Digitization Photographic Materials Preservation Action

Digitization of Photographic Materials: Is This a Preservation Action?

Annotations by Carolyn Sutton

Definition of Project

This annotated bibliography focuses on the debate around whether digitizing photographic collections can truly be considered a preservation action. While many organizations are involved in the process of digitizing photographic collections that began analog in format, and most agree there are benefits in doing so, there has long been debate around whether this should truly be considered a preservation strategy. These articles examine this debate and present thoughts from both sides. The themes to emerge in the literature surrounding this topic explore ideas about the authenticity of digital images made from physical photographic materials, what qualities are lost and what is gained, and the types of decisions leading institutions toward using digitization as a preservation method. This bibliography does not contain descriptions of digitization processes or practices, nor statistics of or specific impediments to the process, though this was often the type of publication that was returned through the initial queries. The publications that have proven most relevant appeared in American Archivist and in the literature from other archivist/conservation organizations, the Digital Preservation Coalition, and several library and information science organizations. Most pertinent publications were discovered through subject queries using search terms including “digitization of photographs as preservation action debate,” “why is/isn’t digitizing photographs preservation,” “digitization and/or preservation,” and other similar terms and combinations thereof. Others were found by examining the resources cited by other authors in relevant publications. Literature selected here consists of peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers dating between 1997 and 2017.

Annotations

Botticelli, P. (2015). Preserving artworks digitally: The case of Andy Warhol’s Polaroid photographs. Preservation, Digital Technology & Culture, 44(3), 123-134. https://doi.org/10.1515/pdtc-2015-0017

This case study examines issues around the digitization of 109 of Warhol’s Polaroid photographs taken in the 1970s and 80s and donated through the Andy Warhol Photographic Legacy Program to the Trustman Art Gallery at Simmons College in 2008. Due to the instability of the Polaroids, the gallery was expected to make high-resolution color scans of them as part of the donation agreement. Botticelli uses this as an opportunity to discuss how digitization may contribute to the preservation of photographic materials, and also to present ways in which this can be quite problematic. He suggests that “the sheer malleability of digital objects is inherently problematic for curators seeking to preserve the authenticity of the originals along with the original experience of viewing the objects” (p. 131). Botticelli refers to the nature of digital objects as “inauthentic” and discusses the archival dilemma presented when faced with the choice between continued access and loss of artistic meaning, context, essence, and nuance. He explains that Warhol’s aesthetic choices were important features for his works, and many of these details may easily be distorted, misinterpreted, or lost through the act of digitization. Botticelli goes on to suggest that because digital exhibitions will likely be a necessary part of preservation strategies in some cases, there is great need for rich preservation metadata that can help provide the most complete and authentic representation of the originals as possible. Botticelli helps illustrate ideas around photographic materials as tangible artistic objects and ways in which digitization impacts them.

Burns, J.E. (2017). The aura of materiality: Digital surrogacy and the preservation of photographic archives. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 36(1), 1-8. http://doi.org/10.1086/691368

This article helps bring attention to several key issues discussed on both sides of the debate of digitization as a preservation method and describes the author’s thought processes as she reaches her own conclusion. Burns addresses the differences in opinion about digitization as preservation by first asserting that the definition of preservation is both broad in scope and vague in language, which prompts a number of interpretations about its nature and practices. She explains that there is often a distinction between digital preservation processes and procedures and those for physical materials. She also discusses how “digital surrogates of material objects” (p. 3) are often considered by archivists as not having any archival value themselves, but that value may be found in the access to the visual or textual content and in the potential to save the photographs themselves from further wear and tear. Burns uses the term “virtuality” to describe a digital surrogate that is an entirely new object; not meant to be a replacement for the original photographs, but rather a representation of the content of the original object, lacking in the original material qualities and not meant to be replacements for original materials. Burns uses a literature review to investigate the themes which shape her article such as digital surrogacy and the materiality of archival photographs. She also explores views on both sides of the digitization as preservation debate which often centers around the ideas of authenticity and the “superior value of physical attributes” of analog photographic materials (p. 4). She concludes that although concerns around digitization due to the loss of material forms within photographic collections are understandable, dismissing digitization as being unequal to preservation is unwarranted. Burns believes that despite the surrogates preserving content and not form or context, digital files that utilize quality digital capture and ample descriptive and technical metadata can allow the embodiment of the physical object to carry through.

