# Destroying your digital photography archive.



## Stanley Edwards (Jun 14, 2012)

Other than what is floating around on the net, I just destroyed my digital photography history.

PC's and storage devices left on the street for people to make use of. All CD's and DVD's binned binned binned. I am left with a single box of around 5,000 negatives representing work from the last 30 years, or so.

Was this a mistake? How much do you value your digital files?

Personally, I think digital photography is rapidly becomming worthless as an historical/art archive. Nobody trusts it anymore. An old argument that has done the rounds many times. When it came to the crunch I chose to go back to film and get rid of what I saw as surplus, redundant stuff.

Would you? Do you bin favourite digital files?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

I only just managed to get a hard disk large enough to store my digital files, buggerred if I am going to get rid of them now!!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jun 14, 2012)

What a loss to humanity


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2012)

Why the fuck would you get rid of your photos?
Even if they were all shit, it's still a mad thing to do.


----------



## Ranbay (Jun 14, 2012)

I'm sure theres lots of people doing this today,......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18442288


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 14, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Personally, I think digital photography is rapidly becomming worthless as an historical/art archive.


It's certainly worthless as a historical/art archive if you delete it all, you fruitcake.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 14, 2012)

*shrug*

who cares?  not in the specificity of Stanley Edwards, though I am sure some might be mean enough to suggest it, but really, the value of photography is really either in a) its beauty; or b) its scarcity.  if it isn't nice or interesting to look at, and doesn't capture a moment, place, or something that otherwise no-one has captured, then really its crap. 

i recently got all my photos on flickr put onto a dvd and am going to let the flickr account die.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 14, 2012)

Did you save the photo of those millionaire, motorbike riding, catwalk model lesbians? You know the ones? Remember?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Stan, was it just too much of a pain travelling with all that digital equipment?


----------



## killer b (Jun 14, 2012)

A refreshing approach Stan. You should consider similar actions with your physical artwork & belongings.


----------



## sim667 (Jun 14, 2012)

Is this some kind of artistic postmodernist statement stan?

In a week or so you'll be dead fucked off, but as long as the reviews are good you could end up dining from the furry cup of tracy emin.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 14, 2012)

attention seeking lunatic does attention seeking lunatic thing and in the process destroys the world largest archive of poor stock photography shockha...

seriously most people I'd say don't do it back it all up, but in your case do it and burn the negatives too... then you can really be an artist of the moment... 

seriously...  

as for the value of them as a historical archive, depends what survives really doesn't it?

after all the great historical shots are just those which have been discovered and have survived not always as intentional shots but as archives of general photography... 

The question you need to ask I guess Stanley is are you saying you're shots are worthless because they are truly terrible photographs which you now realise aren't actually very good according to your own tastes or because you're not a goof photographer.


----------



## cybertect (Jun 15, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Personally, I think digital photography is rapidly becomming worthless as an historical/art archive. Nobody trusts it anymore. An old argument that has done the rounds many times.


 
On that basis you should probably delete all your U75 forum posts too for the sake of consistency.

Either that or there's a flaw in your logic somewhere.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jun 15, 2012)

dismissing the digital revolution is like being the last oral bard in a world of scribes

sure there might be merit in the old ways but to deny the future one must embrace the ephemerality of the moment.

do what you will but understand the medium of yesterday is not the medium of tommorow

Was it so hard, Achilles,
So very hard to die?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 15, 2012)

My photo archive is now on HDD and CD and will in future also be on DVD as backup. I am securing my images more and more these days and was very pissed off recently to find that I only had a web copy of a special image, the original had been oddly lost.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 15, 2012)

In his head how stanley thinks it went...



Stanley Edwards said:


> Other than what is floating around on the net, I just destroyed my digital photography history.
> 
> PC's and storage devices left on the street for people to make use of. All CD's and DVD's binned binned binned. I am left with a single box of around 5,000 negatives representing work from the last 30 years, or so.
> 
> ...


 
in reality photoshop crashed on him half way though a digital manip and in another drunken fit of pique he threw all his digital stuff out...


----------



## Greebo (Jun 15, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> In his head how stanley thinks it went...
> 
> 
> 
> in reality photoshop crashed on him half way though a digital manip and in another drunken fit of pique he threw all his digital stuff out...


Ouch.  Should've happened.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Did you save the photo of those millionaire, motorbike riding, catwalk model lesbians? You know the ones? Remember?


 
Which ones? Stanley has had so many experiences with catwalk-model lesbians on motorcycles (and in red convertibles).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Is this some kind of artistic postmodernist statement stan?
> 
> In a week or so you'll be dead fucked off, but as long as the reviews are good you could end up *dining from the furry cup of tracy emin*.


----------



## Kanda (Jun 15, 2012)

Please delete your Urban Posts!! Please please please!!

(and scramble your password)


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jun 16, 2012)

I'm reducing all my belongings and stuff to a single box for storage, because I'm off travelling again. When I looked at everything (other than furniture) all I wanted to keep was a couple of cameras (film) and my negatives. The rest went.

All I am taking on travels now is a 1957 Yashica RF 

*and, a laptop*.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 16, 2012)

I hope you continue to keep us updated on your travels, Stanley. I've enjoyed your ramblings during the last year or so.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 16, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> All I am taking on travels now is a 1957 Yashica RF




which one


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jun 16, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> which one


 
Forget the model. It's fully mechanical and fresh from the factory condition. The lens makes Zeiss (of its day) look wobbly.

Sorting through my stuff I came across a set of old exhibition prints which somehow reignited my passion for photography. I think the convenience of digital spoiled things for me to a large extent. I've decided film plus scans is worth paying for.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 16, 2012)

I have a Yashica Electro 35, is why I ask. They did make a few others, but that's the most famous one I think. Very good camera actually, if it's working correctly, nice f1.7/45mm lens, good auto exposure and looks the business.

I'm getting odd deja vu here.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jun 16, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> ...
> I'm getting odd deja vu here.


 
The Electro 35 is a great camera. This is a much earlier fully mechanical RF with no metering. I took it on my (very brief ) trip to Africa, but didn't use it. It's a great little camera for it's day. Everything seems to be 100% reliable still. I'll post the model details tomorrow.


----------



## cybertect (Jun 18, 2012)

I have a number of Yashica fixed-lens RFs - I'm rather partial to them.

1957 is a year or so too early for a 35mm Yashica and AFAIK all the fixed-lens RFs they had Yashinon lenses, but, with a Zeiss lens on the front it sounds like you might have a 1958 Yashica YE or 1959 YF, both of which have Leica Thread Mount.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jun 18, 2012)

cybertect said:


> I have a number of Yashica fixed-lens RFs - I'm rather partial to them.
> 
> 1957 is a year or so too early for a 35mm Yashica and AFAIK all the fixed-lens RFs they had Yashinon lenses, but, with a Zeiss lens on the front it sounds like you might have a 1958 Yashica YE or 1959 YF, both of which have Leica Thread Mount.


 
It has a Yashinon lens which makes Zeiss look shit. I can't find a model number, but suspect it's a YE. It is mint and 100% reliable still today. I'll have to carry a light meter, but for the work I want from it and tolerant film I think I can guess shutter speeds. I always shoot at the smallest possible aperture. You sort of learn the shutter speed after many years.

It was the first Yashica 35mm RF.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2012)

luddite!


----------

