2
\$\begingroup\$

Library of Congress usually has different versions of digitized works. see this example

What is "color film copy transparency"? and what is its different with "digital file from original"?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
9
  • \$\begingroup\$ Pretty sure this is off topic for photograpy. It's a good question, but I'm not sure which Stack Exchange site it would fit on exactly. \$\endgroup\$
    – AJ Henderson ♦
    Commented Jun 4, 2013 at 16:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ History might be the best place to ask this. Perhaps a mod can see about migrating it there. \$\endgroup\$
    – AJ Henderson ♦
    Commented Jun 4, 2013 at 17:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Hmm... @AJHenderson history of photography, photography in society, techniques (preservation would fit I think), are all on topic here. I think it's ok. \$\endgroup\$
    – Joanne C
    Commented Jun 5, 2013 at 1:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ JoanneC: but it isn't history of photography. It's a painting. \$\endgroup\$
    – AJ Henderson ♦
    Commented Jun 5, 2013 at 2:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ Your answer, however, includes photography. I think it may be close to the edge, but it's kind of refreshing to have some history/preservation here. We do, after all, have questions on taking photos of art. So, why not how to handle those photos after? \$\endgroup\$
    – Joanne C
    Commented Jun 5, 2013 at 3:04

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
\$\begingroup\$

For color film copy transparency, they took a color photograph (negative), developed a color transparency (positive) and scanned the transparency to produce a digital file. Digital file from original means that the original was either scanned or digitally photographed. It has to do with what was digitized, was it the original or some kind of copy.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for your answer, do you know why they do make those negatives and positives while they can easily scan the originals with their medium format cameras? \$\endgroup\$
    – Omne
    Commented Jun 13, 2013 at 14:25
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Omne - if I had to guess, probably just time. It's a lot easier to do a high quality scan of the film you have on file than it is to pull an artifact from display and do another detailed capture of it. They may update it eventually, but it's far quicker to scan a bunch of archival stuff than it is to pull thousands of artifacts off display. \$\endgroup\$
    – AJ Henderson ♦
    Commented Jun 13, 2013 at 14:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.