Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Wessex grasp the nettle of non-Digital Photographic sustainability
#18
Quite right Tool http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061291034093.pdf
and this shows that you can still get bw film: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/wheretobuy/bu...online.asp

Which leads back to Wessex's dictact based on Fuji stopping production of colour film as a reason to stop taking wet chemistry pictures and lumping bw in it as well? I was always under the impression that the bw film was the most preservable which was why we had to use it and meant that we had to have two cameras.

Wessex argument about archive seems a bit horse and cart:
Quote:While the archival stability of digital imaging has not yet been proven to the same degree as film,there is now considered to be no advantage of analogue over digital imaging as an archival format.

Presumably a consideration that if colour has gone bw will go as well?!! I don't quite see how the lack of wet chemistry film make the archival format of digital equal to analogue.

Anyway the Wessex final solution:
Quote:Finally, digital only photography offers a significant time and cost saving over the use of film and its adoption will therefore benefit the industry as a whole.

Well does it, what cost saving do they want? For a start if they can't get any film how do you work out the saving? I don't think that digital should be compared to wet. What's possibly wrong with the reasoning behind this policy is that it's about trying to replace analogue Pictures rather than seeing digital as different. What's going on is that the whole record is going digital and will go more digital. There are no cost savings to it, we will take as many digi pictures as we like as time budget inclination takes us. At some point perma trace will disappear. At some point if it hasn't already happened the average digital video frame will be ten megapixels. At some point we will eat up the whole site digitally. At some point 3d printers will recreate your site from your picture. At somepoint someone should point out that for the vast majority of watching brief sites no one will bother or have the space to print it out and that really society was paying archaeologists to go and hide the stuff because nobody wanted it around where they lived. Yes we got used to hiding it in a museum but they are inploding before our eyes. Found this glimps of the future http://www.blackmorevale.co.uk/Archaeolo...story.html

Quote:Entry to see the printing in the museum’s Victorian Gallery will be free with donations invited
. Thats where the problem is museums are free because....Does anybody know what this museum charges to archive- this came out last year http://www.socmusarch.org.uk/docs/Archae...s-2012.pdf

Thats solved everything
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Wessex Archaeology Recruits a Teddy Bear BAJR 10 8,959 24th December 2014, 06:41 PM
Last Post: monty
  Silbury Hill Digital Archive BAJR 3 2,149 3rd April 2014, 06:12 PM
Last Post: GnomeKing
  Evaluating Digital Dwelling film - a new way to interpret the past. BAJR 13 5,340 15th January 2014, 02:29 PM
Last Post: P Prentice
  Digital photos and colour differentiation. Tool 3 1,704 7th December 2013, 03:59 PM
Last Post: John Wells
  Another digital democracy campaign Jack 1 1,216 20th March 2013, 06:42 PM
Last Post: Jack
  digital archaeology - WEA - Nottingham BAJR 3 1,794 11th March 2013, 04:38 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Heritage Lottery Fund- New digital projects rules Doug 1 1,301 10th November 2012, 08:20 PM
Last Post: Doug
  Sue Davies leaves Wessex - Where now? BAJR 1 1,555 9th November 2012, 07:49 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Digital Disengagement BAJR 44 10,111 26th March 2012, 12:43 PM
Last Post: Jack
  Digital past 2012 BAJR 1 1,380 17th January 2012, 03:53 PM
Last Post: BAJR

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)