I can't see using a surrogate for bibliographic research. The
stories I've heard about the difference a hair falling on a photo
subject can make... dotting an otherwise un-dotted "i"...
Other research can benefit from access to texts liberated from
their containers: chemists seeking a formula, engineers building
a bridge, legal scholars wondering what the statute said -- far
more efficient, in fact, for any of these to use online digital,
both for its global reach and for its search & retrieval &
manipulation capacities.
An ancient book, though, needs the original. Otherwise too much
evidence stays hidden, of paper quality and watermarks and
bindings and collation and fonts and the rest. The best
bibliographies I've seen use high-res photographs for general
reference only: to indicate title page appearance, or a closeup
to show some anomaly. Full consideration of a book requires the
original, though: container, context, and so much else all being
necessary. It's why books need safeguarding.
Good luck to anyone considering the sale of scanning, too: Amazon
keeps trying, in its article reprint / doc delivery business --
too easy for users to recopy & distribute, so no repeat business.
Jack Kessler, kessler@well.com
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Donald farren wrote:
> --- Eric Holzenberg <ejh@GROLIERCLUB.ORG> wrote:
> >> But even then, there is only so much information you can glean from a
> >> picture, digital or otherwise. Researchers will always need access to
> >> the original.
>
> I'm with Eric. As a researcher (albeit mainly bibliographical), having to
> use a surrogate is anathema. I'm surprised that booksellers are advocating
> the use of surrogates. Of course their stance is high-minded, but are they
> planning to abandon selling the real thing in favor of scanning (plenty of
> which, regrettably, I am offered on ABE).
>
>
> Donald Farren
> 4009 Bradley Lane
> Chevy Chase, MD 20815-5238
> dfarren@concentric.net
> voice 301.951.9479
> fax 301.951.3898
> mobile 301.768.8972
>
>