I need a new camera, real bad. So I've been looking at the four megapixel Nikon 4500 (because all my 950 stuff will fit) and the high end D100 and Canon EOS 10D six megapixel slrs.
The D100 is leading mainly because I'll be able to shoot with a Nikkor Micro lens, a lifelong ambition. But the Canon is nice too, and there are a couple of new cameras due out this fall from Canon (shown) and Sony that could also be in the running.
So I'm happily comparing specs, reading reviews and looking at test shots when I read this:
"Look at your Tri-X negs from ten years ago. They're not old; they're still kinda new, kinda fresh in your mind. Look at digital image files from last freaking year [~] they are aging quickly, they are fragile, they have a looming death out there somewhere." [Kent Phelan/Steve's Digicams]
It's true. I have files from less than a decade ago, that I edited with a program called Digital Darkroom. That program will no longer run on any computer I have access to, the developer is gone, and nothing I have will open the file in an editable state. Those photos are longer gone than negatives I exposed in the 70s.
Then, is digital photography ephemeral, destined to last only a few years, or will there be an archival storage system available?
Six Brazilians were not allowed to enter England because they failed a 'pop' quiz about the Beatles. Yeah. I'm surprised they weren't heavily fined as well. [North County Times]
This morning, a little after 2, the monsoon clouds thinned just enough for Mars to peek out, although no detail was observable.
This picture is a two and a half minute exposure on Polaroid (type 52) film through a 127 mm Kodak Ektar lens at f/4.7 on the Crown Graphic.
I'm feeling like a real power broker. 
Five calidates and a press secretary have written over the past week with additional information about their campaigns. As a result, half a dozen of them have been reclassified on the list.
