really stand to reason.

 

If you are hauled in by the DHS and they confsicate your equipment, you would be hard pressed to get it back. At least one cacher in the fourms was in the right place at the wrong time and caught the wrong attetnion. The last I heard a year had gone by while they tried to get ther laptop and other gear back.

 

If I follow the practice of many chinese and have mattress money and get caught with a bunch of it in my car and can't give them a better explanation than "It's mattress money" I can lose it, never to be seen again.

 

There are a lot of stupid laws and stupid things done to perfectly good people in the name of Homland Security and the War on Drugs.

 

Nobody needs the attention even if they are in no risk of going to jail.

 

By and large, this is not the norm...we both know this. The GITMO comments, and others, were a ridiculous stretch.

Edited May 11, 2007 by egami

[+egami]

...I think the crux of the issue the OP posted has been nailed on the head by briansnat. People have a right to report suspect pictures when processing photos....

 

Within limits. I agree. The Photo Lab folks in this thread seem to have the right idea about those limits.

 

Within what limits? There is nothing constitutionally that hinders anyone from reporting suspicious activity.

 

Granted, I prefer the photo lab mentality of those that posted in this thread, but at the end of the day...the photo lab person reported by the OP does have a right to make a report. She might get laughed at, and I hope she does, but she can do it.

 

I think the bigger picture most people are missing is that these sparingly few incidents where people get things confiscated, or people get stuffed and cuffed, are the vast minority of incidents out of all which ever get reported.

Edited May 11, 2007 by egami

[+sbell111]

It's OK that bad things happen as long as they are not likely to happen to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Clan Riffster]

Many of the people who "investigate" things are BUREAUCRATS, not cops.

Agreed. I'm probably not in a good position to judge, since I can't present an unbiased opinion toward HRS, AKA: Health & Rehabilitation Services. Following a (somewhat) recent senseless death of a child, the bureaucrats in Florida decided HRS needed a complete makeover. In actuality, all they accomplished was a name change. From HRS to DCF, Department of Children & Families. The same degree of incompetence still exists.

 

My county decided this was intolerable, and took over all DCF investigative functions, staffing those positions with Sheriff's Office personnel, which seemed to put the "common" back in common sense.

 

Back on topic: A photo shop clerk discussing photo content with a customer in unprofessional, and should be dealt with harshly.

[+egami]

Back on topic: A photo shop clerk discussing photo content with a customer in unprofessional, and should be dealt with harshly.

 

Exactly, to me that is the bigger issue here. I wouldn't hesitate to push that issue as far as I had to. If owned a store and one of my employees did that we'd be having a discussion that consisted of letting them know that the next comments like that I hear from a customer will be the last.

[+Too Tall John]

Back on topic: A photo shop clerk discussing photo content with a customer in unprofessional, and should be dealt with harshly.

Exactly, to me that is the bigger issue here. I wouldn't hesitate to push that issue as far as I had to. If owned a store and one of my employees did that we'd be having a discussion that consisted of letting them know that the next comments like that I hear from a customer will be the last.

I'd probably have given them heck for mixing the pics around, too. Reviewing the pics for content can be done at the printer workstation, perhaps a quick "flip-through" once the prints are coming down the sorter to assure color, but if the prints are all out of order, they had 'em spread out & passed around. Frankly, privacy issue aside, they've got better things to do than be gawking at someone's roll of film & getting their fingerprints all over them. Those machines require daily, weekly and monthly maintenance cycles, there's always something that needs fiddling with.

"Time to lean, time to clean!"

If I was still in the lab & found out this happened at one of my company's stores, I've likely been on the phone with my District Manager. After all, a bad rep cuts into the lab's profits, which cut into my bonus check... ... and still cuts into my stocks in the company! :o

Edited May 11, 2007 by Too Tall John

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think the crux of the issue the OP posted has been nailed on the head by briansnat. People have a right to report suspect pictures when processing photos....

 

Within limits. I agree. The Photo Lab folks in this thread seem to have the right idea about those limits.

