Interesting debate on primary vs. secondary sources

[mathnerd]

My boyfriend and I were having an interesting discussion on primary vs. secondary sources in research. Yes, we're nerds, and we like it that way. So here's the debate:

A primary source is generally defined as the original documents.

A secondary source can be defined one of two ways:
--Any source that isn't a primary source
--A source that uses information from the primary source

So the question is this:

Assuming that no alterations have been made, is a digital image of a primary source still primary, or is it now secondary?

For example, if I wanted to study some historical document, of which there is only one and it's stored in the Vatican Library, but I lack the funds to actually travel to the Vatican. For the purposes of this example, we're going to assume that the Vatican has made digital images of the document I would like to study, so I pull them up on my computer. The Vatican has simply taken photographs and has done nothing to alter the image (even to make it clearer, etc.) Is that a primary or secondary source? I can see arguments both ways.

[KabeRinnaul]

I'd say an exact copy of a primary source remains a primary source. Otherwise, an interview would be a primary source, but a recording of that interview would be secondary.

[Kheldarson]

So the question is this:

Assuming that no alterations have been made, is a digital image of a primary source still primary, or is it now secondary?

As a history major who had to do that for some papers, a digital copy (even a digital transcript) of a primary work is still considered primary. The Gutenberg Project is a great place to go for online copies of older books, and counts as a primary source (the books, not the website itself).

[Andara Bledin]

Any faithful reproduction of a primary source is still a primary source.

An article or critique about the primary source would be a secondary source.

People using the underlying data in other ways are different primary sources.

Down below that, you mostly get into anecdata.

[mathnerd]

But there's more to the primary source than just the content. Taking that interview, a recording wouldn't show the facial expression of the related party just off camera. You lose a bit of the mood when you're not right there. Think of the difference between listening to a live recording of some Rock concert vs being there yourself. I'd argue that a recording of anything is still secondary. Fir documents a digital image removes things like paper thickness, binding, impressions from paper being written on over it, etc. a picture of a painting obscures brush strokes, paint thickness, etc.

[Kheldarson]

But there's more to the primary source than just the content. Taking that interview, a recording wouldn't show the facial expression of the related party just off camera. You lose a bit of the mood when you're not right there. Think of the difference between listening to a live recording of some Rock concert vs being there yourself. I'd argue that a recording of anything is still secondary. Fir documents a digital image removes things like paper thickness, binding, impressions from paper being written on over it, etc. a picture of a painting obscures brush strokes, paint thickness, etc.

For academic purposes, it doesn't matter. As long as you're citing the information as portrayed by the original without filter (ie no commentary), you're fine. Now if your work requires more than just the information, yes, you should attempt to access the actual original.

[s_stabeler]

even if it isn't absolutely perfect ( as you say, there are things like the paper thickness) it still coes under a primary source.

The way i always got taught it ( and mind, I didn't do History past GCSE) is that a primary source was ( for example) someone talking about what they had actually seen, while a secondary source was based on other sources. ( for example, a report from the time of the amont of grain produced in 1201 in england would be a primary source. A historian talking about a decline in grain yields during the 1200s would be a secondary source, because their information originalyl came from the primary source)