Very interesting discussion on archival image standards and the  
practicalities that beset them.

What you choose as an archival format should also depend on the  
nature and accessibility of your originals. When you are weighing up  
relative costs, it may not be practical for items in large local  
history archives to be stored in large archival files when quantity  
is also critical. However, they are extremely worthwhile when you are  
shooting large paintings or even unwieldy items like maps etc.

I have been an advocate of Adobe's open DNG format for some time and  
I would certainly recommend it over proprietary raw files. The DNG  
acts as a wrapper into which you can fold your raw file, all  
associated metadata and, optionally, a lower res jpeg. It has been  
designed as an archival standard and is a default option on the  
Capture One software used by many museum/gallery photographers.

We had long discussions about archival standards on The Cambridge  
Images Project and - as storage wasn't so much of a issue - we  
decided to recommend the use of DNGs whenever possible. Our working  
masters were large tiffs and our images for distribution were A4 300  
ppi jpegs. A couple of years ago there were a number of concerns  
about JPEG 2000 (colour, speed etc), but I note that there has been a  
lot of development in that area and I am going to be looking closely  
at the emergence of these new formats. It's brilliant that Wellcome  
and Library of Congress have done so much work in this area and are  
transparent in their findings. A recent blog from Wellcome was  
particularly enlightening when discussing speed of conversion   
(http://jpeg2000wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com).

One other comment is to point out that there are very enlightening  
discussions going on in the professional photography forums. And it  
would be wise for us to remember that these are generally the people  
who drive development in this area - and indeed drive commercial  
support for formats.

I would also recommend the UPDIG guidelines on image and metadata  
standards if you want to know what is being adopted universally - not  
just in the cultural arena (http:// 
jpeg2000wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com). They were given a lot of  
funding last year by the Library of Congress to spread the standards  
message - and they did a great job.

Metadata - retaining metadata is critical - not just the metadata  
about the photographic data but the provenance and other descriptive  
metadata that can be held within the image itself (IPTC). However,  
these concerns are useless unless you make sure that the data is  
being recorded in the first place (eg scanning software is rarely  
configured correctly with this in mind).

Sorry - must stop now before I write a book !

Angela


Angela Murphy
Consultant
Image Management and Rights Clearance

The Image Business
21 Leamington Road Villas
Notting Hill
London W11 1HS
Tel: +44-(0)20-77274920
Mob: +44-(0)7973-820020

email: [log in to unmask]



On 22 Mar 2011, at 17:03, HARRIS TONY wrote:

> Thanks Tehmina, it's very interesting to know, obviously we all are  
> capturing different types of object so this would have bearing on  
> it. I can see the advantages of a book scanner from the point of  
> view of page ordering, this alone must make it compelling to use.  
> We are concerned with works of art here at the GAC so shooting  
> using digital cameras makes sense for us. Point taken on metadata.
>
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf  
> Of Tehmina Goskar
> Sent: 22 March 2011 16:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Digital masters for the archive
>
> Tony,
>
> No, I didn't mean it in that sense. I was using scan as a short- 
> hand for the
> example I was giving. I now shoot all my photographs in RAW for the  
> reasons
> you mention--it acts as a digital negative that you can return to  
> time and
> again. Although RAW files are just as unwieldy as TIFFs when it  
> comes to
> storage.
>
> In fact I asked the technical guy training us with the book scanner  
> about
> whether it captured in RAW as it did (seem to) use a CCD or similar  
> but this
> was not the case.
>
> I have also heard arguments for using digital camera capture even  
> for '2D'
> items. The main limitation here is the physical set up to allow for  
> decent
> even lighting, etc.so cost wise (if it must come down to that) the  
> economics
> of scanning using a book scanner were favourable, coupled with the
> integrated software that could, for example, compile separate  
> images into an
> 'order' which could then be integrated as a single digital archive  
> object
> (e.g. an account book).
>
> To me the distinction I was trying to make was not in the method of  
> image
> capture but in the process. You can use digital camera capture,  
> flat bed
> scanner or book scanner to create a digital equivalent but in my view
> digitisation takes it a step further with proper description of the  
> original
> as part of its metadata and digital asset record (particularly if the
> process is being conducted for eventual dissemination online or  
> through
> other electronic medium).
>
> Hope that makes sense,
> Tehmina
>
> On 22 March 2011 16:24, HARRIS TONY  
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Tehmina, I'm interested your usage of the word 'scan' and  
>> 'digitisation',
>> because to me 'scan' means flatbed/negative scanning. Am I wrong  
>> in reading
>> here that digital camera capture is not something that is on the  
>> radar of
>> the MCG? I'm just interested to know as I think I'm the only  
>> person here
>> today that has mentioned RAW image files.
>>
>> If we are talking about scanning a large amount of film based  
>> photographic
>> material it is worth considering using a digital camera and a  
>> copystand as
>> some institutions I know of have found this route to be far  
>> quicker than
>> using a flatbed scanner.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Tehmina Goskar
>> Sent: 22 March 2011 15:55
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Digital masters for the archive
>>
>> Thank you all for your replies.
>>
>> Scale definitely matters and it is useful to see those costs  
>> compared. The
>> institutional infrastructure here is not infinite so making a  
>> pragmatic
>> decision will be essential regardless of perceived ideals.
>>
>> Yes, the answer to the question about is it worth digitising to
>> 'preservation' quality is an emphatic yes. I would never advocate the
>> redoubling of effort of something that is so time consuming. Many  
>> of these
>> items will be direct surrogates for the archives themselves and  
>> from a
>> researcher's point of view these need to be as true to the  
>> original as
>> possible. Ink on paper will not last as long as parchment. And at the
>> moment
>> reproduction from TIFFs provides the truest print surrogate  
>> although I take
>> on all points on lossless compression in JPEG 2000s.
>>
>> Through experience and observation the number of organisations who  
>> scan (I
>> only really like to use the term digitise if there is a  
>> descriptive element
>> to the process) the same item over and over suggests even ad hoc
>> digitisation benefits from following certain forms of best  
>> practice to
>> order
>> to further economise the process.
>>
>> I will be interested to read the Digital Preservation Coalition  
>> report.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Tehmina
>>
>>
>> On 22 March 2011 15:10, David Croft <[log in to unmask]>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any advantages to JPEG2000 over something more  
>>> widespread like
>>> PNG?
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************
>>>       website:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>>>       Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>>>      Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>>>  [un]subscribe:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>>> ****************************************************************
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr Tehmina Goskar, MA AMA
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> http://tehmina.goskar.com/
>>
>> Research Officer: ESRC Global and Local Worlds of Welsh Copper
>> History & Classics
>> Prifysgol Abertawe / Swansea University
>>
>> ****************************************************************
>>       website:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>>       Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>>      Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>>  [un]subscribe:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>> ****************************************************************
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************************* 
>> *******
>> This email and its contents are the property of the Department for  
>> Culture,
>> Media and Sport.
>> If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please  
>> delete it.
>> All DCMS e-mail is recorded and stored for a minimum of 6 months
>>
>> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the  
>> Government Secure
>> Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless  
>> Worldwide in
>> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number  
>> 2009/09/0052.) On
>> leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
>> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored  
>> and/or
>> recorded for legal purposes.
>>
>> ****************************************************************
>>        website:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>>       Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>>      Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>>  [un]subscribe:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>> ****************************************************************
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr Tehmina Goskar, MA AMA
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://tehmina.goskar.com/
>
> Research Officer: ESRC Global and Local Worlds of Welsh Copper
> History & Classics
> Prifysgol Abertawe / Swansea University
>
> ****************************************************************
>        website:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>        Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>       Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>  [un]subscribe:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************
>
> ********************************************************************** 
> ******
> This email and its contents are the property of the Department for  
> Culture, Media and Sport.
> If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please  
> delete it.
> All DCMS e-mail is recorded and stored for a minimum of 6 months
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the  
> Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by  
> Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM  
> Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was  
> certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored  
> and/or recorded for legal purposes.
>
> ****************************************************************
>        website:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>        Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>       Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>  [un]subscribe:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************


****************************************************************
       website:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
       Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
      Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
 [un]subscribe:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************