 

Within what limits? ...

 

Reasonable limits are not so easy to define. But there is no reason to report ever nit picky thing that could concievely be stretched into some suspicious activity. In other words no big brother society. It's one thing to report blatantly obviouse kiddie porn, or a picture of a hostage that is being beheaded. These are clear cut cases that should be reported. But if you see someone who is feeding their kids a vegan meal...there really is not reason to report them for child abuse for potentialy starving their child.

[+Renegade Knight]

Back on topic: A photo shop clerk discussing photo content with a customer in unprofessional, and should be dealt with harshly.

 

Exactly, to me that is the bigger issue here. I wouldn't hesitate to push that issue as far as I had to. If owned a store and one of my employees did that we'd be having a discussion that consisted of letting them know that the next comments like that I hear from a customer will be the last.

 

That's one of those reasonable limits.

[+Renegade Knight]

...By and large, this is not the norm...we both know this. The GITMO comments, and others, were a ridiculous stretch.

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that. When I recently bought my house I had to "reasonably justify" the source of my down payment. They specificaly said that "Matress Money" was not something they wanted to hear about.

 

Also since geocachers are regularly approached by police (with mostly harmless results) you will note that when it's Secret Service and Homeland Security types the results are not so harmless. Haul them in, confescate the equipment, then ask questions.

[+egami]

Back on topic: A photo shop clerk discussing photo content with a customer in unprofessional, and should be dealt with harshly.

 

Exactly, to me that is the bigger issue here. I wouldn't hesitate to push that issue as far as I had to. If owned a store and one of my employees did that we'd be having a discussion that consisted of letting them know that the next comments like that I hear from a customer will be the last.

 

That's one of those reasonable limits.

 

While I agree with you from a techincal standpoint however legally those limits are not in place it what I meant. I suppose, if someone was irritating enough, they could eventually get nailed for false reports. My point was simply that in the case someone seriously is concerned about an issue they do indeed have that right...that's all.

Edited May 11, 2007 by egami

[+egami]

...By and large, this is not the norm...we both know this. The GITMO comments, and others, were a ridiculous stretch.

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that. When I recently bought my house I had to "reasonably justify" the source of my down payment. They specificaly said that "Matress Money" was not something they wanted to hear about.

 

Also since geocachers are regularly approached by police (with mostly harmless results) you will note that when it's Secret Service and Homeland Security types the results are not so harmless. Haul them in, confescate the equipment, then ask questions.

 

Now come on...let's be real. GITMO comments are a stretch.

 

Regarding Secret Service and Homeland Security types...I don't agree. My college roommate works for the FBI and will occassionally get called in on bomb reports. Some of which have been geocaches. He works in part with Homeland Security and he and his colleagues are well-aware of geocaching.

 

Again, the point is, these types of incidents are few and far between. In fact, they are virtually non-existant. I've heard ONE story on this board of someone getting stuff confiscated and being treated supposedly unfairly. It simply is not that common.

Edited May 11, 2007 by egami

[+Too Tall John]

Hrm...

 

As far as overzealous reports to government agencies goes, here's what happened to someone I know...

 

This guy (we'll call him Drew) is at the drive through at Mickey D's & is asked if they can do anything else for him. Drew's a wisemouth and a Democrat. He says "Yeah, kill the president for me." He gets his order and goes home.

That evening, there's a knock on his door. Secret Service guy says "Are you Drew S. Martmouth? We've got some questions we need to ask you. Please come with us." The guy at the drive through called the police after Drew's "request," gave them his car's plate #'s...

 

[+Renegade Knight]

...Now come on...let's be real. GITMO comments are a stretch.

 

Regarding Secret Service and Homeland Security types...I don't agree. My college roommate works for the FBI and will occassionally get called in on bomb reports. Some of which have been geocaches. He works in part with Homeland Security and he and his colleagues are well-aware of geocaching.

 

Again, the point is, these types of incidents are few and far between. In fact, they are virtually non-existant. I've heard ONE story on this board of someone getting stuff confiscated and being treated supposedly unfairly. It simply is not that common.

