True, but there is no such thing as old digital photographs.
Bob,
yesterday's digital is old.
Not a silly, facile remark, but more an observation of the fact that wet prints seem to remain relevant for at least as long as they exist (and often, thereafter, in memory). Old prints, possibly never even fully washed for posterity, appear in forgotten magazine editorial department drawers, and suddenly become collectible because of the name of the magazine as well as of, perhaps, model, but almost certainly of the photographer. History steps in and adds value. (Another source of revenue for both governments and treasure seekers.)
But digital prints are different. Different, I think, because of the provenance: the medium advances/changes so rapidly that the 'old hat' syndrome appears very rapìdly. Cutting edge (hate that term because of its constant over-use in stock agency spiels) a year or so ago, inks, printers and their limitations render material and image pretty much redundant all too soon. So, rather than holding value as collectible artefacts, they just become old junk, better reprinted on different mediums and with better inks, or, better yet, turned into wet prints.
That's print. What about images
captured on digital? I guess that the relentless, sales-driven changes in pixel quantity and density will also contribute to the premature ageing of even two-year old captures, and their subsequent consignment to the bin of photographic memories.
Perhaps that's what happens to old photographers when we die: no, we don't just fade away and go out of focus, we are condemned perpetually to sift through the files of all that we shot and thought good when, in fact, 'twas all a pile of poop.
Had a reasonably filling lunch today: wasn't very nice, but did refuel the body, I guess.
Rob C