The still imaging portion of FADGI [1] continues to be a living document that has evolved from its theoretical digital imaging principles of a decade ago into adaptations for the realities of day-to-day cultural heritage workflows. While the initial document was a bit disjointed, the
2016 version is a solid major improvement and has proven very useful in gauging digital imaging goodness. [2] With coaching, encouragement and focused attention to detail many users, even the unschooled, have achieved 3-star compliance, sometimes with high-speed sheet-fed document scanners.
4-star levels are not far behind. This is a testimony to an improved digital image literacy for the cultural heritage sector that the authors articulated at the beginning of the last decade. This objective and science based literacy has certainly evolved and continues to do so. It is fair
to say that no other imaging sector has such comprehensive objective imaging guidelines as those of FADGI, especially in the context of high volume imaging workflows. While initial efforts focused on single instance device benchmarking, future work will concentrate on performance consistency
over the long term. Image digitization for cultural heritage will take on a decidedly industrial tone. With practice, we continue to learn and refine the practical application of FADGI guidelines in the preservation of meaningful information. Like rocks in a farm field, every year new issues
and errors with current practices surface that were previously hidden from view. Some are incidental, others need short term resolution. The goal of this paper is to highlight these and make proposals for easier, less costly, and less frustrating ways to improve imaging goodness through the
FADGI guidelines.
Heritage digitization. Are there common practices and common reasons?
