RonDavis Loc: Chicago, IL

Hi Bill...This is definitely something to think about. There was a time (not too long ago) when I would transfer files using Adoe RGB. I stop, and started transferring using Tiff 16bit so that colors could be processed in the accepted programs and return to Lr6 as a jpeg. I'll have a look at the "older" files of concern to see how I edited them in my workflow....which has change over time.

RonDavis Loc: Chicago, IL

Thanks R.G......somehow I think your logic is sound. I admit, some of what I found to publish "back then" I wouldn't be satisfied with now. But, I do see a measurable difference in some files and with the help of informed comments in this thread...I'm re-examining some (color space selections) steps used in my workflow/edits on some the "faded" old files. It's all good...thanks again

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

That could very well depend on what color space the program is using.

RonDavis Loc: Chicago, IL

Agreed

awesome14 Loc: UK

Jpg is a standard made in the 80s by Joint Photographic Experts Group, for which jpeg is an acronym. The primary purpose of the format is to reduce file size for storage and interchange purposes. The standard was released in the early 90s. Digital cameras use one or both of two jpeg formats, JFIF and ExIF, which are not compatible.

But it is possible to encode images that are both formats. Jpeg is a flexible standard of compression for digital images. If it weren't for jpeg, image files would consume 10x the storage space, and use 10x the network bandwidth to download or transfer on the Internet.

The drawbacks are: jpeg is not completely faithful to the actual scene photographed, and repeated editing degrades the image quality. Image editors like PS, GIMP, and others, convert the jpg to a lossless format that can be edited forever, with no degradation.

Then, it converta the lossless format back to jpg when you're finished. But it wasn't always that way. In the past there have been editors that used the jpg file itself. Every time the file was saved, it became a worse version of itself. Every time a jpg file is changed and saved to disk, there is loss in the compression. That's why it's called lossy. Even cropping a jpg directly causes loss.

A jpg file that is 500kB on disk, is uncompressed into ram memory, where it might consume 20MB of space. As long as nothing is changed, when the image is closed, the ram memory it used to be viewable is just discarded. So, the file is thunchanged no matter how many times it is viewed.

Since 2015, 15 billion jpg images are made per day. So, it is the most useful image format.

So, jpgs can degrade with time, but only if they're repeatedly edited. And, modern digital cameras can embellish jpg files as they are processed, because you can fit 100x the computing power into a camera in 2023 than in 2003. I have a profile in one of my cameras that sets the tone to vivid. Because many times I find the camera does a great job intensifying the image.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

They don't "degrade" with TIME, they degrade with repeated editing and saving over itself.
TIME does not change the data on the disk...
Don't blame time.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

"Digital files fading over time" sounds almost as funny as the oxymoronic term "digital film" you see in the Walgreens or CVS photo department. "Develop your digital film here!"

But there are wide variances in monitor color rendition and contrast ratios...just look at the wall of TVs at a Best Buy. Higher end monitors have color correction/color calibration features built in.

Depending on the media used, bits can get flipped in any file, JPG or RAW, but that would happen over many years. Photos you want to preserve for many years should be stored on M*DISC media...50-100 years archival, with multiple backups. Of course some future ET will need a working M*DISC drive to view the files!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Some media degrades. CDs for the "burned" bits, memory fobs for the bleed off of the cell charge.
When that happens, the file(s) will probably not load, not "look different".

Jagnut07 Loc: South Carolina

If the files are 20+ years old then they were probably taken at a much lower resolution and you are now comparing to current resolution files? Just a thought.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

That too!

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

I suspect we have a case of “The other AI”, Aging Intelligence. Which manifests itself as enriched memory of events is the distant past. I’m just joking. Or am I?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Evidently I suffer from AI....

RonDavis Loc: Chicago, IL

me too

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

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.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

They're worried about the wrong details.
(e.g. My 18-200 has a specific ƒ-stop range, but darned if I can remember off-hand what it is.....
My memory cards have speed ratings, probably all different.
My cameras have pixels, I keep having to look up which one has how many, not that it matters...)