For the analog diehards

As I get older — which I intend to continue to do for some time — I’m becoming increasingly persuaded that while our immediate future is digital, it’s got to be analog for the long haul, if only because whoever explores the ruins of our civilization will be able to comprehend the analog stuff without enormous difficulty, while bits are just, well, bits.

To that end, the Lomography community, which introduced a new B&W 110 film (dubbed “Orca”) last year, has now brought forth color film in 110, called “Peacock.” The new film is ISO 200 and sells for $7.90.


  1. canadienne »

    23 January 2013 · 10:39 pm

    Extremely good point – digital images will vanish either because of the failure of the storage medium or else because the technology is left behind (do you know anyone who has a reader for 8″ floppy disks? Will DVD’s be equally obsolete as soon or sooner? Will there be software to read TIFF files in 20 years?) If you found a box of prints from the 20’s, all you need is your eyes to see them. (Have I printed all my digital pix on archival paper? Um, one of these days…)

    I think the Lomography and other film advocates are also responding to a need for a medium which demands more involvement from the user and is less facile. A lot of people who have never used film (some of whom have never even seen film) are getting into old film cameras and Impossible Project Polaroids.

    Relates a bit to the book you are reading – I just took “Faking It” out of the library today, looks pretty interesting.

  2. canadienne »

    23 January 2013 · 10:47 pm

    Can’t resist – for the persistence of film, look up the S.S Andree expedition, where a roll of film found in the camera was developed.

    The Lunar Orbiter images highlights the problems with technology
    (kind of an interesting story)

  3. canadienne »

    23 January 2013 · 10:48 pm

    And, have you printed out all the words you upload here?

  4. CGHill »

    23 January 2013 · 11:35 pm

    I rather expect this stuff to die with me, if not before; as cultural artifacts go, it’s somewhere between “exceedingly minor” and “why is this even here?”

    Then again, I tend to be the worst judge of my own material.

RSS feed for comments on this post