Archaeologica.org

By the time you're done Charlie, you can pitch the rocks and take up photography. Its a whole lot less back-breaking but generally not the least ground-breaking.

Forum Monk wrote:By the time you're done Charlie, you can pitch the rocks and take up photography. Its a whole lot less back-breaking but generally not the least ground-breaking.

No doubt. When I get older it will give me something to do while the young guys are busting their butts.

That's so true RS. It took me 18mths of most evenings in the dark room just to become proficient at that end of the craft.
I remember explaining to the club chairman that his new super duper(expensive) camera was not going to give better results in the dark room, he was complaining of soft focus, as he was still enlarging through the same bottle bottom.

Charlie Hatchett wrote:
So it seems my priorities at this point should be purchasing a tripod, utilizing a diffuser and reflector, and using a metric/ IFRAO scale. After that, an external flashgun and slave-eye

It appears the HP Photosmart M525 I'm using has all the specs you mentioned, except the pop-up flash

Sorry to burst your bubble, Charlie, but, according to http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06010406hpm525.asp and http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/ar ... _5711.html, the HP Photosmart M525 lacks the most important spec you need: macro settings.
A built-in flash, however, would be just as good as a pop-up flash: you need it to trigger the external flash (via the slave-eye). So with a strip of paper you can block direct flashlight on the subject, while reflecting it towards the slave-eye.

Diffusers and reflectors are only useful with an external flashgun.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Charlie

It has a macro setting, but not settings. It is a very cheap camera. I had an $800.00 Olympus in the beginning, but my daughter spilled soda on it. Do you think it's worth getting a tripod for this cheap thing?

What ever the quality of the camera Charlie a tripod and cable release will always help eliminate camera shake, particularly if using long exposure times.

Digit wrote:What ever the quality of the camera Charlie a tripod and cable release will always help eliminate camera shake, particularly if using long exposure times.

Thanks, Dig. I think that will be my first improvement. That and some official scale placards.

Charlie Hatchett wrote:

Digit wrote:What ever the quality of the camera Charlie a tripod and cable release will always help eliminate camera shake, particularly if using long exposure times.

Thanks, Dig. I think that will be my first improvement. That and some official scale placards.

Digit is entirely correct, of course. Pay attention to which tripod you get (e.g. test – with cam on top – how long it 'swings'/moves before it stops) because the tripod will last you a lifetime, while you get a new camera every few years...

A camera with a selftimer doesn't need a cable release (besides, where/how would you attach that cable release...?).

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

Charlie Hatchett wrote:

Digit wrote:What ever the quality of the camera Charlie a tripod and cable release will always help eliminate camera shake, particularly if using long exposure times.

Thanks, Dig. I think that will be my first improvement. That and some official scale placards.

Digit is entirely correct, of course. Pay attention to which tripod you get (e.g. test – with cam on top – how long it 'swings'/moves before it stops) because the tripod will last you a lifetime, while you get a new camera every few years...

A camera with a selftimer doesn't need a cable release (besides, where/how would you attach that cable release...?).

Thanks, R/S. I'll keep those tips in mind.

Don't know about the modern stuff, RS, but I have one or two cameras in my collection that I would never use the self timer on. When that thing goes off the whole house shakes! That's why I used to use a cable!

Digit wrote:Don't know about the modern stuff, RS, but I have one or two cameras in my collection that I would never use the self timer on. When that thing goes off the whole house shakes! That's why I used to use a cable!

Wow, you must be really old! Selftimers these days are electronic! Nothing moves physically (try that with a cable release!).

Yep I'm really old! So let's have a little respect for your elders!
And after a day replacing lead flashings on the roof, training a Grape vine, repairing a clock and hanging a mirror, I feel it!

fossiltrader wrote:I read about the internet making knowledge dangerous in here or should i say too little knowledge.
Then i look at a startling collection of pre-clovis artefacts so i show some rather good and easy to identify items sadly though it seems the internet a great teacher when it comes to rare items it skips the basics .As for the pre-clovis items i am sorry ,wish you luck with them but they do not appear to have any of the signs visible that point to them being artefacts.
P.S. I threw in the fossil picture as an idiot check its a mammoth tooth.
cheers Terry.

fossiltrader wrote:i never said my pieces werent man made what i said was that in simple terms a first year student would be expected to know what they are that never happened in here.
So if you cannot recognize simple artefacts how can you possibly identify some thing as unusaul as pre-clovis???
By the way i am an expert i get paid to authenticate artefacts and give opinions on sites.
And though this may upset some i did go to university i have a B.A. in Archaeology and paleoanthropology in the process of completing masters now also been doing this work for quite a few years.
Silly me maybe i should just have read lots of websites lol.Cheers Terry.

fossiltrader wrote:Maybe you should read what i wrote i already gave my opinion but i will repeat it i see no signs that would indicate your pieces man made worked, knapped or otherwise tampered with apart from being taken from off site which means you just lost 90% of any information they can supply.
This is all simple stuff must ask did your experts not tell you any of this???
When you remove artefacts from site we refer to it as destroying because you have just destroyed the value of the site plus the artefact isnt this taught to archaeologists where you live?

Terry,

Perhaps if you had bothered to read any of the extensive discourse that Charlie has kindly made available on the web you’d realise that it is eroding from the river edge so it’s actually a case of recovery. That you clearly haven’t even bothered to research basic background information before casting your assertions speaks volumes about you and certainly wouldn’t enthuse me with confidence if I was one of your clients.

With regard to provenance most of us are quite well aware of current practice and don’t need to refer to experts for basic guidance. Where we need assistance is access to resource, specialist knowledge and expertise. You don’t mention where your speciality is precisely except to say that you get paid to authenticate artefacts. Personally I find your comments reek of conceit and complete disdain for your audience – it’s a really unprofessional image that you are displaying and I am sure it is not representative of the archaeology community there. Based on your comments, photos and website I certainly wouldn’t pay for your services.

Finally, why if you don’t think they are pre-clovis do you wish Charlie luck with them? I note from your profile that your interest is lithics and I can only guess from the lack of insight displayed that it’s just a passing fad for you. All the traits you should have been trained to look for are there so why you can’t see them beats me. It’s a good job you went out of your way to explain that you had a BA in Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology because it is not apparent in your communications and you’ve added nothing of value to this web forum.

Thank you, I feel better now.

Eloquently put.
I tip my hat, sir.

Thank you, I feel better now.

Well put, Richard.