{CHArt logo}

CONVERGENT PRACTICES: New Approaches to Art and Visual Culture

Veronica Davis Perkins, Middlesex University, London, UK

Careering along the Heritage Highway, Digitisation and Photographic Heritage


 Keywords: digitisation, heritage, historic photographs

The race to digitise and transmit our cultural heritage to a world audience raises many questions for custodians of that heritage – whether that heritage is a castle, a monument, a small museum or a manuscript, a work of art or photographs.

This paper discusses our photographic heritage and its digital reproduction. One may argue that there is nothing new in reproduction, digitisation being just a new means to reproduce images. However, historical photographs, that is, photographs made by traditional processes, deserve our special consideration.

In our everyday lives we are surrounded by images. We live in a visual world and since Fox Talbot’s discovery of the negative/positive calotype process (the Talbotype)1 photography has been at the forefront of that world. As we move into the 21st century we are left with a great mass of photographic images that record 160 years of social and cultural life: our visual heritage.

Peter Fox’s idea of a ‘digital future for all’ 2 is that the Internet has capabilities which serve the interests of all the stakeholders of a collection. 3 For the management of cultural institutions it is a business tool for marketing and PR. For the custodian it is a cataloguing and storage tool which, if used effectively, accesses a new readership and can save time and money whilst helping to preserve cultural objects from handling. For researchers it can mean ease of access and dissemination of images, and for the general public the Internet gives (almost) instant access and ‘browsing facilities’ to collections worldwide without the need for the legwork required in the past. This optimistic utopia has seemingly seduced both world governments, custodians and researchers. After more than ten years of digital development we are now close to being in the dangerous position where to digitise is seen as the norm, the rational thing to do and only the quest for funding stands between our collections and joining the rest of the world.

The argument put forward in this paper, however, is that many of these optimistic assumptions are false and as keepers of world heritage we should be treating the transformation from old to new technologies with more caution. Whilst digitisation may be beneficial in terms of access to the digital surrogate, current procedures for digitising historical photograph collections raise many questions in terms of access, authenticity, and preservation. Many of the searching questions we were asking ten years ago remain unresolved.

This paper is a work in progress in which questions are identified rather than answered, and is based on my current doctoral research at the Interaction Design Centre, Middlesex University, School of Computing Science. The research also draws on thirty years’ personal experience working with photographs, their reproduction and care, and investigates the digitisation of our photographic heritage now and for its future. It concentrates on questions of authenticity, values, and preservation of both the original object and its digital surrogate.4 The objectives of the research are to create an effective framework for digitisation procedures and software systems which meet the needs of custodians and researchers of photographic collections, and in which long-term storage of digital formats is ensured. Initial research has included investigating past and current digitisation projects and interviewing custodians, project leaders, and conservators to find out about their personal experiences of digitisation projects.

‘To digitise is paramount’. This statement, made by a librarian interviewed for this project, encapsulates the current mood of many librarians and other custodians who feel that not to digitise will mean falling behind the mainstream.

Further research has looked at how current procedures5 are being carried out; and at the more elusive subject of the authenticity of surrogates in terms of value. That is, what are we actually looking at and how do we place a value on a digital surrogate? Lastly, the subject at the core of all custodial practice – the preservation of collections – is being investigated.6 Does digitisation resolve the most familiar of custodial nightmares, the age-old conflict between access and preservation?

Although the subject of this paper is the digitisation of historical photographic collections, many of the issues raised here will appear familiar to those involved with the care and preservation of other types of collections and objects of cultural heritage.

Photographic Heritage

‘The essence of preserving artifacts is the retention of their meaning.’

(Rothenberg, 1999)


In preserving old photographs we are not only protecting the object itself, its processes and technologies, we are also preserving a reflection of the people who made the photograph – evidence of time and place – their personal contribution to our cultural heritage. It is imperative that we investigate the digitisation of historical photograph collections because they hold information which cannot be accurately reproduced digitally. For example, the distinction between a painting and its digital reproduction is obvious, whereasthat between a digital reproduction of a photograph and the original is not so clearly definable to the viewer.

Photographs and their negatives often appear to be two-dimensional, flat, paper-based objects. This has made them ideal candidates for the digitisation process. But, in fact, historical processes and supports carry unique qualities which, although not easily reproduced, are scientifically measurable. At the heart of the photograph, however, there is also an emotive, aesthetic quality which is harder to quantify.

The following questions warrant further investigation:

Dorner’s statement suggesting that ‘All components of the information chain are in a state of flux’ 7 reminds us that new technology is constantly changing and that boundaries of today might be gone tomorrow. It therefore, only makes sense that we should be asking the question ‘what do we need from technology?’ without making the assumption that we must take what technology can offer us today. This will ensure that digitisation projects are led by our needs rather than by technology. Finding out what those needs are is no easy task. There are many different factors to be taken into account, not least the different needs and practices of the stakeholders. 8

Do we require authenticity in a digital surrogate? Whilst new technology may widen and improve access to collections, the quality of that access is paramount.

