Jim Gibb wrote, in part:
>The rapid development of high quality digital cameras and the prospect of
>preserving those images in digital format is intriguing. Once an image has been
>downloaded from camera to computer, the photographer can share that image
>with >perfect resolution through electronic files, slides, prints, or even
>>videographs. One need only backup graphic files and periodically review
>the >data to determine whether the collection should be moved to a new
>medium.
This suggestion sends cold chills down my spine.
First, an electronic "scanned" or video image, or the image from an
electronic camera is about as far as you can get from "perfect resolution"
imaging. A videograph is not, and never can be, as good as a photographic
image. The electronic image (even HDTV and Linotronic) is composed of dots,
or pixels, meant to fool the eye at a specific, predetermined resolution.
Once you have created those pixels, you are limited to that certain
resolution.
Using film, we typically blow up tiny fractions of negatives for
publication. If the pictures were digital, our ability to do so would be
limited by the relatively coarse "resolution" of the original digital scan.
Second, electronic media require uninterrupted skilled curation. Unlike
photographs, digital images in repose are not archival. A photographic
negative on a glass plate, or a copy on archival paper, can be stored in a
room with minimally suitable climate controls, virtually forever. This
cannot be done with a digital image.
If a magnetic file is left unattended for a few years, let alone decades,
it is lost. Because our data must be curated with funds provided by
legislatures, we must idiot-proof the whole business. We must be prepared
for long periods when the janitor is the only person on the payroll, or
when some legislator declares that broken pots should be better used as
road metalling. Nothing idiotic from any legislature would shock me, yet
these are the people ultimately responsible for archaeological collection
curation.
I'm afraid that digital image data simply doesn't cut the mustard, and
probably never will be superior to good old paper, any more than digital
data capture in the field is superior to good old paper and pencil.
Ned Heite
|