Capell, L. (2010). Digitization as a preservation method for damaged acetate negatives: A case study. The American Archivist, 73(1), 235-249. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27802723

Capell’s article offers a window into decisions made by a university about how to best preserve a collection of culturally significant photographic materials in danger of irreparable damage and loss. This case study describes decisions made by McCain Library and Archives at the University of Southern Mississippi about how to best preserve the Robert Waller Photograph collection. Capell details the collection of nearly 20,000 images (prints and negatives dating from 1947 to 1977), their cultural significance, and their challenging preservation in detail, noting that the collection sat essentially unprocessed for 25 years before staff became concerned about their condition. Before processing, negatives and prints were held within original acidic paper sleeves and stored together. Some of these items were acetate film negatives, which present numerous preservation issues due to irreversible damage such as vinegar syndrome, shrinkage, layer separation, channeling, bubbling, streaking, and embrittlement. While many of the acetate negatives were initially thought to be damaged beyond the point of usability, the significance of the collection convinced archivists to explore ways to preserve the materials. After considering other preservation methods such as reformatting through photo duplication, microfilming, and separating negative layers for base replacement, the archivists decided that digitization would be most beneficial for this collection largely due to cost, time considerations, and lack of staff with relevant experience. Having a well-established digital program on site was a major factor in this decision, though they recognized the risks around long-term preservation for digital records. Archivists conducted research and considered arguments on both sides of the debate, making note that many professionals remain leery of considering digitization as a preservation method. After considering options and performing tests, however, this institution felt digitization was the most feasible option for capturing the visual content from these damaged negatives. They were so satisfied with the results that they continue to consider digitization a viable strategy for the preservation of physical photographic collections that pose significant storage and preservation challenges.

Conway, P. (2010). Preservation in the age of Google: Digitization, digital preservation, and dilemmas. Library Quarterly, 80(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1086/648463

This frequently referenced article by Conway examines shifts in the ways in which the preservation community views and utilizes digital technologies within their professional practices. He asserts that the 1966 flood in Florence and the resulting loss of cultural heritage materials signaled a need for a change in the views within the conservation and preservation fields. He insists a more global view is required; one that incorporates both the preservation of physical cultural heritage materials and the integration of digitization practices and various reformatting techniques. Conway discusses a number of juxtapositions including the distinction between “digital preservation” and “digitization for preservation” (p. 62), noting the evolving views of the Council on Library and Information Resources. He explains that these practices may prove to be dilemmas for the preservation community which may only be resolved through shifts in perception about how preservation activities are conceived, implemented, and funded. Conway uses Google as a metaphor for how most people interact with information and the instant gratification that has come to be expected, explaining that preservation within the cultural heritage sector now functions mostly “within an environment of digital technologies, organized digital content, and tools to find and use digital information” (p. 63). He asserts that Google could also be used to reflect how the cultural heritage sector is both embracing and is threated by a rapid shift toward digital information and away from analog resources. Conway discusses a number of dilemmas in detail, as well as recommendations for resolving them; the environmental dilemma (describing proper storage methods for materials which are susceptible to physical damage, often an impossibility for some institutions), the quality dilemma (presenting questions around quality of image and text in resulting digital images), the nonbook dilemma (wherein he describes issues specific to photographic, film, and audiovisual materials), and the expertise dilemma (discussing issues around expectations of staff and requirements for substantial technical skill).

Frey, F.S. & Reilly, J.M. (1999). Digital imaging for photographic collections: Foundations for technical standards. Image Permanence Institute. https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/WG_1999_PAAG-digital-imaging-for-photographic-collections_EN.pdf

Frey and Reilly completed a two-year study examining the use of digitization in libraries and archives, and this resulting publication presents their findings in the form of qualitative and quantitative data and technical information about current practices. They outline some of the storage concerns for photographic collections; specifically, around their instability, decay, and their susceptibility to degradation and damage. They assert that the long-term preservation of photographic materials is problematic and can result in substantial loss of access. They conclude that creating digital copies of these photographic collections will create greater access and may potentially slow degradation of photographic materials by reducing handling. Addressing the concern that there were no clear imaging standards, Frey and Reilly describe three ways in which the intended usage of digital images should inform decisions about quality; the digital image is used as visual reference only within an electronic database, it’s used for reproduction, or the digital image will act as a replacement for the original in both special and tonal information content. Much of the publication focuses on how to achieve each of these levels of quality for digital copies through thorough explanation of important components, technologies, parameters, and control of digital imaging for photographic materials.

