There exist some people who DISCARD materials once they have been scanned.
Some people object to calling that "preservation".
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, Zane Healy wrote:
Aren’t these the same people that scan at such poor quality that only
the text is “usable”, and illustrations are largely unusable?
I wouldn't be surprised if there is substantial overlap between the two
groups. Although one would hope that those who think that digital
copies are adequate would care about making them adequate.
Admittedly, there are SOME materials where scans need only be adequate for
OCR.
Certainly Murphy would hold that the least available ones would be those
that most need quality scanning.
Case in point, I’m trying to track down a 150 year old book, by one of
my favorite photography authors, it’s on Google books, but the
illustrations, which are vital to understanding what the author is
talking about, are largely useless.
Hmmm. 150 year old photography book would be just after civil war.
My preference for photography books isusually from about 60 to 80 years
ago, when publishers could do a good job of B&W plates, and the
technology of 35mm was coming along. (Morgan and Lester, etc.)
Occasionally, I'll drive to Carmel to look at Ansel Adams prints at the
Weston Gallery - "megapixel" just doesn't cut it!
Is there any way to penetrate the Google infrastructure, to track down who
scanned the book, and where it now is?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
