A picture is not a secondary source it is a primary source only if it was drawn at the time or year it happened in .
Lets say obama is elected president and i took a picture of him and send it to 10 people.
As long as none of them messed with the picture this is still a primary source.
it is a primary source
No, it's a primary source historical document.
If the source is primary or secondary and what type of source it is (i.e. video, photograph, etc.)
pimary
A primary source comes from the time the person/subject was from (e.g newspapers from World War II, materials used by ancient tribes etc.) while a secondary source comes from after the person/subject was from
Secondary source
A picture can indeed be a primary source.
A picture is not a secondary source it is a primary source only if it was drawn at the time or year it happened in . Lets say obama is elected president and i took a picture of him and send it to 10 people. As long as none of them messed with the picture this is still a primary source.
If a picture is copied directly from the original source, it is still considered a primary source. However, if the picture undergoes alteration or manipulation, it may no longer be considered a primary source.
It depends what the picture is. If it's a picture of a painting in which the artist was there when whatever it was happened (example: a painting of the Battle of Yorktown in which the artist was there) it would be a primary source. If it was a picture where the person wasn't there (example: someone dressed up as George Washington) it would be a secondary source.
No, an encyclopedia is a secondary source.
It is a secondary source.
secondary
an newspaper article will be an secondary source
Magazine articles are secondary sources
is pericles primary source or secondary source
It is a good idea to confirm your data with a secondary source.