> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:46:10 -0600> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Basic Advice on Archival Digitization Project> To: [log in to unmask]> > Hi Fred, all, > > Let me preface this response with this: I am not an archivist. 
 
Hi I am Chris, I am an Archivist.
 
Not trained as an archivist. 
 
I am.
 
Don't even watch TV shows that have archivists in them> generally speaking (only because I don't watch a lot of TV period :) ). 
 
There are TV shows with Archivists in them?>> > <snip>> In addition, archivists often feel the best image capture is one that is of> sufficient quality that researchers don't bother to ask to see the original.> </snip>
> > I just don't believe that a 120+MB file fits this description. Maybe if they> are accessing the file locally but this is a file that cannot be emailed,> cannot be easily accessed over the Web, and will require lots of storage,> whether CD (5 files per), DVD (38 or so files, maybe 70 for DL) or even a> 500 GB hard disk (4,000 files). 
 
Not really an issue with Archives. They would prefer that serious researchers come to the Archives.
 
Frankly, I also wonder whether a standard> TIFF viewer can view these files - I'm thinking Windows Imaging> specifically, but any other mainstream reader. If not, that suggests that> there's an accessibility issue to be addressed. 
 
Again, access is limited in most cases. It does bring up a side issue. Some Archivists used to scan images at a lower quality resolution based on the premise that a high quality reference image reduces the intrinsic value of the original.> > I'd be interested though in seeing what current best practice is - NARA says> 400-600, with 300 an acceptable minimum in some circumstances; APIS says 600> and 24-bit color as minimum; I imagine there are a number of others> including TASI, the various archivists' societies, etc. that could weigh in> here. But as was noted earlier in the thread, 1200 dpi used to be the> recommendation based on years of experience with the materials and the needs> of the users. That tells me that a) there is not as much consensus on this> as would probably be useful and b) what consensus there is changes over> time. Not that there's anything wrong with that - any practices should be> reevaluated periodically to determine whether they should be updated to> account for current practices. 
 
The theory is that if you are going to capture a record in a format other than the original, you must capture it at the highes possible resolution. THis holds whether you are scanning at 600dpi or filming at 10X. You need to divorce yourself from the business madel. The 1200 dpi was an outgrowth of the opposition Archivists had to the entire idea capturing records in electronic format. At the time the general conscensus was that electronic documents were not even records (don't laugh, most REcords Managers were yelling the same thing). There were no scanners available, at the time, that would scan at 1200 dpi. 
 
The current 600 dpi reflects the idea that archival records are in part defined by the larger amount of resources for the creation and maintenance of the record. Not only do Archival records have higher scanning resolution, but also have higher metadata requirments. If you want 7000 opinions on the issue ping the Archives list. > > Finally, from my distinctly non-archival perspective, some of the issues in> the thread relate to the inherent limitations of the physical media as well> as the digital representation of that. In other words, there's no question> in MY mind that an archival photograph would be better scanned at higher> resolutions than lower, all else being equal. But for a document, what's> being archived might not necessarily be the physical object as much as the> content it represents. So for a document that's created electronically, if> it's printed and the electronic version discarded for whatever reason, but> later determined to be of archival value, that cheap office supply recycled> paper doesn't really need such a crisp image of it, so why save it such a> high-quality archival format? Better yet, why not save it as e.g. XML so> that there is zero chance of it not being able to be interpreted in 100> years - then it could even be printed for long-term preservation and simply> OCRed and reconstructed to its original digital format (and see my post> earlier about ODF and OOXML)?
 
 
See now you are bringing Records Management arguments to an archival discussion. You can argue all you want but if yo uare looking do do it the achival way you must climb the steps, cast off the dingy raiment of business, wash yourself clean and come towards the light. 
 
Or not> > And to come full circle, I don't know whether Kirk's documents are> digital-born or paper, but I *do* know that for every organization it will> be more the former than the latter as each year passes. Archival issues have> been and will continue to be raised for born-digital information that simply> aren't applicable to the physical world. 
 
I thought this was a personal project.> Chris Flynn
_________________________________________________________________
Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic.
http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164&ocid=T003MSN51N1653A
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]