Eileen Fry began the event with an interview with Sara Jane Pearman, the (legendary) retired slide curator from the
After the interview, Eileen discussed the drastic changes that are occurring in the visual resources field and in academia. Changes to the workspace, the patrons, and the collections themselves are forcing curators to re-evaluate their roles and their missions; defining your strengths and choosing your battles are important in times of change.
Eileen did a study within her own collection at
They analyzed about 5000 35mm slides. Of those 5000, 3700 were copywork (253 had unknown sources). 200 35mm slides in the section were from commercial sources. 307 slides were original site photography from
Eileen described some of the criteria she used in determining which of these 5000 slides were scanned and which weren’t. Of the commercially purchased slides, they licensed the digital images they could from Saskia. Other slides were from old vendors which were no longer in business. Some of these slides were not in good condition and were not worth scanning. Those that were in good shape were scanned.
The original photography was scanned, and Eileen emphasized the importance of retaining the 35mm slides shot “in camera” (not duplicates, but originals, most of which can be identified by the presence of a visible emulsion layer). Eileen also scanned the slides of museum objects which are not available on the internet (from the museums themselves) or have not been digitized at a size or quality required for teaching.
Eileen examined the copywork photography closely to study how the faculty acquire and request images for classes; their slides become a documentation of pedagogy. She learned that a lot of copywork had been done from personal books belonging to the faculty, but that these were books she could still gain access to. Each Romanist had ordered about 1000 images, and the images they ordered were not duplicates. The images they each ordered were very personal and idiosyncratic. This was important to note because image subscription services don’t take this kind of pedagogical idiosyncrasy into account. Eileen’s strategy for digitizing this copywork material was to return to the original faculty order forms and to scan the images from the original sources (books or periodicals) rather than scanning the slides themselves on a flatbed scanner.
Eileen felt that this Roman section of the 35mm slide collection was a good representation of the nature of the collection as a whole. She could conclude that of the 5000 35mm slides examined, she would retain only about 500, or 10%, as original and/or unique images. Translating this percentage to the entire collection of 320,000 35mm slides, she surmised that only 32,000 slides would satisfy the criteria for retention after being digitized.
Since the single most important pressure at her institution (as it is at many) is space, her analysis of the collection indicates that in the digital age her de-accessioning policy can result in enormous space-saving. Identifying that fact can benefit her collection and her institution. She is now beginning to contemplate how the retained 35mm slide collection would be organized (or re-organized) since patron access is no longer the defining factor.
Jenni Rodda began her presentation by describing herself as a visual resources heretic. Her policy is to keep it all. She doesn’t de-accession or discard anything. Patrons use the slide collection as material for re-formatting images (creating new surrogate images, digital being the newest “format” du jour). She suspects that many of her users are probably borrowing material to scan on their own for their classes.
She advocates keeping all original photographic material, especially material of special local importance, and materials that can be reformatted. This includes the pedagogy for these images (the context in which they are used in class or research). She discards damaged material (deteriorated or faded) and materials that cannot be re-formatted (because of copyright, for example).
Jenni showed some examples of 35mm slides she would consider discarding. Some of these included copywork photography with over-zealous masking by well-intentioned (or bored!) student workers.
Preservation issues are complex. Not only do you decide what to keep and how, but where? Some materials can be stored offsite but many storage places won’t store photographs or glass. If you decide to retain it you have to keep it somewhere.
Jenni listed some of the retention issues she contemplates: do we keep the negatives AND the positives? The documentation? Lantern slides? Is digital enough? What about stability, migration, and readability issues?
Heather revisited some of the questions that had recently appeared on the VRA listserve that sparked the idea for this seminar at the conference. When and what do you de-accession? Should you dispose of duplicate slides? Are slides hazardous waste? Can you recycle? What about privacy issues? copyright issues? Is a controlled give-away appropriate? Can you justify state property requirements? Can slides be donated? to whom?
Recycling ideas included donation to a person who lectures at a nursing home, or to a community theater for stage sets. Creating art or (probably really uncomfortable) clothing was suggested. One listserver commented that recycling companies wouldn’t take the slides because “the cost of breaking them down wouldn’t be worthwhile.” The avenues for discarding de-accessioned slides are as varied as the types of institutions that house visual collections.
Some contributors to the listserve conversation admitted to some aggression issues – one advocated the use of an icepick, another a sledgehammer during the de-accessioning process.
Examples of damaged slides that might be prime targets for de-accessioning included poor quality images, images in bad condition, images damaged by vinegar syndrome, and discolored images that can be replaced or corrected digitally.
Retaining original photographic material is very important, especially in an architecture collection. The transitory nature of the built environment, landscape, and cityscape makes original 35mm slides valuable. Heather’s collection contains documentation of local and distant sites donated to the collection over the decades by faculty and students. Recently, she has acquired unique and historic material from several retiring faculty members (with varying degrees of identification!), and from a community activist and preservationist well-known in
Preserving the material retained by a collection is important. Film should be stored under cool and dry conditions, but not too dry since that can cause brittleness. A handout describing some preservation issues was created by Heather and Meghan Dougherty and made available to the audience.
Several in the crowd wondered about strategies for scanning copywork images from the original sources. Finding those sources can be time-consuming. Eileen explained that she has all the order forms for photographic requests and so she recreates the orders in digital form. She pointed out the difference between pedagogical scanning and archival scanning.
An audience member asked whether original 35mm slides should be un-mounted before scanning? Most agree this is a case-by-case issue. Some slides can be improved by removal from old slide mounts. Some slides in anti-Newton glass mounts scan better when removed from the slightly etched mounts. Some wondered if it was affective to store the film only (un-mounted) for original material.
Everyone agreed on the importance of original material; Jenni commented that she is scanning the original material in her collection for the University’s archive repository.
Eileen asked the audience how many collections were still using 35mm slides. The whole audience raised their hands.
Storage of 35mm slides (and other analog assets) can be a factor in decisions made about de-accessioning. Space issues are of concern to many in the audience.
Notes by Heather Seneff, April 24, 2007