 

How did you get sidetracked on bomb squad type responses? I'm covering more of the heavy hand of the law angle and how big brother is getting bigger.

 

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/...=113003,00.html

 

While your world may not bump into these things. Mine has. I was questioned about the source of my down payment. I have been questioned about the source of my deposits. For me it's just been the bank. For others a bit more.

 

You could attack the source on the first artile, I just did a quick google but there are thousands more sources to replace it. The second, is big brother directly.

 

It's not good enough that "it's rare". It should be "This never happens here at all"

Edited May 11, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+egami]

How did you get sidetracked on bomb squad type responses? I'm covering more of the heavy hand of the law angle and how big brother is getting bigger.

 

Well, let me think here, what would be the most likely report from a lab photo processor to the LEO's if she saw a picture of people smiling holding pipe bomb looking devices?

 

While your world may not bump into these things. Mine has. I was questioned about the source of my down payment. I have been questioned about the source of my deposits. For me it's just been the bank. For others a bit more.

 

You could attack the source on the first artile, I just did a quick google but there are thousands more sources to replace it. The second, is big brother directly.

 

It's not good enough that "it's rare". It should be "This never happens here at all"

 

It's going to happen...that's part of life. People are suspicious and some so to the point of reporting suspicious behavior. There is no getting around it.

 

Again, I'll re-iterate, the GITMO comments were ridiculous. Extreme instances are rare in geocaching and neither of those examples are of geocaching. If you, and others, want to avoid taking photos in to get developed then that's your perogative. It's also the perogative of certain lab processors to report what they deem to be suspicious activity...it will always be this way.

 

I am not going to get into a debate over your views of Homeland Security or your personal experiences. You're welcome to your opinions, but at the end of the day the GITMO comment and other paranoid-like comments are largely blown out of proportion...these incidents aren't at all common, even if you include non-geocaching instances.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I am not going to get into a debate ...

 

You really can't debate someone if you are not building up from common ground. I'm not sure you read everthing posted that you choose to comment on. I also don't see that you understand enough of what you do commet on to make your own points stand out all the better. Ironic is that on the point you keep hammering on, we pretty much agree. Or did you miss that?

Edited May 11, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+egami]

You really can't debate someone if you are not building up from common ground. I'm not sure you read everthing posted that you choose to comment on. I also don't see that you understand enough of what you do commet on to make your own points stand out all the better. Ironic is that on the point you keep hammering on, we pretty much agree. Or did you miss that?

 

Then there really isn't a need for an ad hominem attack is there?

[+Confucius' Cat]

... no one in GITMO is there for geocaching...so, no your point doesn't really stand to reason.

 

If you are hauled in by the DHS and they confsicate your equipment, you would be hard pressed to get it back. At least one cacher in the fourms was in the right place at the wrong time and caught the wrong attetnion. The last I heard a year had gone by while they tried to get ther laptop and other gear back.

 

If I follow the practice of many chinese and have mattress money and get caught with a bunch of it in my car and can't give them a better explanation than "It's mattress money" I can lose it, never to be seen again.

 

There are a lot of stupid laws and stupid things done to perfectly good people in the name of Homland Security and the War on Drugs.

 

Nobody needs the attention even if they are in no risk of going to jail.

 

By and large, this is not the norm...we both know this. The GITMO comments, and others, were a ridiculous stretch.

By and large, if it happens once and the victim is you, it has happened too often.

 

How did you get sidetracked on bomb squad type responses? I'm covering more of the heavy hand of the law angle and how big brother is getting bigger.

 

Well, let me think here, what would be the most likely report from a lab photo processor to the LEO's if she saw a picture of people smiling holding pipe bomb looking devices?

 

While your world may not bump into these things. Mine has. I was questioned about the source of my down payment. I have been questioned about the source of my deposits. For me it's just been the bank. For others a bit more.

 

You could attack the source on the first artile, I just did a quick google but there are thousands more sources to replace it. The second, is big brother directly.

