If absolute image fidelity is required for research, there is no substitute
for going and seeing the object in question in person. If any image IS
acceptable, then one that is reasonably easy to manipulate, (with a nod
towards information about scale of both color and size), is the most
suitable.

Though I sympathize with Christopher Wittle's statement that nothing is too
high rez for the scholar, Robert Baron's statement describes the way that
images will be used on the net for the forseeable future. You never seem to
get pictures of the backs of things anyway!

I'd like one of those postcard files, sounds very handy..

Shuffling through the Renaissance......
Pat Strong
[log in to unmask]


>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]