26th February 2010, 07:30 PM
Quote:[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