[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Family photos and digital photos



Hello,

I had several useful responses to my question regarding what to tell
genealogists about using digital photography.  I incorporated several of
the points into my recent presentation on preserving family photos.

All the responses I received were sent directly to me, with additional
requests that I summarize to the list.  I'd intended to do a true
summary, that is, rewriting and streamlining the comments, however, that
would not happen in the near future.  I am therefore sending the comments
verbatim, with personal information stripped out.  I'm not sure this is
the best way to handle this, but it is the quickest way to get the
comments out for other people's use.

Anyway, thank you again to everyone who responded.  My talk went very
well (though my husband dozed off the night before when I was practicing
on him!) -- the comments on digital photography were well-received and I
think will prove useful to several people there.

Below are my original request and the responses I received.

AMB
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anne M. Baker
amb61@juno.com
Archivist, Southwest Missouri State University


ORIGINAL INQUIRY:

I've been asked to give a talk next month on preserving family/historical
photographs.  This is part of a local genealogical meeting.

I have sufficient information on historical processes and how the average
person can maintain them.  But I have a question for anyone who gives
similar talks (or anyone who just wants to put in their $.02)....

When talking about preserving family photos, is anyone addressing the
permanence/preservation of digital imagery?  I see more and more people
getting digital cameras and snapping away at family events.  However,
without a plan to preserve the digital files, it seems those images will
be lost in the near future.

So what's the answer for the _average_ person?  Burn a cd with the files?
 Save to disk?  Suggest they continue to take "real" photographs if they
want lasting memories of Aunt Minnie and Uncle Fred's 50th anniversary
party?

Any thoughts will be greatly appreciated.


RESPONSES:

I've been doing the same type of workshop/program around
Massachusetts, and have been telling people that if they do use
digital cameras, to burn a cd (although the permanence of a cd is
dubious)  I suggest that for long-term preservation, to take black
and white photographs, and store them in an area where (in most
homes) temp and RH does not fluctuate too much, and to keep them in
Mylar or archival polypro, and not to display them more than 10% of
the time to avoid cumulative effects of light.
For those who really want color prints, a book available through the
SAA bookstore rates various color print films -- fujicolor is best
for permanence, kodacolor worst.

* * * * * * * * *

I have made such a talk.  I found my group to have in its ranks one or
more
techie types who helped the others with such issues.  I emphasized the
need
for an overall plan for each person's work product.  I strongly suggested
a
second copy in off-site storage.  Also, in the rush to deal with one's
personal effects after death, the years and years of pains-taking work
may
be ignored or trashed by harried and unknowing children or other
relatives.
Assume that NO ONE CARES about all your work.  In fact, they may actively
resent all the time you have devoted to it or may view it as a slightly
loopy, trivial hobby.  Look around among your younger relatives for
someone
with a slight sense of history or feeling for family and leave your
collection to that person in your will.  If you do not feel such a person
exists in your family, leave your work to a local historical society or
the
local library or to the historical society in the area where most of your
family first emigrated or to the society that focuses on one of your
family
names.  Don't leave it to chance.

* * * * * * * * *

I would definitely recommend what you have suggested below. People can
always scan the original photograph of their wedding, etc. I just think
about it in terms of what I would be willing to do with the knowledge
that I
have, and share that info.  Digitization is great for increasing access
to
and reducing handling of originals.  I am in no hurry to run out and buy
a
digital camera to take pictures of family for future generations to
treasure.  Call me a pessimist, but they probably won't be accessible one
generation from now.

* * * * * * * * *

In our Archives, all digital images eventually get burned to a CD. In an
ideal world,
we would also print a copy of the photo on either a color laser or
ink-jet printer
using photo paper, and keep that copy on file as a hedge against changing
technology. Unfortunately, photo paper is expensive, and if you have a
large
number of photos the process can be very time consuming. Since the
digital
photos we take here in the Archives are used for reference purposes only,
and are
of items already preserved in the collection, keeping a copy is not
necessary. For
the average person with a digital camera, however, I would recommend
printing a
copy on either regular or photo paper, and then burning the images onto a
CD.
They should print because it is the best and only way (at least as far as
I know) to
record the details of the photo (people, places, dates, occasions, etc.);
you write
much on the front or back of a CD. Also, it's a heck of a lot easier to
pull a photo
album and flip through it than to keep running to the computer for a
photo (and
much more portable.) But they should also burn to CD because although
imperfect, it is currently the most reliable way to store images in
digital form.
Although they shouldn't get complacent and think that a CD is as reliable
and
permanent as the media has made it out to be. After all, audio-philes
have
returned to the standard LP as their preferred record format, and music
companies
started printing LP copies of album releases several years ago. This is
all because
of the revelations that CD materials and therefore sound quality degrades
over
time. And that CDs do not capture the highest and lowest registers of the
music,
meaning that although you get a sound without static and scratches, you
lose
some of the actual music.
Unfortunately, all of the above is expensive. So yes, I would recommend
that the
average person keep using the old standard method of photography. It's
not
flashy, but in my opinion it's still the best.

