Re: digital cameras
I too use a digital camera - 5 megapixels required. But I'm an amateur and
the prints are not particularly good, getting documents in focus is
difficult without a tripod and a stand for the document and a lot of
fiddling around.
However I do think this method is useful and their use will grow. At present
many record offices are not charging for this, but I'm sure they will soon
realise it is a potential source of income. Cambs RO, for instance, I think
charges a flat £5 fee for one session, which covers any number of pictures.
On the whole, I don't think record offices have caught up with this trend
yet - many of
them do permit the use but there are no facilities to enhance the pictures,
such as well-lit rooms. Moreover, the persistent digital camera user can
also cause annoyance to other researchers if on the same table.
Last time I was at the National Archives, the table I was assigned to was
alive with Japanese visitors seemingly taking digital pictures of every page
of every document - with 3 or 4 photographers on the table, it was very hard
for me to concentrate on my non-digitized research. I wondered whether they
were compiling a digital collection of our National Archives!
There should be separate areas for those using cameras, as there are for
those using laptops, and somewhere with decent lighting facilities - but of
course many ROs don't have the spare space. It is a subject that needs more
thought - I would think that a non-flash camera is kinder to an old document
than a photocopier, for instance.
I was interested to read that the digital prints will not last 10 years -
presumably the CD copy will be OK, so long as it is transferred to updated
software every now and then? If not, what is the best way for long-term
preservation of these digital pictures?
Jacqueline Cooper
|