Processed to "Museum Archival Standards" [Archive]

tim atherton

31-Jul-2005, 14:37

the standards are usually set out in something like "Processing Contemporary Black-and-White Photographic Films and Papers" (from the Canadian Conservation Institute in this case), which is what we used amoing others - I think the Library of Congress also published their own similar standard guidlines (mostly based on the same research - hmm just done a quick check and my LoC papers cite the CCI stuff as their source).

I thinkin the US there are also ANSI standards such as "1986. American National Standards Institute. American national standard for photography (processing) - methods for evaluating processing with respect to the stability of the resultant image - black-and-white papers. ANSI PH4.32-1986. New York: American National Standards Institute" and others in the series

These standards were in part developed to provide the best standards for B&W processing for documentation and record making for Archives etc

Do a web search and you can come up with the sort of stuff

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/ifla/photstd.html

http://171.64.128.118/iada/ta95_123.pdf etc

Ted Harris

31-Jul-2005, 14:43

Tim is correct that there are established US standards (although I suspect that many photographers don't know what they are). I am not sure if they are ANSI standards or standards established by one or more conservation groups. I do have one book that is specifically on point to this and will rummage around and see if I can find it. Michael Smith and/or Paula should be able to shed more light on this too.

Paul Butzi

31-Jul-2005, 14:59

Thanks, Tim.

The problem I have is that, if you look at (for instance) the first url you mention (the stanford one), it's actually a bibliography of ansi standards. All of them appear to be discussing standards of care for prints or film, and not standards for archival processing per se. I'm not clear on whether "processing to museum archival standards" means there's some tests that are applied, or whether the processing conforms to some standardized procedure. I confess that I strongly suspect that what it means is exactly what Brian Miller suggests.

In the end it all seems to come down to the CCI paper I see referenced as CCI #16/6 Processing Contemporary Black and White Photographic Films and Paper. I haven't been able to find a copy online. I don't suppose you'd happen to have a copy?

What I'm really after is documentation that specifies some processing standard for gelatin silver papers and also has actual test data (or even results) on the expected longevity of the resulting prints.

Charles Carstensen

31-Jul-2005, 15:09

Hi, am new to the group and this is my first post. Interesting to see the subject is also being discussed on the digital black and white printing forum relative to digital fine art prints. At that group, is no solid answer. This is a very timely question. I just did a Google search on keywords ANSI photographic standards and learned the ANSI standards are being replaced by ISO numbering and revision. Here is one link of many.

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/an25/an25-6/an25-602.html

Since I am just getting back into photography (large format is the best) will have many questions. Marketing is one thing, complying with a set of standards is another. It seems to me that archival prints produced to a written standard would tend to enhance the photographic arts business.

Best,

Chuck

Oren Grad

31-Jul-2005, 15:23

The Library of Congress has a piece on storage of photographic materials -

www.loc.gov/preserv/care/photolea.html (http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/photolea.html)

- but I haven't yet found anything there with any detail on processing. The storage document does state that all processing should be done to ISO standard 18901.

You can buy a copy of that from ISO (surprise!) but it costs 99 Swiss Francs:

www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=31925&ICS1=37&ICS2=40&ICS3=20 (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=31925&ICS1=37&ICS2=40&ICS3=20)

Paul, I don't think you're going to find definitive information on longevity anywhere. Such test data as exist in the public or quasi-public domain seem to reside in places like the Gmuender and Sorgen masters' theses, which you have to really dig to get your hands on, and documents like those raise almost as many questions as they answer, especially about generalizing the results to processing and environmental conditions that don't exactly match theirs.

