On Fri, 25 Aug 1995 Christopher Whittle <[log in to unmask]>
said:

>Why study a postcard when a poster is available. Why use a picture in a
book if
>the original is available.
...
>Depending on one's definition and their application low-res is worthless.
I am
>a scholar and I require the finest images technologically possible to do
my
>work.

I find Mr. Whittle's response very disturbing because it represents an
extreme point of view that refuses to admit the realities of both image
access and scholarly needs.  The pretense of needing only the best, most
highly resolved, and most easily accessible images is one that derives from
a model of scholarly requirements that is neither true to real life nor
practical.

The truth is that if only poster-sized illustrations or only densely
resolved electronic images were available, most image-based work would
grind to a halt.  (The truth of this is so obvious, that I am embarrassed
to expound on it.)  As in ordinary life, scholars require that their
resources have different attributes at different times.  Sometimes (it is
true) a scholar will not be satisfied with an image unless it is available
in a specific degree of resolution.  (See the studies by Michael Ester on
this phenomena.)  But at other times speed of access and facility of
storage supersedes any need for high resolution.

A simple example drawn from non-electronic life illustrates my point.
Until recently I owned a collection of postcards that had been put together
by a well-known art historian.  Almost 6000 in number, these cards
(weighing apx. 60 pounds) constituted an important archive of images in its
category.  One could thumb through them freely and quickly, pull them, pile
them and sort them in many different ways -- much faster than one can file
through a set of medium resolution electronic images, by the way.  They may
not have been publishable images by today's standards, but they became a
great finding tool, wonderful for study purposes.  Imagine this collection,
now, as a set of 6000 2 by 3 foot posters, wonderful in color, high in
resolution, perfect for the most intense and demanding form of scholarly
study.  Let's say they were each rolled up and stored in bins like the
ancient rotuli in the library at Alexandria.  Well, several consequences of
this change are obvious.  First, my house would have to quadruple in size
just to hold them; second, access and comparison would be hampered by the
problems in retrieval and display of these posters.  One just cannot make
handy stacks of posters, compare sets of them, etc. etc.

In truth, when a scholar indicates that only the most highly resolved
images are suitable, he is deluding himself because his own research
methodologies necessarily make use of images culled from a variety of
sources that differ in degrees of accessibility and levels of resolution.
Scholars habitually collect images by xeroxing pictures from a variety of
low resolution sources, including books and journals.  They buy postcards,
send for 8x10 b&w study images, collect electronic images, and so on and
on.  No scholar requires only 8x10 color transparencies for every use.

Mr. Wittle's attitude reminds me of the story of the fellow who trained his
pet gorilla to play golf. Anxious to show this amazing animal off to the
world, he calls a press conference on the golf course.  The great animal
places the ball on the tee, pulls out a wood takes a stance and drives the
ball a full 350 yards.  It lands only eight inches from the cup on the next
green.  The astonished gathering moves on; the gorilla approaches the ball,
pulls out a club and hits it 400 yards ...

In golf you must choose between a wood, a mashie, a niblick or a putter.
In the game of "I need a picture" you must choose, and you want to choose
between high and low resolution images.  And you need to choose because if
you don't have that choice, you can't do your work.  To work efficiently,
scholars need both high and low resolution images.

In our coming on-line age, the laws of supply and demand will help
determine what kind of image best suits a particular need, and will
resolve, automatically, the question of what kind of security and licensing
provisions are to be applied to on-line images.

If I may be allowed the liberty of prognostication, I would guess that as
more and more object repositories place their image collections on-line, we
will see a graded system of providing image access, one that perhaps
(hopefully) will provide large collections of relatively low resolution
images at no cost with no rights for use by scholars and other interested
parties.  Consider these the analog of xeroxing images from books.  As
resolution needs increase, specific costs will be exacted and rights will
be attached.  Watermark branding that identifies the recipient, records the
image identification and specifies the rights purchased will become
standard.

Scholars who now don't think twice about the cost of photographing objects
themselves, purchasing postcards or buying 8x10s will think of image
retrieval fees as just another expense associated with research.  Some
corporations, institutions and individuals anxious to expose their images
to the public will mount high resolution images for free retrieval.
Repositories of public domain images may grow into major picture sources.
Museums and other interests that trade on the value of their images will
develop agencies, protocols and procedures that will continue to maximize
their profits and guarantee their revenue streams.  Most scholars will use
these tools with requisite care for obtaining good value -- the right
resolution and the proper price for the project at hand.

There will always be some users, like Mr. Wittle, who demand the best
images, with the most detail.  These exacting fellows will either be forced
to limit their studies to the high resolution freebies or to go broke
servicing their uncompromising standards -- but, of course, this will not
happen.  These image users will make choices just like the rest of us.
Some images will have to be seen in the original; high quality surrogates
will suffice for other purposes, and low quality images will be just fine
for other uses.

This conclusion should surprise no one.  It is no different than what
happened when photography was first introduced as a means of recording
objects of art.  In those days some scholars maintained that there was no
conceivable substitute for viewing the original object.  The conveniences
of photography were soon realized, however, and the portability,
accessibility and veracity of the photographic image soon gave birth to the
discipline of art history as we know it today.  We still maintain that
there is no substitute for examining the original; but thank god for those
convenient "low rez" black and white photographic reproductions.
--
______________________________________

Robert A. Baron
Museum Computer Consultant
P.O. Box 93, Larchmont, NY 10538
[log in to unmask]