> And as non PC as it is, I don't believe in archival digital images anyway. > Just because we can capture huge images, should we? Digitize for Access, yes > and mass distribution, but not for preservation, except as it reduces > handling of the original. The right resolution for proper access depends > on the material being scanned.
Trudy, Where does this leave us with direct digital capture? Our digital files *are* our masters; and as the resolution of cameras is flexible (huge range of options) we still must face this question. If the digital asset cannot be the archival asset, then it must be captured at a resolution that may be greater than anticipated need, in order to write a usable piece of film, for instance, that will be of value in the archives (rescannable, if absolutely necessary!). That said, I think your advice about scanning resolution more or less applies to digital captures as well, though perhaps with a bit more emphasis on minimizing additional future access to the object by trying to meet even more of the anticipated usage (though, admittedly, in our experience the extraction of details is often not a justifiable cause to go overboard with resolution, as very often the detail, unless it's of flat art, needs to be re-shot anyway). Best, Roger Howard The Getty --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: rlancefi...@mail.wesleyan.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com
