9th February 2007, 02:24 PM
Yeah Merc, sorry not a personal dig. You're right about the general photography though, and I found this a bit weird myself. Then again when I did personally feel something merited a photo I was allowed to go get the cameras. That said the 'pro' photos that were taken across the site, were done regularly and were bound to be of a consistently higher standard than those in the average archive - showing endless nondescript pits in poor light conditions. The selective approach to site photography is outlined and reasoned well in the MoLAS manual. The v expensive (at the time) digital SLR was used by a trusted few to record all the skeles, in my recollection - and was purchased with this in mind. I'm still not convinced by the 'photograph every feature' approach - and have found (despite training people) that wide ranging use of SLR film cameras leads to disappointing archives.