Oddly enough, there's probably been more solid, fully-characterized data on image stability of inkjet media put into the public domain by Wilhelm over the past few years alone than has ever been published about traditional photo paper.

paulr

31-Jul-2005, 15:52

Any kind of universal standard is going to meaningless, because results are always dependent on the specific combinations of materials and chemicals used. In many cases, no one even understands the science behind the differences. The amount of time in an archival washer it takes to clear thiosulfate to a given standard can vary by 500% depending on the characteristics of the local water. As far as I've seen, no one has any idea what the significant differences are in the water supplies that lead to this. And no one can correlate that standard of x% thiosulfate with a resistance to staining for y# of years, because it depends so much on the specific paper, toners, and other variables in processing. And in storage.

We see the same kind of thing in inkjet prints. Everyone was hoping for simple answers, but we see that results are completely dependend not only on the paper or the ink, but the specific ink/paper combination.

The only way to have any real idea would be to take your exact prints and submit them for some kind of torture testing. Not that anyone can agree on how to correlate torture test results with actual years in real world conditions. But it would give you an idea of how your work compares with reference standards. Is anyone actually doing this? I hope not. Life is short; I'd rather spend more of it making art and less of of it worrying about things like this.

For what it's worth, I've never had a curator or collector ask me about my archival standards.

paulr

31-Jul-2005, 16:00

I want to add that I think Tim is right; whatever standards are there are designed for archivists and conservators, not artists. It wouldn't be a bad idea for artists do be familiar with the ideas behind the standards. But I seriously doubt the photographers making these claims have much familiarity at all.

robc

31-Jul-2005, 16:00

in the UK the Fine Art Trade Guild attempt to lay down some guidelines for their members but since there is no governing body that controls the production of silver gelatin prints, or framing or any other art work for that matter, then there can be no applicable standards.

You will have to rely on the integrity of the artist and if you can't do that then there is no hope.

Besides, the really great thing about standards is that there are so many different ones to choose from!

www.fineart.co.uk (http://www.fineart.co.uk)

Paul Butzi

31-Jul-2005, 16:24

Unfortunately ISO standard 18901 is for processing of film. Bummer.

One particular problem I have when searching for this stuff is that apparently, from a conservator's point of view, the word "archival" is applied to processes and techniques used to care for and store an item, and not to the creation of the item itself.

In other words, there are many references to 'archival standards for storage materials', but few references to 'archival processing" with the very notable exception of microfilm.

I have sent off email to a handful of the photographers who claim to process to 'museum archival standards' enquiring about which museum, which standard, and what process they use.

I am with Oren - there is vastly more solid data from testing on color materials (ra-4, ilfochrome, etc.) and inkjet prints than there is on gelatin silver prints. Vastly more.

I also agree wholeheartedly that the longevity of prints (silver prints, chromogenic prints, inkjet prints, any prints) is highly dependent on a set of variables that are essentially uncontrolled or uncontrollable (e.g. chemical composition of wash water, trace contaminants in paper base), and that as a result, it's perfectly possible to hew to some processing standard and still get horrible outcomes.

Oren Grad

31-Jul-2005, 17:05

Even where excellent test data are available, as with what Wilhelm is doing, there are unresolved, and really unresolvable, questions about extrapolating results from artificial to real-world conditions. Looking retrospectively at prints that have survived doesn't tell us about the ones that didn't, or why they didn't, and without knowing how many prints of each type were made and stored under given conditions in the first place you can't calculate rates of anything. To my knowledge nobody has done a prospective study in which a fixed number of prints on X, Y and Z materials were followed for decades under naturalistic conditions to see which yielded the highest survival rate.

If you want to work in a monochrome medium and insist on the highest likelihood of having your precious masterpieces last for a millennium, what little knowledge we have suggests that you probably need to be making your negatives on polyester-based sheet film rather than acetate-based roll film (not a big deal in this crowd, I know) and printing with Pt/Pd on acid-free rag paper. Even with that, I think that any bet placed on something made out of paper lasting for hundreds of years has to assume an improbable streak of good fortune in the storage conditions it will encounter long after the maker is gone.

Beyond that, I think that at this point all bets are off. Note the conservators' paranoia manifested in the other current thread about lighting conditions for display of silver gelatin FB prints that aren't even 100 years old.

