Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,679   Posts: 1,482,187   Online: 1055
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    109
    Excellent article. I have been photographing excavations since 1975, and started serious lab photography of finds about ten years ago. Your coverage of the advantages and disadvantages of digital photography in archaeology was comprehensive, but I think the issue of image permanence is the most important. Even if the photography/IT industries come up with "archival" digital media (in terms of materials stability), I feel that the discipline required to manage digital image data over time, as file formats and media technologies evolve, is going to be too great to promote systematic preservation. As a museum curator, I once managed a 70,000+ image photographic collection going back in time to the 1860s, including media ranging from ambrotypes to motion picture film, and most of the material had a history of informal storage and treatment. I can't imagine digital images surviving so successfully over time: they will take so much more work in terms of administration to preserve. For example, the wholesale adoption of digital imaging in newspaper publishing could lead to a large gap in the visual recording of our current "history", until better storage media and archiving protocols are developed and adopted - and they will have to be economical.

    As for the field, using both systems does make sense. Capitalize on digital's capacity to confirm documentation at the moment, and use film for the record. And digital techniques are a godsend for lab analysis work, for sending artifact photos around by e-mail for discussion, for preparing lectures and presentations, etc.

    Thank you for your thoughtful critique. It would be a good resource for people teaching methods courses.
    cheers, mac

  2. #12
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by bobfowler
    Good article. I would add one thing, the current crop of "professional" digital SLR's lack a vital capability - that of interchangable viewfinders.
    Also true for the F6!

    you should look at the High Dynamic Range features in Photoshop CS2 (just out) btw -- I would think they have a lot of scientific imaging potential.

    Digital or not, there's really one good way to ensure longevity -- PRINT STUFF.

    It's not digital itself that will make history disappear, it's people forgetting that pictures are more than jpegs

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  3. #13
    blackmelas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Corinth, Greece
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    353
    Images
    24
    Your article is an excellent synthesis of the state of photography in archaeology. It describes our situation to a 't'. As the architect and person responsible for digital imaging and IT for the excavations in Ancient Corinth we find ourselves on the cusp of a new era of electronic information that we cannot wholeheartedly embrace. Yes, we consider ourselves a bit backward or behind being both understaffed and underfunded to go digital but it is still very much for the best. We still carry two 35mm cameras, a B&W and a slide, plus the supplemetary 3MP digital. We also have 6x6 and 4x5 site shots, though these unfortunately may become a thing of the past in the next couple of years. The only thing I might add is to emphasize the convenience of digital. Ease of accessing digital images has allowed the jpgs from our budget digital to replace film for daily reference: since everyone on staff has a copy available from the network or even locally, one instinctively runs through the computer before going to the binders of contact sheets or prints. We still do all our object photography on film (none digitally due to aging photographers and budget) but because of this conveinience we feel the need for a digital copy. Our city cousins in Athens (with Packard Foundation money) have, I believe, done away with film for finds and objects. I'm not sure they are doing regarding a digital archive, however... We create a hard copy of all our digital documents.

    Thanks for your article. I'm sending the link to the whole staff as I write.
    James

  4. #14
    mfobrien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    163
    Images
    5
    Very nice article. I am the collections manager (insects) at the Museum of Zoology, and a few years ago I catalogued hundreds of old b&w negatives that were made in the 1918-1930 period. They had not been stored in the best of situations, but were easily viewed and of course, could be printed or scanned. Since they were roll film negs, most of them could be easily contact printed. I have to wonder what will happen to images taken digitally today, 80 years from now. A physical thing is harder to lose than an electronic file (most of the time). I foresee people losing all kinds of images for a variety of reasons.
    The other thing you bring up is ruggedness and reliability. There is no way any modern DSLR will be as rugged as say, a Nikon F2. Dust, sand, moisture, are all the things that will befall photographic equipment on a site; coupled with the need to have all the infrastructure that digital requires, working in remote and inhospitable areas really makes film a better choice. Someone will point out that once you have your images on a chip they are safer than film with latent images. Maybe. I think of the Shackleford expedition as a case in point. A Kodak vest pocket camera recorded some amazing images from that near-disaster. No batteries. Just film and a dry pocket (somewhere).
    Mark O'Brien -
    At the home of Argus cameras...Ann Arbor, MI
    http://www.geocities.com/argusmaniac/

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    726
    I just want to thank everyone who has commented on my paper, and indeed found it, despite me putting this thread in the wrong place. I have re-written it somewhat to take account of ideas expressed here and elsewhere and submitted it for publication.

    David.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    When the Smithsonian wanted the ultimate documentary photographs of their collection of hominid skulls, David L. Brill did them using 4x5 Sinar and an amazing lighting setup of his own development. His photographs have become the end-all of such images and I strongly doubt they will be rephotographed ever again. The films can be scanned for that particular archival effort. (Almost every photograph published of homind skulls for the past several years are his. Nice niche.)

    The subject of D. Brill's lighting would be worthy of an article in itself: dozens of tiny mirrors on flexible stalks so that every shadow was illuminated and every highlight squelched/balanced.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin