> Precisely. If one refers to the object itself with a photograph as a
> reference to it, the source is primary. If one is looking at the
> photograph and making observations from it, it is secondary. The
> difference comes in that when looking at the photograph key aspects
> may be hidden or trifling aspects magnified.
Taking my Wallace Collection Catalog for example. That would make the
photos of the artifacts, contained there in, primary source material.
However the text entry for the item would be a secondary source to cite.
In that the observation of the dimensions and markings were not made by
me (but rather by someone on Sir David Edges staff).
Or photos of the Devonshire tapestries would be a secondary source for
the subject shown (if we accept the tapestries as being rendered from
direct observation in history). The text describing the content of the
tapestries would be a tertiary source. (unless we are talking about
fiber arts, then the photo of the tapestry is primary and the text
describing the construction of the tapestries is secondary (confusing
enough, for you?)).
Scott B. Jaqua
Hagerson Forge, Custom Blades from Historic Patterns