We know that handling and light are the two most destructive causes of deterioration, so digital surrogates do have a positive role in the preservation of originals. But currently, there is no known, long-term security for digital media. 9 Should we be using digital media to store records of vulnerable visual heritage without first also funding traditional methods of photographic preservation?

My research is confined to the following framework:

Beagrie writes that ‘It is far easier to obtain funding for digitisation for access than for preservation.’ 10 His statement highlights the need for a different perspective on digitisation where the rush to access does not override the need for preservation.

I am interviewing custodians of historical photograph collections to find out their motivations and expectations for digitisation, as well as investigating how current digitisation procedures impact on their traditional role. Are current digitisation procedures fulfilling the needs of custodians and retaining the integrity of the collections? Similarly, researchers have very specific requirements in seeking information. Are their needs being met by current technology? Or, do the constraints of selection put similar constraints on research? Is there enough information in a digital surrogate? Does secondary research meet the needs of researchers or do researchers just see new technology as a point of reference? Do they still need to access the originals?

Project leaders have also been interviewed and their objectives compared with those of the custodians because, although seemingly working from the same position, there are some fundamental issues which they see very differently.

An evaluation of the digitisation process – even to understand the complex demands of a digitisation project – can be problematic, so we have been looking at the comparative values in original photographs and their digital surrogates in the hope that we may be able to assess the different values and thereby apply them to different user groups.

While determining and assessing the values of photographs and their digital surrogates it is important to establish to whom an object is valuable, whether its values change, and if so, what factors change these values.

Jane Knowles of the Schlesinger Library at Radcliffe College made the following statement in a paper on digital libraries a few years ago. ‘To ‘archive’ an electronic record means to store it off-line, but does not imply identifying what is valuable.’ 11 There are some obvious values to digital surrogates such as the ease of access which we have already mentioned, and there are others. Does digitisation itself de-value or add value to an object? The perception of value changes over time and what may be seen as valuable today may not be so tomorrow, and vice versa. Perhaps most importantly, we must ask the question, to whom is an object valuable, for what reasons and will those reasons hold into the future?

Defining Values

Values Lost in Digitisation

Values Added in Digitisation


‘Preservation adds value through selection. Selection is choice and choice involves defining value ...’ 12 We may argue with Paul Conway’s comment quoted here, for selection can be a barrier to choice depending on the motivations behind those choices. James Thompson suggests in The End of Libraries that there are dangers in selection with regard to digital libraries. 13 If selection is made on unsound principles based on fashion or marketing needs rather than on the integrity of an object and the information it carries – by looking at today’s immediate need rather than at tomorrow’s possibilities, we are in danger of losing the very essence of history that we are trying to save. The impetus today is to re-create our worldwide heritage into a static, picture-book ideal of what a market-driven, leisure society believes it wants, rather than taking a broader view in considering the intrinsic, long-lasting values of a past and moveable world.

Investigating digitisation projects and studying current guidelines and standards has revealed that many areas require further examination. In investigating pre-digitisation factors we need to look at the motivations for digitisation, such as numbers, the complexity of processes, the vulnerability of photographs and the difficulties associated with their care and storage. Such post-digitisation issues as the maintenance of systems and longevity of digital media also require further investigation.

We have also discussed the pressures to digitise, the use of custodians’ time in putting together a digital project: fund-raising, cataloguing, and other written information which should be carried forward with the digital surrogate. The importance of funding and the role of funding agencies cannot be over emphasised. A project’s success or failure is often dependent on the modus operandi of such agencies and it is therefore important to match the right funding body to the right collection. We must look at ways new technology can process information to meet the needs of all stakeholders, large and small, without losing the integrity of a specific collection.

Whilst we have considered the ethics of selection, we must not forget ethics for custodians whose traditional practices of care and control of reproduction and copyright are changed by digitisation which can distribute collections beyond their ultimate authority. We have also discussed, but not yet resolved, the balance between preserving the original object and digitisation; the benefits and drawbacks of manipulation; and who is ultimately responsible for the implementation of the digital library and its storage.

Investigating post-digitisation, we are looking at access and its impact on custodians: is wider access bringing more people to the ‘live’ repository? How do custodians deal with the increase in e-mail activity? The impact of digitisation on original materials has been to make people more aware of their existence and it is therefore hoped more funds will become available for their preservation.

