Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
19th February 2010, 02:37 PM
http://en.calameo.com/read/0000627296b9a...3b?page=53
in this edition of Past Horizons, my viewpoint is about the need for professional photography and illustration/draughtsman and the skill to be recognised... you can read the full article above...
part of it
Quote:and a photographer on site. Nowadays, it seems that these are areas where costs can be cut.
Instead, it is cheaper to put a digital camera into a site assistant?s hand so that they can point
and click. The resulting photographs may be a bit blurry but people seem to think that they
can get away with it
ends with
Quote:We live in world where visuals are an extremely important method of communication. Both
illustration and photography can get to the heart and soul of a subject and should not be
compromised, but not everyone has the ability to convey that to an acceptable standard.
In my opinion, therefore, as archaeologists we have a responsibility to make sure we use
professional help to ensure good illustration and photography maintains its place as a vital
part of archaeological inquiry.
Am I right? or wrong? :face-huh:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
19th February 2010, 03:47 PM
Errr... right, of course! Archaeological illustration (on-site or finds, hand-drawn or digital) and archaeological photography (on-site or in-side work, both digital and film) are just as 'specialist' as any other archaeological professions.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
19th February 2010, 04:10 PM
I've never been on a site which required the use of a professional photographer, except where the press was involved ("hold that skull a little higher. That's it!"), but joking aside, I am concerned about the loss of photography skills among the field staff. Digital cameras definitely have their place in modern fieldwork. However, old manual SLRs shouldn't be replaced with pocket-sized digital point-and-shoot cameras - if they are replaced it should be with decent digital SLRs.
It's the kind of thing that should be picked up by a curator in a WSI- if the WSI talks about recording with digital cameras, they should specify hi-res digital SLRs. Otherwise I could just go out with my camera phone, snap away and have a photographic record of the site.
?He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself?
Chinese Proverb
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
19th February 2010, 05:24 PM
I think that an understanding of what you're recording is just as important as the technical knowledge. I'd rather have a not-quite-straight photo that shows what's important than a beautifully frames one that doesn't.
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
19th February 2010, 06:51 PM
This is the point.. a professional image or a professional drawing... is beter than a crap one... if you do indeed have the skill to show what is there, then you will (by default) have a well framed and well exposed photograph... same with a drawing... have you got the north, coords, context numbers, levels etc... and does the drawing mean that 100 years from now, somebody could use the primary record to re-interpret the site.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
20th February 2010, 07:19 PM
are you saying archaeology cant be done without a drawing or a photo?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th February 2010, 07:53 PM
hmmm... I am saying that without a form of illustrative record the primary record and indeed final reult are incomplete. I would be interested to know of one example of what you may be suggesting? :face-huh:
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
22nd February 2010, 02:43 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:are you saying archaeology cant be done without a drawing or a photo?
It shouldn't be.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of Tony Robinson.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
22nd February 2010, 09:20 PM
problem is making drawings/photos is not enough - somtimes it seems that is all that is being done - of course archaeology can be done without photos/drawiwngs - (fieldwalking? antiquarian research?) - we need to understand the uses and purpose of our tools, not fetishise them in thier own right.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
22nd February 2010, 10:13 PM
Quote:[SIZE=3]I would be interested to know of one example of what you may be suggesting
?[/SIZE]
Its more a principle for when I am a fully qualified (somebody you like) archaeologist- cant I do what I want to do. do what I feel is best in the circumstance?
So for instance I am on holiday, I look down and see a Neolithic blade. What do I do. Think I must report this, it will need drawing, I must take it to the foremost neo expert in the land, oh where will the responsibility end, where will the expense end- maybe I should look away, it was just a natural stone