 

It's not good enough that "it's rare". It should be "This never happens here at all"

 

It's going to happen...that's part of life. People are suspicious and some so to the point of reporting suspicious behavior. There is no getting around it.

 

Again, I'll re-iterate, the GITMO comments were ridiculous. Extreme instances are rare in geocaching and neither of those examples are of geocaching. If you, and others, want to avoid taking photos in to get developed then that's your perogative. It's also the perogative of certain lab processors to report what they deem to be suspicious activity...it will always be this way.

 

I am not going to get into a debate over your views of Homeland Security or your personal experiences. You're welcome to your opinions, but at the end of the day the GITMO comment and other paranoid-like comments are largely blown out of proportion...these incidents aren't at all common, even if you include non-geocaching instances.

I think you miss the bigger point:

It is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. (full stop!)

 

The big issue here is the growing trend, partly egged on by the "homeland security turn in your neighbour" advice from BB, for people to be busy bodies.

 

it is one thing to report truly suspicious behaviour, but many today are using the "homeland security" thing to justify their nosy nanny busy bodyness.

 

I don't know about your experiences, but I don't find any shortage of busy bodies around here.

 

Just remember a little of the "KGB" lore of yesterday... the Secret Police could be anyone and the government would encourage neighbours to report every little thing. So the common people, not knowing who might hear, became real secretive and the government could get away with whatever they wanted.

 

OBTW I just tooted. I'm sure someone will want to report that.

[+niffir]

I didnt know my photos were ever examined when being developed. How upsetting. I understand people turning in things when they see something strange, but not when they look for something strange. It seems like a police state if they are examining everyones pictures and private lives.

 

Im glad i dont use photo shops anymore.

 

Well sure they are examined. That's how the lab knows they have the color balance correct and all that. My husband worked for several years at a couple different photo labs. I think he may have had to report photos *once* in all that time-- and if so, it was for kiddy porn sorts of things, I believe. He did tell me about some very strange photos that they would get sometimes. And once (back in our early days of caching), he developed a roll of film someone took while out caching. That was kind of cool. He recognized the photos for what they were and ended up chatting with the guy about them.

[+Renegade Knight]

You really can't debate someone if you are not building up from common ground. I'm not sure you read everthing posted that you choose to comment on. I also don't see that you understand enough of what you do commet on to make your own points stand out all the better. Ironic is that on the point you keep hammering on, we pretty much agree. Or did you miss that?

 

Then there really isn't a need for an ad hominem attack is there?

 

Simple advice. Take it and be more effective or leave it and don't be.

[+Team GeoBlast]

If you aren't doing something illegal, who's going to prosecute?

Prosecution is not what I'm worried about...

Aside from the fact that in your earlier posts you seemed to be worried about the bills associated with being prosecuted...

However, the point still stands. Would the bills and fallout be any different because of the semantics?

... I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post. I think a better route to a solution lies along the path of encouraging good hiding/seeking practices rather than following the route of worrying about overzealous photo jocks, though.

What does this thread have to do with 'good hiding/seeking practices'?

 

It demonstrates that a photograph is sometimes worth a 1000 words... words which can sometimes be misleading. For instance photos of good hiding practices. These photos would be very hard to understand (and possibly be reported) if by a muggle that had no explanation to go with them. Also, digital cameras are a great way to document good hiding practices and have a few big advantages over film.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Also, digital cameras are a great way to document good hiding practices and have a few big advantages over film.

Although I thoroughly enjoy my digital camera and agree that it has many advantages, not the least of which are simplified online posting, editing, privacy and unlimited photos without spending extra money on film and processing, they do have one SERIOUS disadvantage if one's goal is permanent documentation:

 

Unless you print the photos, there is no way to store them permanently... let me explain.

 

The technology of digital storage is constantly changing. presently we have the choice of floppies, USB drives, hard drives, CDR, DVDR, various solid state memory "sticks" (quotes to denote I am not referring to Sony's trademark) and perhaps a few other media I have not listed.