Conservators are being called upon to assess more photographs’ suitability for digitisation. In large institutions where there is in-house support and a solid administrative framework, more photographs than previously are being catalogued and stored to archival standards because of digitisation. But the reverse appears to be true for small, one-off projects. Somewhat ironically, these are often the ‘hidden’ collections digitisation sets out to preserve but frequently they are poorly described with little regard for their provenance. Sometimes it is not possible to know to what extent manipulation has been used during digitisation because accurate records are not always kept. While large institutions are able to take on the responsibility for maintaining and upgrading the system, other projects are using agencies for both technical issues and archiving. We are still a long way from being certain of the longevity of digital media and there still appear to be wide discrepancies between what the manufacturers tell you and what conservators have assessed. After more than ten years of photographic digitisation projects there are still many questions which have not been resolved. Therefore, are we not right to be cautious before we say, ‘Let’s digitise!’? The situation is analogous to the development of superhighways in the 1960s, when those who had a car and the money to buy petrol were able to cruise along unimpeded at 90 miles per hour. The motorways led from one major city to another avoiding all A and B roads and the towns in between. Our destination was chosen for us by the Department of Transport. But were we not missing the adventure of discovery – the serendipity of the B road? Are we not now in danger of careering down the heritage highway, destination unknown, gaining in speed but unaware of what we might be losing?

‘It will be for a more skilled hand than mine to rear the superstructure.’

(William Henry Fox Talbot, 1800-1877).

It is seeming that this paper should end with this quotation from Fox Talbot,14 whose discovery of the calotype process gave us our first scientific means of reproduction15. It will indeed take a skilled mind to rear the software superstructure for a future when digital reproduction meets the needs of custodians as well as researchers, and secures the future of our photographic heritage.

November 2003

Notes

1. Talbotype was the generic name given to Talbot’s negative/positive calotype process developed in 1840/41.

2. See Feeney, M. (ed.), Digital Culture: maximizing the nation’s investment. London: National Preservation Office, British Library, 1999.

3. In using the term ‘stakeholders’ I refer to those who have an interest in the collection, that is, the custodians, management, copyright holders, and the researchers and other users.

4. Preservation is given as one of the main reasons to digitise by most of the organisations advising on digital procedures worldwide. (Although there is some ambiguity about what it is we are preserving!) These include: Arts and Humanities Data Service (AHDS), The Council of Library Resources (CLIR), The European Commission on Preservation and Access (ECPA), The Getty Research Institute, the Higher Education Digital Services (HEDS), Library of Congress (LOC), National Preservation Office (NPO), The Research Libraries Group (RLG), Saving European Photographic Images for Access (SEPIA, see also ECPA), Technical Advisory Service for Images (TASI), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the Visual Arts Data Service (VADS), and Visual Resources Association (VRA).

5. As above, but with particular reference to the ECPA, HEDS, NPO and VADS

6. Possibly the most basic responsibility of the custodian is that of the preservation of objects in their care. New technology has interestingly placed a great number of new responsibilities on the shoulders of the custodian. What happens to a digital surrogate when it leaves the control of the original repository might be beyond his or her control. Whose responsibility is it then?

7. See Deegan, M. and Tanner, S., Digital Futures: Strategies for the Information Age, Neal-Schuman Publishers Inc. NY in association with Library Association, London, 2002, p.1.

8. For example, funding agencies can reshape the motivations behind a project and custodians have to review their collections to fit in with new strategies.

9. See Beagrie, N., National Digital Preservation Initiatives: An overview of Developments in Australia, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom and of related International Activity, CLIR and LOC, Washington DC, US, 2003, http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub116/contents.html (28 October 2004); Bellinger, M. (2002) Understanding Digital Preservation: A report from OCLC. Conference Proceedings, The State of Digital Preservation: An International Perspective. CLIR, Washington DC, US, http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub107/bellinger.html (28 October 2004); Conway, P., The Relevance of Preservation in a Digital World, Technical Leaflet Section 5, Leaflet 5, 1999. North Eastern Document Center, Andover, US. http://www.nedcc.org/plam3/tleaf55.htm (28 October 2004).

10. Beagrie, N., National Digital Preservation Initiatives: An overview of Developments in Australia, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom and of related International Activity, CLIR and LOC, Washington DC, US, 2003, http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub116/contents.html (28 October 2004).

11. Knowles, J., ‘The Shape of Things to Come: The Future of Collecting the Past at the Schlesinger Library’, Radcliffe Quarterly, Winter 2000, Cambridge, MA, US.

12. Conway, P., The Relevance of Preservation in a Digital World, Technical Leaflet Section 5, Leaflet 5, 1999. North Eastern Document Center, Andover, US. http://www.nedcc.org/plam3/tleaf55.htm (28 October 2004).

13. Thompson, J., The End of Libraries, London: Clive Bingley, 1982.

14. Information about William Henry Fox Talbot can be found at the Fox Talbot Museum of Photography at Lacock, Wiltshire. Fox Talbot Museum of Photography http://www.r-cube.co.uk/fox-talbot/history.html

15. Although the Talbotype was the first negative/positive process, it has been generally accepted that it was the more stable, wet-plate collodian process developed by Scott Archer in 1851 that made the real breakthrough in terms of photographic reproduction.

Back to contents