Frey, F. (1997). Digitize to preserve: Photographic collections facing the new millennium. Image Permanence Institute. https://www.imaging.org/site/PDFS/Papers/1997/IST-0-4/204.pdf

This article from Image Permanence Institute presents some of the choices that information professionals are faced with when preserving photographic materials in their collections and the impacts that digitization is having on their practices. Frey discusses preservation challenges for photographic materials in libraries and archives including deterioration, instability, and substantial cost. She suggests that digital imaging is greatly impacting the usefulness of these collections and can help provide better and faster access, lower storage costs, and in some situations, the option of disposing of the original materials in exchange for digital files. Frey makes the distinction between collections she feels have little value as material artifacts, such as very large collections of color slides that are already degrading, and other collections she feels are more valuable, such as 19th-century photographic prints. She suggests these important material artifacts should never be discarded but could still be digitized for greater access. Frey discusses rarely accessed negative collections, suggesting that if digitized, the resulting digital records would be much more valuable due to their increased accessibility. She notes that more fragile materials might be protected from further wear and tear if digital copies were available, and also describes the reconstructive capabilities of digital tools for deteriorating and damaged photographic materials. She asserts that “the preservation community cannot afford to be naïve about the capabilities and practical realities of digital imaging” (p. 3), and says that digital reformatting can be a viable preservation option for collection managers.

Matusiak, K.K. & Johnston, T.K. (2014). Digitization for preservation and access: Restoring the usefulness of the nitrate negative collections at the American Geographical Society Library. The American Archivist, 77(1), 241-269. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.77.1.gr125w680h64u277

This article explores the preservation challenges of film-based photographic materials using a case study of the collections at the American Geographical Society Library, which housed 69,000 nitrate negatives. Matusiak and Johnston describe the institution’s consideration of digitization as a preservation strategy and influencing factors. They note that the fragile nature of the negatives and complications in providing access to physical materials were big factors in their decision to utilize digitization for preservation and access. They say having digitized versions of these photographic materials helped in several ways: by protecting the negatives from further loss caused by instability of materials and damage from handling; reducing health and environmental impacts of these unstable materials; acting as surrogates for access and as backup copies; and offering opportunities for capturing content from deteriorating physical materials. Matusiak and Johnston address the debate about digitization as a preservation method by describing ideas expressed on both sides, noting that an increase in access and a decrease in the physical handling of fragile materials are often cited as positive aspects of the practice of digitization, while loss of integrity and authenticity of the original materials, and instability of digital formats and storage media, are often cited as negatives. The authors list several organizations who are gradually accepting digitization as a preservation method, though they note that many consider these actions as merely reformatting, therefore considering resulting digital files as surrogates or copies. As AGS Library decided that other methods of preservation and providing access weren’t feasible for this collection, Matusiak and Johnston then describe in detail the steps that were taken to utilize digitization as a preservation method for this collection. They also note that the institution decided to simultaneously further process the negatives and improve housing conditions for the physical collection, as well.

Smith, A. (1999). Why digitize? Council on Library and Information Resources, 80(2). https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub80-smith/pub80-2/