 

My concern is, for what period of unforeseeable future will we be able to easily (or at all) read these devices?

 

Ferinstance, if you had any data on 5-1/4" floppy disks, the likelihood is even now that you cannot recover that data. 3-1/2" floppies are almost obsolete and i predict the CD , DVD and all devices using mechanical spinning disks will only be commonly available for just a few more years as solid state memory becomes cheaper, faster, and higher capacity.

 

Relatives and heirs looking to view family mementos in say, 2155, will probably need to hire some kind of ancient "electronics" archaeologist. Most people will not even know the words "computer" or "electronics" except from their kindergarten ancient history professor's comments.

 

OTOH if the pictures are PRINTED, assuming the ink dyes do not fade into oblivion and the paper doesn't crumble, one will only need their natural eyesight (which I assume will still exist) to "read" the pictures.

 

I am not quite ready to throw the photo finishers under the bus- even if they do get a look.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Confucius' Cat

[+Knight2000]

I didnt know my photos were ever examined when being developed. How upsetting. I understand people turning in things when they see something strange, but not when they look for something strange. It seems like a police state if they are examining everyones pictures and private lives.

 

Im glad i dont use photo shops anymore.

 

Well sure they are examined. That's how the lab knows they have the color balance correct and all that. My husband worked for several years at a couple different photo labs. I think he may have had to report photos *once* in all that time-- and if so, it was for kiddy porn sorts of things, I believe. He did tell me about some very strange photos that they would get sometimes. And once (back in our early days of caching), he developed a roll of film someone took while out caching. That was kind of cool. He recognized the photos for what they were and ended up chatting with the guy about them.

I can see periodically checking them, but not examining every photograph. Thats all i meant.

[Suscrofa]

Data migration from old to new storage technology is a real pain and big business ! Think about banks records for example ! (100 years in Switzerland, !!)

 

Best is not to wait to migrate. Keep in mind data density is increasing a lot so no big deal for the storage BUT the real pain is in the organization.

From the start organize your data, eg photos, by topic, date and now GPS coordinates !

 

As for solid state device to make mechanical one obsolete, this has been discussed in the last twenty years and yet the "hard" drives are still there !

 

OK, got to leave, have a pile of slides to scan.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Also, digital cameras are a great way to document good hiding practices and have a few big advantages over film.

Although I thoroughly enjoy my digital camera and agree that it has many advantages, not the least of which are simplified online posting, editing, privacy and unlimited photos without spending extra money on film and processing, they do have one SERIOUS disadvantage if one's goal is permanent documentation:

 

Unless you print the photos, there is no way to store them permanently... let me explain.

 

The technology of digital storage is constantly changing. presently we have the choice of floppies, USB drives, hard drives, CDR, DVDR, various solid state memory "sticks" (quotes to denote I am not referring to Sony's trademark) and perhaps a few other media I have not listed.

 

My concern is, for what period of unforeseeable future will we be able to easily (or at all) read these devices?

 

Ferinstance, if you had any data on 5-1/4" floppy disks, the likelihood is even now that you cannot recover that data. 3-1/2" floppies are almost obsolete and i predict the CD , DVD and all devices using mechanical spinning disks will only be commonly available for just a few more years as solid state memory becomes cheaper, faster, and higher capacity.

 

Relatives and heirs looking to view family mementos in say, 2155, will probably need to hire some kind of ancient "electronics" archaeologist. Most people will not even know the words "computer" or "electronics" except from their kindergarten ancient history professor's comments.

 

OTOH if the pictures are PRINTED, assuming the ink dyes do not fade into oblivion and the paper doesn't crumble, one will only need their natural eyesight (which I assume will still exist) to "read" the pictures.

 

I am not quite ready to throw the photo finishers under the bus- even if they do get a look.

