Viewpoint - Get Professional Help

[Unitof1]

Thanks kev

possibly sometimes lucidity is a comparative thing

What we need is to stop all wet chemistry now and get on with establishing digital records rather than putting it off until they dont make film any more.

[BAJR Host]

where people create virtual magazines and put images in them that mimic what old magazines

it's called utilising new technologies but understanding the principals from 'older formats' ie

understanding basics is always a good principal.. therefore the baby learns to crawl, then walk then run... so utilising Digital cameras is no different. the same with illustration. I very rarely use teh old black ink (I still do when it is the only way) however, my digital illustrations are only another medium to be understood, but by understanding the use of pencil and pen, of ruler and layout my digital illustrations are (imho) good... I teach survey methods with first principals of geometry and stadia tacheometry even if I will be using a GPS system... or a totla station... to understand the technology, I feel it is important to understand how you get there.

A digi-cam is only as good as the user... and understanding the principals is fundemental where using a box brownie or the latest super cam.

[Unitof1]

Would it be alright if I didn’t put any storyboards and north arrows in my site photos?

[BAJR]

Depends what you were trying to achieve with the image

[Gilraen]

I have taken thousands of photos over the last 10-15 years of my archaeological career. Training was very much 'on the job' and I use automatic focus film SLRs and digital SLRs.

To bring the discussion back from the brink of the pointless drivel of UI1, it is unlikely that any commercial unit at this moment in time or any other - will be able to afford to employ someone whose role it is to just take photos.

Am I right? Am I wrong?

[Unitof1]

drivel, you are right, drivel

got a point

[BAJR]

The point is indeed what I am making... back in the old days of the origins of the thread.

Companies will employ a specialist in nearly everything EXCEPT

in descending order of priority

an Illustrator / GRaphic Designer (and if they do they are often paid way below)
a Site Draughtsman
a Photographer


Training is on the job as Gilrean says, and often we put effort into getting teh job, put fail in the end product. Grey Literature does not have be be Grey blocky set out in word with a few shots of a trench and an average quality location plan.

While I was browsing for more fabric to photography artefacts on I came across this from Flinders Uni...

a useful Powerpoint on the basis of Photography -
http://www.flinders.edu.au/shadomx/apps/...eName=ehlt

and this Googlebook of Cambridge Gudie to Archaeological Photography
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RkBui...gy&f=false

Hidden within Uo1 is potential points... the secret is to find them. Please keep it sensible and to the point. [Otherwise it is another 7 day sin bin - and look what happened last time!]

[Unitof1]

Grey Literature does not have be be Grey blocky set out in word with a few shots of a trench and an average quality location plan.

It wouldn’t be grey then

Hosty the future which should be now is digital and it probably should be video. As it happens I did Dorrels photo course. To have students trying to learn about digital through wet chemistry is frankly a waste of time. 9o% of digital is computers 90% of wet chemistry is dark rooms. In the good old past producing site reports/the record was a nightmare of established hierarchies of jobs which could probably trace their practises back to illuminating manuscripts in monasteries. Remember manual typewriters and carbon paper. Where we are at is the molas contact sheet, but without the paper, done in real time, by archaeologists that are at least university capable.

Unfortunately we have still got briefs requiring wet chemistry and that single requirement means that we have got to cart redundant equipment around site and the whole pantomime that goes with it. The wet film pic that I took of my beautiful drain is still in the camera. To make it available for general public consumption I have got to get it out of the camera, stand back I am a professional, put in the post wait for it to come back and then if I wanted you to have a look go and get a copy made put it in the post…which is pretty much
What your
Illustrator / GRaphic Designer (and if they do they are often paid way below),
a Site Draughtsman
a Photographer
were doing most of the time

And these practises comes down to wasting time and resources on site when what we should be doing is using the digital medias to their full

can I upload video to this site?

[BAJR]

I think - although I see what you mean, you miss my point.

The wet chemistry you are talking about is indeed the post processing digital manipulation we now use with Digital Cameras. However, I would suggest that the same rules apply in the taking of the image. The setup, exposure, etc… This is where the image is captured. The post processing is the secondary. If you take a crap blurry image (not suggesting you are) that is over exposed and missing vital ingredients of a ‘good’ photograph’ whether it is traditional SLR or Digital – the result is the same. A bad photograph. Thinking that suddenly, because we have Digital cameras, everyone is now able to take a ‘good photo’ is disingenuous. The same goes for the drawn record and indeed the final layout of a report. There are more tools with which to do that now… and that is good… BUT.. a professional illustrator is just that.. one that knows and uses the latest techniques, but has learned the process.

I have been an illustrator for near 20 years. And in that time have transformed from a fully pencil and pen one… to a digital illustrator… HOWEVER… the process and the knowledge is the same. What makes a good illustration – ask an illustrator. Otherwise the argument goes… why bother bringing in a surveyor… or a plant specialist or an osteologist.. after all google will help us to identify that plant remain.. however… it is the experience and training that has made this person a specialist. Just as a Photographer and an illustrator is trained to carry out the best job. Most people can take a good pic and draw an average plan and even create a report… but a specialist will make it stand out.

Talking of video.. I was an early adopter of teh video in on site discussion and record and am currently talking with Anies about his own work in using video in site record. BUT... once again... creating a video is much more than pointing a camera. considering shots, angles, lighting, storyboarding.. edit... or it ends up looking like a cheap YouTube video... (trust me... I know!)

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]Thinking that suddenly, because we have Digital cameras, everyone is now able to take a ‘good photo’ is disingenuous

.[/SIZE]

I am of the school that thinks that they can develop digital cameras for the next hundred years but digi cameras will never produce a picture as “good” as could be taken with a wet chemistry film. But I am not sure that I am that worried about the “good photo”. In the past because of the expense and single opportunity to get a photo in archaeology it evolved to it should be a “good photo”.

In the old scenario of a load of diggers on site, each with an area or feature and a camera box with its index and associated paraphernalia, dig with your back to the sun, stand on wheel barrow take your three pictures, tick box on context sheet move on to next feature you would find that most pictures were never intended to be used on any subsequent coffee table. The picture its self was never seen on site. It was the process of taking the picture that was seen as archaeological, the great contribution to the everlasting record. Taking a picture was an add on to the written and drawn It played no part at all in the excavators excavation of the feature or in its analysis. It was just a tic in the box. Theres absolutely no feed back to the process. The good photo evolved in to the post-ex clean up, might even get a cherry picker in and then it rained, last day so sad.

But now I have got these little gadgets that can produce an image, yes a bloody poor image compared to wet chemistry but I can see a representative of what I am looking at whilst I dig it. I can change the iso (which quite often happens by mistake), I can get shake the camera whilst I take the picture and produce the effect of an earthquake. And I can take about 2000 images of my post hole, delete them at will, time frame them add audio, mess with the metadata and its incredibly cheap. If I can see what I am trying to picture in the preview screen it will be there in the 10-12 meg image. Whats more I can drop one of mine in a puddle and its unaffected. I like to keep a straight face until the digger driver breaks out in sympathy. The digger can almost instantly keep a copy of every picture they have ever taken (to remind them of their copyrights) and to show future employers of their abilities. It seems to me that diggers should produce their own cameras.

But whats happened wet chem. is still there ponceing about site doing the this might turn out to be a good picture if I am an experienced well trained photographer who knows what a good picture should look like in a report, magazine, leaflet and poster and everybody is going about pretending that digital is the same as wet chem.. Its not

Kill wet chem. ahrrrrr