On Thu, 07 Mar 96 13:19:00 EET  START, Rodney wrote:
>
>Thanks for your response.  I have only been using Museum-L for two days
and  >I am pleasantly surprised by the promptness of the responses. >
>Fortunately we are not required by law to include either a scale or a
number  >but I can see where you would have to.   It is personal
preferences from  >various staff would either want to keep the scale or
not.   Photographically  >the image looks better without the scale, it
also eliminates a few problems  >that arise from having the scale in, ie
unwanted shadows,  soft looking  >scale etc. >

>Taking two images of each object in our case in not an option due to the

 >volume of images that we plan to capture, 50,000 images per year for
the  >next 4 years.  The cost of computer storage is outside of our
budget.  It  >may be a case of including the scale and then reshooting
whatever we need  >for other purposes.
>
>What sort of equipment set-up do you have for digitizing images?   We
are  >using the JVC TK-F7300U frame grab camera for the objects, Polaroid

Sprint  >scanners for the 35mm images and a UMAX PowerLook II flatbed
with  >Transparency adaptor for large format images.   We were using a
Microtek 45T  >for scanning 5x4 images but it was too slow and
temperamental for production  >work. >
>Thanks again for your response.
>
>Rodney Start
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
_____________________________________

Re:the cost of 2 exposures: We've found that the exposure with
registration no. and scale is almost always used for insurance &
collections management purposes only (the law AND insurance companies
require inclusion of the reg.no. because otherwise the photograph is not
provably OF the particular object in the registration record), and isn't
suitable for publication anyway. In times of desperation (often), we've
used snapshots for this.  They may be unprofessional photographically,
but they answer the legal/insurance/registration reqirements fine, and
cheaply.  Truly professional photographs are taken when needed.

This presents its own problem: repeat handling and moving of objects for
photography.  I think each institution has to balance this out for
itself. We have close to a quarter of a million objects/works of art in
our collection, and creating publication-quality photographs of each
without specific need simply doesn't make sense.

In addition, we've found that no one "publication quality" photograph
answers everyone's publication needs.  Repeat photography seems to be an
unavoidable fact of life. (Then there's repeat photography after a work
is restored...and one has to retain the previous photograph so that the
two can be compared if neccessary...) You get the picture.

How will we cope with multiple photographs in a computerized database?
Check back with us in a couple of months...

We are starting work on the pilot project for a nation-wide museums
database initiative shortly, and in fact this department will be the
imaging "guinea pig"  for the whole thing. We will be trying out
different digital equipment and methods, and I will be ruthlessly taking
advantage of all the info and advice I've gathered from others.
-------------------------------------
Name: amalyah keshet
visual resources / the israel museum, jerusalem
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Date: 03/07/96
Time: 12:22:23

-------------------------------------