13th September 2012, 01:29 AM
(This post was last modified: 13th September 2012, 01:41 AM by John Wells.)
Very interesting! It is difficult to know where to begin.
I must say that I envy the experience that Tezet has with his aerial work.
I do not want to discuss archaeological aerial photography, which, as an amateur photographer 'working' in a new field, is my passion.
I have posted about this before: http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?...-the-cheap
My impression is that photography is not generally taught on courses in archaeology. This may explain why the expertise for photographing sites, landscapes and buildings is to be found in other disciplines where photography is taught. This is especially true of 3D modelling, both virtual and solid via 3D printing etc. As pointed out by ZSilvia above, creating 3D models can be quite simple with modern software, especially for aerial work. Have a play with Photoscan which can be downloaded free: http://www.agisoft.ru/products/photoscan/standard/demo/
What I find sad is that the expertise for interpreting and recording a site is with the archaeologist and yet the simple tool of photography appears to be given such a low priority.
I find modern digital cameras a right pain in their complexity. But they have a wonderful advantage over film cameras. Usually, you can simply add a filter, or filter combo, to take photos outside the visible spectrum.
For example, point your TV controller at your camera lens and press one of its button. Does the near IR LED of the controller light up on your camera screen?
![[Image: ir01.jpg]](http://www.armadale.org.uk/ir01.jpg)
In most cases the answer is 'Yes'. So add an R72 filter (~?10 on e-Bay) to your camera, to block out the visible light, and you have a near IR camera. Exposure times will be long (greater than 0.5 sec.), so you will need a tripod.
Near UV is a bit trickier and the cheapest approach is to use unmounted filters on a compact camera (~?35). See http://www.armadale.org.uk/phototech.htm. Simple lenses usually let through more near UV than others and you do have to check that your camera can see UV.
Archaeologists often look at their excavation work and say 'nothing so far'. If a palaeographer looks at an old piece of vellum, papyrus, wood or parchment which may contain writing they do not squint at it and say 'Can't see anything' and throw it away. They will illuminate it with UV to reveal the faded ink. There are a range of wavelengths that are used outside the visible spectrum for this purpose. For bread and butter archaeology this may not be appropriate but on key sites, especially if there are trace residues, having a look outside the visible spectrum may prove useful, even where the residue is diffuse, like an ink pattern on blotting paper.
Currently, thermal imaging is more expensive and you would need to fork out about ?900 for a camera (ours cost ~?2K each). Thermal imaging is not as simple as some may think but it does pick out difference in soil characteristics. However, I have a better feel (if limited understanding) of its usefulness in aerial work.
My thoughts on this topic are not new. I was initially given advice by Christopher Brooke who has worked in both the near IR and UV.
I must say that I envy the experience that Tezet has with his aerial work.
I do not want to discuss archaeological aerial photography, which, as an amateur photographer 'working' in a new field, is my passion.
I have posted about this before: http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?...-the-cheap
My impression is that photography is not generally taught on courses in archaeology. This may explain why the expertise for photographing sites, landscapes and buildings is to be found in other disciplines where photography is taught. This is especially true of 3D modelling, both virtual and solid via 3D printing etc. As pointed out by ZSilvia above, creating 3D models can be quite simple with modern software, especially for aerial work. Have a play with Photoscan which can be downloaded free: http://www.agisoft.ru/products/photoscan/standard/demo/
What I find sad is that the expertise for interpreting and recording a site is with the archaeologist and yet the simple tool of photography appears to be given such a low priority.
I find modern digital cameras a right pain in their complexity. But they have a wonderful advantage over film cameras. Usually, you can simply add a filter, or filter combo, to take photos outside the visible spectrum.
For example, point your TV controller at your camera lens and press one of its button. Does the near IR LED of the controller light up on your camera screen?
In most cases the answer is 'Yes'. So add an R72 filter (~?10 on e-Bay) to your camera, to block out the visible light, and you have a near IR camera. Exposure times will be long (greater than 0.5 sec.), so you will need a tripod.
Near UV is a bit trickier and the cheapest approach is to use unmounted filters on a compact camera (~?35). See http://www.armadale.org.uk/phototech.htm. Simple lenses usually let through more near UV than others and you do have to check that your camera can see UV.
Archaeologists often look at their excavation work and say 'nothing so far'. If a palaeographer looks at an old piece of vellum, papyrus, wood or parchment which may contain writing they do not squint at it and say 'Can't see anything' and throw it away. They will illuminate it with UV to reveal the faded ink. There are a range of wavelengths that are used outside the visible spectrum for this purpose. For bread and butter archaeology this may not be appropriate but on key sites, especially if there are trace residues, having a look outside the visible spectrum may prove useful, even where the residue is diffuse, like an ink pattern on blotting paper.
Currently, thermal imaging is more expensive and you would need to fork out about ?900 for a camera (ours cost ~?2K each). Thermal imaging is not as simple as some may think but it does pick out difference in soil characteristics. However, I have a better feel (if limited understanding) of its usefulness in aerial work.
My thoughts on this topic are not new. I was initially given advice by Christopher Brooke who has worked in both the near IR and UV.