I think digital cameras are very useful for the field. They don't replace
slr 35mm or other traditional still cameras, instead, they add to your bag
of tricks. It is my opinion that archaeologists generally don't document
themselves in the field well enough, any tool to help is welcome.  We have
24 hour cameras in 7-11s, after all. Take zillions of worthless photos, run
video cameras constantly and use the digital camera till your finger hurts.
 
Electronic publishing aside, I go nuts on digital imaging and video because
its cheap, instant and damn reliable. For under $500, which is comparable to
a decent lens and body set-up,  you can get a camera that can pop some
pretty serious resolution. We used digital images as polariods pretty much,
and shot zip disks full of them on one of our more recent projects. Great
for cataloging artifacts efficiently, you can just drop the image into your
database and away you go. Photos are point and click and auto corrections
can get you great results every time.
 
At nearly $10 a roll for slide film, I think the cost of digital photography
is pretty cheap after the initial capital investment. You have a very
versatile dark room in your computer when you get going with photoshop,
which I think has a lot of untapped technical potential.
 
If you have the cash, get the Kodak dcs. The Epson photoPC cameras are
really nice too. To get the most, though, an specific graphics/imaging
machine is key. That's when it gets expensive. Has anyone priced a decent
graphics monitor lately? OUCH...
 
David Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith J Matthews <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, May 22, 1998 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: Digital Cameras
 
 
>Hi
>
>I've been using a digital camera (borrowed from my supervisor) for about
>a year now. It's useful for producing images that are going to remain in
>digital format only (e.g. on web sites) or for low-resolution images for
>grey literature (such as newsletters). As a serious technique for
>primary data capture, I'd say that the technology still is not good
>enough because of the resolution issue and also problems of colour
>correction. I'm sure that this will change, though.
>
>There has been a thread on precisely this subject on the Britarch
>mailing list (and I'm afraid that I've mislaid the URL for its
>archives!).
>
>Keith Matthews