Smith, the (now former) Director of Programs at the Council on Library and Information Resources, wrote this exploration of digital conversion happening within libraries and archives in response to her conversations with the National Humanities Alliance (NHA). She discusses and evaluates these projects, their advantages and disadvantages, challenges, lessons learned, risks, and costs, and explores how these issues are changing the information sciences. She notes that these technologies will profoundly affect library functions including practices around collections, preservation, and accessibility. She warns, however, that we should be cautious of overlooking the limitations of these actions and says we must assess when this process is appropriate for our collections and when it is not. Smith discusses ways in which digitization changes the character and variability of material objects such as sound recordings and photographs, and once made digital, she suggests that they are easily manipulated, which is also problematic. She asserts that “digitization is not preservation” (p. 3), suggesting that libraries and archives were created to collect, make available, and safeguard materials with long-term value, and when these institutions provide evidence of provenance, they help to establish authenticity. Smith believes that while the term preservation is sometimes loosely applied to digitization practices, digital resources merely facilitate access to information contained within original materials and lacks permanence and authenticity. At the same time, she describes ways in which image processing after digitization can be beneficial including the ability to increase legibility, enhance images, and provide greater access to photographs, special collections, fragile items, and rare materials that would not otherwise be possible. She also notes potential issues with using digital technology for this access, including mediation, inaccurate representation, lack of context, issues around intellectual control, copyright concerns, and difficulties with cataloging. Smith strongly urges institutions to carefully weigh the benefits and costs of digitization and asserts that “digital will not and cannot replace analog” (p. 13). She also suggests that while digitization can extend the reach of information, it should only be considered a tool and not as a replacement for all of the other preservation practices that information professionals have been using for generations. Smith’s expertise adds a valuable perspective to the debate around the effects of digitization on the experience of observing digitized photographic images that began as physical objects.

Volpe, A.L. (2009). Archival meaning: Materiality, digitization, and the nineteenth-century photograph. Afterimage, 36(6), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.2009.36.6.11

Volpe explores perceptions about ways in which digitization impacts the storage functions of museums through a discussion about fixed meaning, interpretation, and knowledge found in historical photographic materials. This article approaches the debate about digitization as preservation through an examination of historical photographs at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard. Volpe describes the photographic images as “documentary evidence in the study of culture or as evidence of processes and procedures by which those cultures became the object of the study” (p.11) and suggests that they “still operate in the museum under assumptions of authenticity and transparency” (p. 11). The substantial collection included over 10,000 glass plate negatives and around 125,000 prints of other various types. Through two exhibits of digitized images, the museum explored beliefs about photographic materials and their meaning by questioning their perceived documentary nature. By examining interplay around their materiality, archival storage, context, and technology’s reshaping of historical photographs, the museum prompted rethinking about what is collected, seen, stored, and forgotten. While much of the insight gained through this exploration highlighted archaeological knowledge and history, the digital restoration of the information held within these glass plate photographs was of great cultural significance that might otherwise have been lost. However, Volpe also suggests that the absence of the plates themselves “haunts” the exhibit (p. 16), noting that a single glass plate laid flat in a secured case, rendered impossible to read, offers proof that the object itself is worthy of preservation. Simultaneously, he notes that without digitization, the negative is “mute” (p. 16) due to the restrictive storage required to care for it and the complicated conditions required for viewing. He asserts that while digital technology can be restorative for information contained within photographs, it highlights the importance of the photographs as objects, saying that the meaning of the plate is changed and the “photograph loses its special relationship to time even as the visual rhetoric of the photograph is preserved” by digitization (p. 14). Volpe goes on to say that while wide-scale digitization is taking place in museums and libraries, it’s questionable that what they’re creating should still be considered photographs, especially without the opportunity to experience the materials, the processes, and the techniques that can only occur when encountering the photographic materials themselves.

Westney, L. C. (2007). Intrinsic value and the permanent record: The preservation conundrum. OCLC Systems & Services, 23(1), 5-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650750710720702

Westney’s article explores ideas around intrinsic value and digital surrogates, and the roles of each in preservation practices. She asserts that the intrinsic value of historical physical materials is inherent and reaches beyond the information they contain, and digital surrogates are substitutes that can only attempt to “capture and convey it” (p. 7). She warns that there is potential risk in utilizing digital surrogates as evidence of context, and circumstances of origin are lost through conversion to a different medium. She therefore calls for the preservation of the original materials so that external formal features remain and can be examined. She suggests that otherwise, incomplete or inaccurate records and decontextualization can result in misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Westney also expresses concern about the potential for alteration, manipulation, modification, and distortion of digital images, and describes issues around impermanency of digital materials. She concludes by asserting that digital surrogates aren’t satisfactory substitutes to the original materials and should never replace them. She says that while they can provide additional access to print collections, “digitization is not a preservation tool although it is all too often construed or misconstrued as such by archivist and librarians who should know better” (p. 10). Westney’s thoughts on the intrinsic value of physical materials suggest this is a key element worthy of consideration in the debate around the preservation of permanent historical records.