Dude, have I got you trumped when it comes to reliable data storage! I decided in 1983 to commit to using 8 inch floppy disks forever for storing and archiving all my data for the rest of my life, and it turns out in hindsight to have been a wonderful choice, although I did upgrade all of them to double-sided, double-density (DSDD) formatting technology in the late 1980s to allow me to store a full 0.5 MB on each disk! I take very good care of my 8 inch floppy disks, including polishing the disk surface once a week with high quality surfboard wax and running the disks under a magnet once a week to remove any harmful magnetic dust (largely magnetite dust from meteorites which strike our atmosphere.) Better, the DSDD disks each store a massive 500 kilobytes, which is 0.5 MB, so they are very efficient when it comes to space usage. I LAUGH at the modern silly folks with their little newfangled "flash memory sticks", which are grossly inferior to my 8 inch DSDD disks!

 

BTW, a number of media companies, including Athana, continue to manufacture and market 8" floppy disks (in a variety of formats), and so I never have to worry about sourcing!

 

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2007 by Vinny & Sue Team

[Clan Riffster]

Relatives and heirs looking to view family mementos in say, 2155, will probably need to hire some kind of ancient "electronics" archaeologist.

I'll be dead by 2155, so I won't care if folks can view my pictures or not.

 

But seriously, as far as electronic media goes, I'm guessing that as storage methods evolve, so to will data transfer methods. Until this current desktop, my PC actually had a 5-1/4" drive, which I kept from many computers ago. Every time I got a PC built, I had them leave a slot for it. On this build, I physically went through each of about a hundred 5-1/4" floppies, to see if any of them contained anything I needed. They didn't, so everything got tossed. Had I found something on one of those floppies that I needed, I would've transfered it to a more user friendly medium, probably a CD.

 

I agree that, in 148 years (math?), any media available today will be all but unrecognizable by PC's of that era.

[Cape Cod Cacher]

What was that movie with Robin Williams as the creepy photo developer?

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I didnt know my photos were ever examined when being developed. How upsetting.

 

Alright, what weird photos have you been taking?

 

 

 

I remember walking into one of those 60min shops and seeing a tech shuffling through an entire stack, right off of the machine. I was a bit surprised at the nosiness. I don't know why I was surprised, considering how nosy I am, myself. Almost makes me want to stage something really bizarre just to give them a good show. Um, nevermind.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Also, digital cameras are a great way to document good hiding practices and have a few big advantages over film.

Although I thoroughly enjoy my digital camera and agree that it has many advantages, not the least of which are simplified online posting, editing, privacy and unlimited photos without spending extra money on film and processing, they do have one SERIOUS disadvantage if one's goal is permanent documentation:

 

Unless you print the photos, there is no way to store them permanently... let me explain.

 

The technology of digital storage is constantly changing. presently we have the choice of floppies, USB drives, hard drives, CDR, DVDR, various solid state memory "sticks" (quotes to denote I am not referring to Sony's trademark) and perhaps a few other media I have not listed.

 

My concern is, for what period of unforeseeable future will we be able to easily (or at all) read these devices?

 

Ferinstance, if you had any data on 5-1/4" floppy disks, the likelihood is even now that you cannot recover that data. 3-1/2" floppies are almost obsolete and i predict the CD , DVD and all devices using mechanical spinning disks will only be commonly available for just a few more years as solid state memory becomes cheaper, faster, and higher capacity.

 

Relatives and heirs looking to view family mementos in say, 2155, will probably need to hire some kind of ancient "electronics" archaeologist. Most people will not even know the words "computer" or "electronics" except from their kindergarten ancient history professor's comments.

 

OTOH if the pictures are PRINTED, assuming the ink dyes do not fade into oblivion and the paper doesn't crumble, one will only need their natural eyesight (which I assume will still exist) to "read" the pictures.

 

I am not quite ready to throw the photo finishers under the bus- even if they do get a look.

 

Have you heard of online storage? It is cheap and the physical storage medium is not an issue.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Confucius' Cat]

Have you heard of online storage? It is cheap and the physical storage medium is not an issue.

i would consider this the MOST UNRELIABLE form of long term storage.

 

Dot coms tend to go "by the board" with amazing frequency.

