Many of the folks who post on this site came to photography through computer technology and many are photographers who have a background, education, and careers in computer programming, technologies, and science. These folks understand the inner workings of the cameras and every technical aspect of digital imaging to a fault. In comparison, I am merely an appliance operator.

My formal and academic photographic sciences were film-based. I can tell you stuff about emulation manufacturing, latent silver imagery, grain structures, and chemistry that might boggle your mind or might impress you. Most of that technology, today, is as dead as Kelcies Pig and for the most part useless in current and popular photographic practices. Nowadays, digital imaging technology is advancing far faster the film ever did. I suspect in a few years much of what we are concerned with now will be obsolete. The simple payback of existing files may become challenging. In computer electronics, the is an ongoing effort by manufacturers and software folks to change operating systems, and simple upgrades and updates can seriously mess up your older computer.

Film and plates were simple in that if you take a 100-year-old negative and pop it into an enlarger or contact printer- even a scanner, you could generate a print as long as it had not faded. If you know how to make good prints you can compensate for certain losses of quality. Nowadays, if you find a defect, glitch, or deficiency in an old digital file, you need to be a pretty good troubleshooting detective to solve the issue. Is it a matter of incompatibility with your present updated system? Is it your monitor calibration? Did the CD of the floppy disk degenerate? Perhaps your technique has improved or your style has changed over the years and you look back at your old work with a bit of retroactive disappointment.

My own not-to-humble opinion: Too many folks get mired down in the nitty-gritty of the technology, the optical construction of lenses, and the attributes of cameras. They pay less attention to aesthetics, composition, light and lightning, and storytelling. Their images are sharp and perfectly color-balanced but sometimes not too interesting, emotional, or imaginative. My not-so-humble advice is to get all your technical ducks in line, calibrate everything, use a simple and reliable post-processing software (AND learn exactly how to use it), and concentrate on your art.

Old files never die, they just fade away- or NOT! They may get somehow corrupted, damaged, messed up in repeated post-processing, or obsoleted by vanishing playback sources.

PS Y'all who are worried about AI replacing you. You may be right! Those robots can be much better and constant technicians than you but they do not have a heart or a real brain. They can replicate creative work but they can not originally create it. Perhaps consider the purchase of a robot to argue about technicalities and spend more time creating original images.

Many of the folks who post on this site came to photography through computer technology and many are photographers who have a background, education, and careers in computer programming, technologies, and science. These folks understand the inner workings of the cameras and every technical aspect of digital imaging to a fault. In comparison, I am merely an appliance operator.

My formal and academic photographic sciences were film-based. I can tell you stuff about emulation manufacturing, latent silver imagery, grain structures, and chemistry that might boggle your mind or might impress you. Most of that technology, today, is as dead as Kelcies Pig and for the most part useless in current and popular photographic practices. Nowadays, digital imaging technology is advancing far faster the film ever did. I suspect in a few years much of what we are concerned with now will be obsolete. The simple payback of existing files may become challenging. In computer electronics, the is an ongoing effort by manufacturers and software folks to change operating systems, and simple upgrades and updates can seriously mess up your older computer.

Film and plates were simple in that if you take a 100-year-old negative and pop it into an enlarger or contact printer- even a scanner, you could generate a print as long as it had not faded. If you know how to make good prints you can compensate for certain losses of quality. Nowadays, if you find a defect, glitch, or deficiency in an old digital file, you need to be a pretty good troubleshooting detective to solve the issue. Is it a matter of incompatibility with your present updated system? Is it your monitor calibration? Did the CD of the floppy disk degenerate? Perhaps your technique has improved or your style has changed over the years and you look back at your old work with a bit of retroactive disappointment.

My own not-to-humble opinion: Too many folks get mired down in the nitty-gritty of the technology, the optical construction of lenses, and the attributes of cameras. They pay less attention to aesthetics, composition, light and lightning, and storytelling. Their images are sharp and perfectly color-balanced but sometimes not too interesting, emotional, or imaginative. My not-so-humble advice is to get all your technical ducks in line, calibrate everything, use a simple and reliable post-processing software (AND learn exactly how to use it), and concentrate on your art.

Old files never die, they just fade away- or NOT! They may get somehow corrupted, damaged, messed up in repeated post-processing, or obsoleted by vanishing playback sources.

PS Y'all who are worried about AI replacing you. You may be right! Those robots can be much better and constant technicians than you but they do not have a heart or a real brain. They can replicate creative work but they can not originally create it. Perhaps consider the purchase of a robot to argue about technicalities and spend more time creating original images.

Another possibility is that the "State of the Art" has improved considerably in the past 20 years.
I have plenty of "Digital" photo files on 3.5" Floppy 💾 's from Konica
[Picture Show] that are disappointing compared to the actual Prints/Negatives.
I remember [Consumer] film photography drying up about the end of last century, and
[due to budget constraints]
My early Digital 📷 Cameras being 2 to 3 Megapixel Kodak's. Those shots don't comare well to our current technology.

While reviewing and culling some older folders/files/pictures, I noticed something that prompted this question: “Has anyone notice ‘any’ degradation of old (20+ years) electronic photo files, i.e., fading colors or loss of sharpness? If so, any idea what might be the cause?” This is not noticeable on all older files, but enough to prompt this question.

Background Info:
I’m a Fujifilm (jpeg) shooter, mostly using the Vivid film simulation. File management and main post processing system is Lightroom 6.14...supported with a few up-to-date plug-ins and transfer programs at my disposal when necessary: Photoshop Elements 2024, Luminar Neo, Exposure 7, Capture 1, 22 (for Fujifilm), DXO Photolab 6, and Inpixo Photo Studio 12. Programs are on the C drive; photos files are stored on an external hard drive.
I use a SmugMug site to display my photos…but the file fading does not appear to affect the site (and that’s good).

I've consider that my perceived "file degradation" might be due to improved PP programs; and/or increased PP skills and more critically demanding taste.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.