A history of witchcraft : sorcerers, heretics, and Pagans / Jeffrey B. Russell. (OCLC #70277995)
RDA 22.214.171.124 on Recording Illustrative Content has an optional addition, which is to record the number of illustrations if the number can be readily ascertained. This piece has “With 94 illustrations” recorded directly on the title page, so this could have been recorded in the Physical description field as:
RDA 7.15 on Illustrative Content says “If the resource contains illustrative content, record illustration or illustrations, as appropriate.” There is an optional alternative to additionally (or instead) specify the types of illustrations (such as maps, coats of arms, or music) if they are important for identification or selection. The different national libraries have varying policies on this:
Library of Congress/PCC: Generally do not be more specific
National Library of Australia: Generally do be more specific.
British Library: Generally do not, except for maps
(I thought DA-C-H said to use your discretion, but don’t see that now)
Our local policy is to record specific types when they seem useful, so in this case I recorded the existence of both general illustrations and maps in the MARC 300 variable field:
Teoría y práctica del análisis cinematográfico : la seducción luminosa / Lauro Zavala Alvarado. (OCLC #670478948)
RDA 126.96.36.199 on Recording Illustrative Content says to disregard illustrated title pages and other minor illustrations, but what makes an illustration minor? Just drop caps, or little flowers between sections?
This particular book has clip art at the start of each chapter, like a film canister, a movie screen, or a director’s chair, but never anything so substantial as a photo of a director, or a still image from a film. If a patron were using the record to help choose a book (Cutter’s 3rd objective of the catalog), recording that the book has illustrations might mislead them, so I chose to disregard.