Gene Crumpler

31-Jul-2005, 18:05

I read an article from the photochemistry offical journal the the accepted industrial standard is 0.02 mg of silver halide per square cm. I researched this subject quite a bit before adopting the Ilford Archival Process procedure in my dark room. When I process archivally in my darkroom, I fix in Ilford Rapid fixer 9:1 for 2 minutes, a five minute wash, 10 minutes in rinse aid, 20 minutes wash, 10 minutes 1:10 selenium, followed by a two hour wash. This will get it down well below 0.02.

FWIW

Gene Crumpler

31-Jul-2005, 18:13

I forgot to mention that each print receives this without the presence of another print any where in the processing. Slow but pretty sure. My degree in ChE is from Va Tech where at the time the Tech program was best know in the US for extraction unit operations.

Brian Ellis

31-Jul-2005, 18:14

I suspect it's a nice-sounding term that means nothing . As far as I know the word "archival" doesn't have a definitive, universally accepted meaning, much less the phrase "museum archival" but using the phrase accomplishes at least two things: (1) it implies that there's a museum somewhere that is or has been or might some day be interested in the photographer's work, and (2) it indicates that the photographer's work is worth preserving, maybe even in a museum. I'd be willing to bet that many of the photographers who use the term think they've processed in accordance with museum archival standards when they've used a two-bath fix, hypo cleared, washed, and selenium toned.

Michael A.Smith

31-Jul-2005, 18:15

The standards I thought were in existence have to do with the amount of allowable fixer remaining in the print after it has been washed. The silver nitrate test (I forget the initials for it) gives the amount remaning. My understanding was always that there should be no fixer remaining. And my prints and Paula's prints are washed so that no residual fixer remains. However, I recall a few postings by Richard Knoppow a few years ago in which he quoted tests that supposedly revealed that if a little bit of fixer remains in the prints, that makes the prints more permanent. What to do? Who to believe?

Selenium toning supposedly coats the silver molecules with selenium moleciles so that no sulfiding takes place. What concentration of toner to use? I have heard all kinds of numbers.

Are Paula's and my prints archivally processed? According to the above we cannot be sure. But when accelerating aging and pollutant susceptibility tests were done on my prints (when I wrote my article on ArtCare mat board) I was told they were the most difficult prints to fade the lab had ever seen. So I guess they are archival.

Paula and I guarantee our prints for 1,000 years. But of course there is a catch. The guarantee is non- transferable.

Dan Jolicoeur

31-Jul-2005, 19:32

Excuse my cynical inner being, but is the purpose of this thread to undermine and confuse the achievability of a silver gelatin print, and therefore give credence to the achievability of an inkjet print?

Joe Smigiel

31-Jul-2005, 20:26

"The standards I thought were in existence have to do with the amount of allowable fixer remaining in the print after it has been washed.. However, I recall a few postings by Richard Knoppow a few years ago in which he quoted tests that supposedly revealed that if a little bit of fixer remains in the prints, that makes the prints more permanent..."

I've read summaries of those same studies years ago although I no longer remember the source (wasn't Richard though). The Ilford procedure drops the thiosulphate concentration to acceptable levels of that standard IIRC. Trace amounts of thiosulphate did impart some benefit to the prints.

There has also been some more recent research that indicated weak sulfide toning was preferable for longevity than even selenium toning. IIRC, a photographer named Ctein was involved in this latter study or at least knows of the source. You might google for him and/or sulfide toning standards. I think some of the research was done on microfiche films so that may be another lead. IIRC a summary was published in Photo Techniques magazine as well.

Graham Hughes

31-Jul-2005, 20:37

The reason why sulfide toning is considered superior to selenium by some is not because silver selenide is any more likely to deteriorate than silver sulfide. It's because it's relatively easy to selenium tone a print without converting all of the silver. It's possible to do incomplete toning with a sulfide tonder; as a simple example, if you don't bleach the entire print when using a bleach-and-redevelop toner, then the unbleached portions will tend not to be converted.