* * * * * * * * *

Yes, tell them to continue to take real photographs.  They capture more
detail, they last longer, and they are not dependent on computer
technology
to see them or reproduce them.  Computer technology is constantly
changing,
so photos will have to be migrated from time to time.  Also, when you
look
at the life span predictions of photos printed from computers, the life
spans are really short--as short as 1-2 years--unless the people use some
of
the expensive new printing processes with different ink, and certain
paper
that is recommended by printer manufacturers.  (Look at the Epson web
page.)
Even then, who really knows what the life spans will be.  Kodak, I think,
has a way of printing digital photos in a way that the quality is similar
to
photographic quality, but the average person may not want to track this
down.

If the people are really serious about the lives of the photos, they can
use black-and-white film, which has a longer life span than color film.

Digital photos are great for distribution, but if people want their
photos
to survive, they also need to use regular cameras to record family
events.

As you know, it's the same for people who use video cameras.  Their work
will be lost long before conventional photos would fade.

* * * * * * * * *

I do a lot of talks on preservation to genealogy groups. When asked about

the permanence of scanned images, I always tell them that the images are
a
great way to share photos and other information, but that the technology
is
still changing rapidly, that there are no real standards, and that they
should always make sure that the originals are safe and sound.

In Arizona, we have a permanent records statute which specifies that only

conventional silver microfilm and permanent paper are acceptable media.
There are no standards for electronic media, and there may never be, so
we
disallow it, sometimes to the frustration and annoyance of a town or
county
manager who paid around $20K for a system which would solve all of his or

her problems.

* * * * * * * * *

Hi there! I am actually giving a talk on the same topic in October! The
talk
is in conjunction with a photograph exhibit which opens in a few short
weeks. For the exhibit, I am designing a kiosk panel about preservation
in
which I touch on digitization. I am addressing digital images in my talk,
but only in a limited, non-technical fashion.

My stance on the whole digitization thing is that it's good for some
things,
but permanent preservation is not one of them. It's great for sending
photos
to Great Aunt Sally in Florida so she can see the babies growing up, but
not
so great for keeping those photos for the baby to show his/her
grandchildren.

I mention in the exhibit panel that if you choose to digitize your family
photos (either taking them with a digital camera only, or scanning in the
originals) then you must be prepared to upgrade every time the software
and
hardware is upgraded. I use as an example that in 1992 we were using 5
1/4"
floppy disks & no-one heard of CD's. It is almost next to impossible to
find
a computer that has a 5 1/4" floppy drive to read those disks. I also
show
that in 1995, AOL came out on a 3 ½" disk featuring 10 FREE MINUTES when
you try them out. Now, AOL is up to 6.0, installs from a CD and offers
1,000
free minutes for trying them. Most people can identify with that. If you
are
talking to a group over 25 years old, you can even mention phonograph
records. Who can find a turntable to listen to them? :)

The main thing about technology is that it is always changing. It's a
major
monetary and time commitment to keep upgrading your photographs. If you
do
print out every photograph, the technology isn't quite there to make
printed
out photographs as stable as developed out photographs (regular photos).
What ends up being my suggestion is to take 'regular' photographs of
special
occasions that you want to keep forever, and use the digital for stuff
you
just want to share with others, but not keep forever.

Well, hope I didn't babble too much & I hope you find something you can
use
to help out with your talk. If you get any other good suggestions, would
you
mind passing them on?

Oh, and another little tip I've found out is that many archival suppliers
(Hollinger, Light Impressions, etc.) will gladly give you gratis copies
of
their catalogs & a sample kit of materials to use as a teaching aid.
Really
handy!! :)

* * * * * * * * *

I was just reading the Web version of the Archives Listserv and ran
across
your question about giving a photo preservation talk to genealogists. I
have given a "preserving family photographs" talk to genealogists several

times over the past few years, and thought I'd offer my $0.02 worth.


 >When talking about preserving family photos, is anyone addressing the
 >permanence/preservation of digital imagery? I see more and more people
 >getting digital cameras and snapping away at family events.

This question *always* comes up, and as an archivist (and photographer),
I
throw some suggestions at them, tell them what *I* do - and let them walk

away being more informed so they can make more informed choices.

Most of the genealogists seem to scan & share their photographs - and I
encourage them to burn CDs and make color copies of their photos so that
they can share them with family and enjoy them.  However, I also talk
about
(and show examples of) color photos and why they are inherently unstable,

and then discuss the even more tenuous future of digital images (whether
stored on CD or printed on a color printer).  I keep hoping that I don't
cause a panic (it hasn't happened yet!), but I let them know that I
wouldn't expect the family history CD to be readable in 25 years.  And
those digital images of the last family reunion may not be readable when
the new baby in the family starts high school.  It might happen, but it
might not.  So I give them options -- I suggest they pick out the few
*most
precious* photos and address them.  Making B&W photocopies on acid-free
lignin-free paper (cost-effective, and not a terrible solution if done
with sufficient resolution), making B&W photographic copies (create a
copy
neg of the printed image),  checking Wilhelm's site for the latest
longevity testing for printer inks and buying the one with the best
results
(and printing images on archival paper), or simply allowing the digital
images to fade away . . . .

Basically, I suggest that they use the digital copy images to share and
keep the original photographic images in archival-quality enclosures.
For
new images that exist solely in digital format, I suggest selecting a few

and making an effort to copy them into a more stable format - one that
doesn't require a machine to view them.

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>