 

Accounts are regularly canceled and all data destroyed for various reasons from non-payment in the case of paid storage to inactivity in the case of "free" sites.

 

Then too, all it takes is a lost account name and password (information that you might not have supplied to your heirs before your demise) and the data is lost whilst still technically intact.

 

Also, what if your chosen online provider has a major crash? Perhaps a crash that scrambles their user allocations?

 

My point is not to discuss which is the best electronic storage medium. My point is that ANYTHING that requires a machine to view it is a poor long term storage choice for photographs.

 

Thus photo finishing shops still have their worth in spite of the loss of privacy (which is the OP issue). This could change at any time, but IMO that time has not yet come. For the photos I think are really important (whatever that means) professional printing is a MUST.

Edited May 14, 2007 by Confucius' Cat

[+sbell111]

I assume that most people who take digital pics (or do just about anything with a computer) knows that you have to back up your data. Online storage in tandem with one or more local copies works really well. If the online vendor were to go out of business, you have your local copies. If your house burns down, you have the online storage. On the other hand, if you use film and your house burns down, those pics are gone.

[+egami]

Simple advice. Take it and be more effective or leave it and don't be.

 

It wasn't advice...it was critical and an ad hominem attack. In actuality it made no real sense either...I don't need to take "debate advice" from someone that falls back on personal attacks. Thanks.

 

My points have remained consistant and relatively simple. I am sorry you were the only person that struggled comprehending them.

Edited May 14, 2007 by egami

[+egami]

I assume that most people who take digital pics (or do just about anything with a computer) knows that you have to back up your data. Online storage in tandem with one or more local copies works really well. If the online vendor were to go out of business, you have your local copies. If your house burns down, you have the online storage. On the other hand, if you use film and your house burns down, those pics are gone.

 

Yeah, online storage is a great option as long as it isn't your only option. Ultimately, everything is somewhat vulnerable...the key is just not to have all your eggs in one basket.

 

With USB memory sticks getting so large and so cheap they are becoming a great option for localized offsite storage as well. We rotate memory stick backups at our lock box at the bank once a month.

[+Renegade Knight]

Simple advice. Take it and be more effective or leave it and don't be.

 

It wasn't advice...it was critical and an ad hominem attack. In actuality it made no real sense either...I don't need to take "debate advice" from someone that falls back on personal attacks. Thanks.

 

My points have remained consistant and relatively simple. I am sorry you were the only person that struggled comprehending them.

 

It was advice. Your points are simple. They are also one step left of the topic as I see it. Since you are countering my point, it helps to understand it. It's possible that we are different enough in our thinking that we just won't be able to communicate clearly. Still since I do see your points, just now how they relate to mine in our particular exchange I'm going to stick with my original suggestions.

 

If you feel it as an attack against your character instead of a constructive criticism. That's not my intent. My frustration in trying to communicate may be showing. If it really an attack I would have heard from a mod. They are vigilant about that.

[+egami]

It was an ad hominem attack. You derailed from the topic at hand to attack my character or my ability as you perceived it. Obviously you're intelligent enough to avoid slanderous attacks that will get mod warnings...that doesn't mean it wasn't an "attack".

 

I realize, however, that you really just don't like people disagreeing with you more than anything...

[+dcvchicago]

Do you know what the penalties are for copyright infringement? It's HUGE. I don't remember the numbers, but I remember when I heard the federal penalties for selling (and that's what the photo lab is doing) someone else's copyrighted material my first impression was "I'd be better off getting caught driving drunk!" Big fines, big jail time, and it's a federal offense on your record.

 

Yeah, but that only applies if a copyright notice appears on the picture (front or back). As a processor, you can't duplicate any picture with the "© 2007 by John Smith", but you are protected from liability if there is no notice on the picture. Most pros put the notice on the back, so that it can't be clipped off.