Phil_4235

31-Jul-2005, 20:54

I recall Kodak had something in the Black and White Darkroom Dataguide (Kodak Publication No. R-20.) The 1980 printing has a chapter on "Processing Prints for Permanence", but I don't see the "A" word anywhere in the text. They do provide a procedure for "processing fiber-based paper for maximum permanence." (develop, stop, fix, fix, rinse, Hypo Clearing Agent, Hypo Eliminator, wash, tone, wash, dry.) One of the suggested toners is a gold chloride protective solution.

The silver nitrate test Michael refers to is documented in there using Kodak Hypo Test Solution HT-2. There are tint patches for Good, Fair, and Poor that allow you to "estimate the degree of washing" of your prints by comparing them to the stain left by the HT-2 solution.

A few years earlier, in the 1972 printing, Kodak was a bit more specific. In the "Process for Permanence" chapter, they do use the "A" word! "Archival permanence requires the use of washing aids such as Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, or even the the Hypo Eliminator HE-1." There is a bit more info on the HT-2 testing - they say Fair washing may be satisfactory for prints stored under "temperate climatic conditions", but under more severe storage conditions or for documentary permanence Good washing is required. Also, the HT-2 test is reliable if Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent has been used, but may "give misleading results after certain other washing aids have been employed."

tim atherton

31-Jul-2005, 21:40

"is the purpose of this thread to undermine and confuse the achievability of a silver gelatin print"

I'm not quitew sure what that phrase emans - it seems rather consfused in itself?

We know roughly how well a silver gelatin print will last if processed to the best standards being discussed here, and stored according to archival/conservation standards for RH, temperature, dark storage and storage materials etc

We also know that many silver gelatin prints in collections are suffering because of poor processing, poor storage over the years, problems with acidic substrates or airborn pollutants.

That is, the permanence a silver gelatin print is only as good as its paper substrate, processing and storage conditions. This has always been the case.

This is well documented in museum and conservation work and is nothing new.

But yes, properly made silver gelatin prints stored in ideal conditions will last a comparatively long time (Though even then, such prints don't "last for ever" and the older they become the more "fragile" they become as the ageing process accelerates despite all of the above).

Poorly processed and/or poorly stored silver-gelatin prints may only last a fraction of their potential longevity.

tim atherton

31-Jul-2005, 21:43

damn - sent before it spell checked

"is the purpose of this thread to undermine and confuse the achievability
of a silver gelatin print"

I'm not quite sure what that phrase means - it seems rather confused in
itself?

We know roughly how well a silver gelatin print will last if processed to
the best standards being discussed here, and stored according to
archival/conservation standards for RH, temperature, dark storage and
storage materials etc

We also know that many silver gelatin prints in collections are suffering
because of poor processing, poor storage over the years, problems with
acidic substrates or airborne pollutants.

That is, the permanence a silver gelatin print is only as good as its
paper substrate, processing and storage conditions. This has always been
the case.

This is well documented in museum and conservation work and is nothing
new.

But yes, properly made silver gelatin prints stored in ideal conditions
will last a comparatively long time (Though even then, such prints don't
"last for ever" and the older they become the more "fragile" they
become as the ageing process accelerates despite all of the above).

Poorly processed and/or poorly stored silver-gelatin prints may only last
a fraction of their potential longevity.

Paul Butzi

31-Jul-2005, 21:53

Even where excellent test data are available, as with what Wilhelm is doing, there are unresolved, and really unresolvable, questions about extrapolating results from artificial to real-world conditions.

Oren, I agree completely.

If I can change the subject somewhat in mid-thread, I'd like to ask another set of questions: do you think that there is any correlation between accelarated aging and real world longevity?

That is, suppose we just grant that getting a result of '150 years' on one of Wilhelm's tests doesn't mean that we can realistically be confident that we could make a statement like "90% of the prints will show no degradation in 150 years".

