No asbestos needed.  I answered Tim in much the same spirit, off
list:

"It sounds to me, from your description of your needs, that you don't
need
digital photography, CD-ROMs, or all of that at all. (Unless, of
course, you want it for the sheer fun of it -- an approach with which
I find
it difficult to argue. But beware. Digital storage formats are no
more
"permanent" than conventional formats.)

Is your collection so large that you really *need* a computerized
image
base?  Or is a conventional one adequate?  If you need the photos for
object
identification, insurance and registration, a color snapshot
developed and
printed at a quickie photoshop is perfectly adequate. We do this all
the
time.  Then, when you need a more professional photograph, for
whatever
purpose, you make one (b/w, color transparency, whatever).  You can
simply
scan in the color snapshots (or, better, their negatives) if you want
to add
images to an already-existing database.  They won't be a big deal on
screen,
but they'll be adequate for object identification. And they won't
take up
enormous amounts of memory. They'll look awful in a print-out, but
then you
can have quickie prints made from your color negatives for next to
nothing."

I personally adore the words "computerized image-base," and my heart
rate
increases when I approach a scanner, but sometimes we can't see the
simplest, low-tech solution for the forest of electronic equipment...

-------------------------------------
amalyah keshet
director, visual resources, the israel museum, jerusalem
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
date: 08/07/96
visit our web site at http://www.imj.org.il
-------------------------------------

On Wed, 7 Aug 1996 12:05:18 EDT  Paul Silbermann wrote:
>Tim,
>
>As an Archivist, I would caution you against going to digital format

for
>recording collection images - particularly if these are to be the
record
>copies for accessioning/registration. Digital images are much too
>volatile (in my opinion) in that they can be altered (either
>accidentally or on purpose) without leaving any overt evidence,
unlike a
>photographic negative. In addition, by going digital you tie your
>reference to those records to a technology which may or may not be
>available (power failures, system crashes, etc) - for a negative all

you
>need is a light source and a magnifying glass.
>
>(Pardon me while I don my asbestos underwear)
>
>Paul
>
>Paul Silbermann                  National Air and Space Museum
>[log in to unmask]             Archives Division
>**************These opinions are mine, not NASM's**************
>