 

The real problem occurs when a customer brings in a picture that's been dry-mounted to a board. I take the position that you are covered, unless you have reason to know the picture is copyrighted. And quality alone isn't enough to put you on notice. But some processors I know simply refuse to duplicate mounted pictures, because the mounting may hide a copyright notice.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

Wow... the conspiracy theorists are hard at work!

 

The honest truth:

 

FACT: When you process film and it comes off the machine, you will glance over it quickly to make sure nothing is wrong... its quality control. How long did we spend glancing? Well we processed a few hundred rolls a day (slides, and both color and B&W print negatives) plus 4x5 and 8X10 negatives and transparencies. You really didn't have time to spend more than a few seconds per customer. Remember this film then had to be routed to printing or whatever.

 

FACT: Most people's film is incredibly boooorrring!

 

FACT: There are a few folks who shoot some incredibly strange stuff (nothing illegal about "strange).

 

FACT: Most home-grown porn is also incredibly boring and often poorly lit

 

FACT: When time comes to do printing of any negatives, the printer has to visually assess every negative to make an exposure adjustment. The prints will then be visually checked for quality and color. Time spent... as little as possible.

 

FACT: We did have a few customers who shot "interesting" photos knowing that you'd be looking at them. (sometimes when she picked them up, she'd ask us for feedback ).

 

FACT: Photos that attracted the most attention from staff in our lab: Pro Sports Photographers, Pro Concert Photographers, Movie Stills (we handled LucasFilm's Archives), and all of our County's mug shots (boy were those entertaining)!

 

FACT: Employees signed confidentiality agreements, any duplicate materials made in the process of filling a customer order were destroyed (incinerated) nightly. Nothing ever went into the trash. Removing any customer property from the building would get you fired on the spot.

 

FACT: Copyright on all photos in automatic. They do not have to be marked. You are provided a certain degree of protection by right of your being the "creator". If you have to defend that right in court, copyright symbols are a definite plus. When you bring film to a lab anything you sign as you place an order gives us permission from you (the copyright holder) to reproduce the work in question. The big problem was folks wanting to reproduce photos to which they didn't hold the copyright. In order to get any kind of payoff for copyright infringement, you'd have to show that you were damaged financially or otherwise.

 

It was a professional business, you treat your customers professionally, or they go somewhere else. If you're taking your business to a place you can't trust, I'd recommend you go elsewhere.

 

Driver Carries Cache

(who misses spending his days in a darkroom with his hands in chemistry)

[+Too Tall John]

Do you know what the penalties are for copyright infringement? It's HUGE. I don't remember the numbers, but I remember when I heard the federal penalties for selling (and that's what the photo lab is doing) someone else's copyrighted material my first impression was "I'd be better off getting caught driving drunk!" Big fines, big jail time, and it's a federal offense on your record.

Yeah, but that only applies if a copyright notice appears on the picture (front or back).

I'm sorry, but that is simply not at all true.

 

Edited: Quote from this site, with direct references to the applicable laws:

Since October 31, 1988, works no longer need a copyright notice to have copyright protection. ... The traditional notice, such as "Copyright 1989 XZV Co." or " ©1989 XZV Co." is no longer required.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Too Tall John

[+Confucius' Cat]

I assume that most people who take digital pics (or do just about anything with a computer) knows that you have to back up your data. Online storage in tandem with one or more local copies works really well. If the online vendor were to go out of business, you have your local copies. If your house burns down, you have the online storage. On the other hand, if you use film and your house burns down, those pics are gone.

Yes, multiple backups with at least one "off site" are the only prudent way to preserve data.

 

But I'm really not about "preserving data" in this discussion as much as preserving "readability" at an unknown future time.

 

My premise is simply that machines come and go. Therefore ANY storage medium that requires any device not generally present on a human body by nature is ultimately unacceptable for long term storage.

 

One can convert from one medium to another for a period of time- until the old medium is no longer readable by anything currently available. Generally this means that conversion from the "last generation" device to the current device is doable. But in the case of electronic photos stored and forgotten for a long time, there will come a time when the conversion is no longer possible.

 

The winner then is the paper printed picture. Print 'em for posterity.