But if I look at one set of materials, and the results on the Wilhelm test are, say, 70 years, and another set of materials the results are 200+ years, should I feel pretty confident that the second set will last longer in virtually all situations?

Because in the end, you're going to make prints, even if the best you can do is a print that lasts 15 years. And in the end, it appears that there's no knowing what the real lifetime of the print will be in advance. So about all you can do after settling on the process that will give you the results you want is make sure you're using materials that give you the best odds.

I've long wondered why there were no data on gelatin silver papers, and I had just concluded that with Kodak and Ilford holding such a large share of the market, that the big players had established reputations for quality that could be counted upon. Now that Kodak is out of the game and Ilford is restructuring, it seems like it would be pretty easy for standards to slip and for smaller players with limited resources to sell products that might have longevity problems.

Brian C. Miller

31-Jul-2005, 22:12

Paul, if the product quality slips, then what would that affect, exactly?

If the quality of the paper base slipped, would that affect the print as it is made, or would it only be evident after 50 years? I suggest that the paper base would not slip in quality, as the paper is most likely manufactured at a paper mill, not by the photographic supply company. Paper itself is not going out of style.

If the quality of the emulsion slipped, I think that would surely show up during the making of the print. Something would stand out like a sore thumb during development, washing, or toning. I think it might have been Efke which had a bad batch of film within the last 12 months or so. Its kind of obvious when a problem develops with the emulsion.

The only time I have heard of problems with a paper was related by Bernhard J. Suess in Mastering Black-And-White Photography: From Camera to Darkroom. He was soaking his prints during the wash cycle, and the emulsion slid off the paper while he was testing a new brand. Now, that's a definite problem with archival processing. The emulsion needs to stay on the paper! :-)

Jorge Gasteazoro

31-Jul-2005, 22:13

But if I look at one set of materials, and the results on the Wilhelm test are, say, 70 years, and another set of materials the results are 200+ years, should I feel pretty confident that the second set will last longer in virtually all situations?

Scientifically you cant, all you can say is that in real life if the predominant contaminant is one similar to the one used for the tests, then the 200 year print is more like to last longer than the 70 years print, even if they dont reach their predicted longevity.

The fly in the ointment is that even in households we dont have just one kind of contaminant or oxidizer. There are some that are far more damaging and pernicious than hydrogen peroxide. This could in fact result in that while the 70 year old print degraded faster under hydrogen peroxide, in real life the 200 year print could degrade faster than the 70 year old one because it is more sensitive to other agents not present in the simulation.

Richard Ide

31-Jul-2005, 22:15

Good Evening

I have a copy (1973) of the "Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers " Handbook; published by John Wiley and Sons. There are five pages on archival processing. If this is of interest let me know either way and I will see if I can post the article. I imagine I will have to get permission from J. Wiley. I could also give a precis if prefered.

Richard

paulr

1-Aug-2005, 01:28

"But if I look at one set of materials, and the results on the Wilhelm test are, say, 70 years, and another set of materials the results are 200+ years, should I feel pretty confident that the second set will last longer in virtually all situations?"

Not really. You have to look at the conditions the tests were designed to simulate. If the tests cover lightfastness, temperature and humidity fluctuations, and a decent range of the most common atmospheric pollutants, then they're probably pretty indicative of most situations. But there are allways odd conditions that can be exceptions.

A couple of examples:

I worked at a commercial lab many years ago. We got a complaint from a customer that all the Cibachrome display prints that he ordered were discoloring wildly, just a couple of months after they were made. No other customers had similar problems. It turns out the customer was the owner of a hair salon. The prints were hanging all over the salon walls. God only knows what nasty chemicals get used there day to day, getting sprayed and misted into the air. But we came to the conclusion that the ciba materials (normally pretty lightfast and pretty stable) were getting destroyed by at least one of these poisons. We reprinted the work and this time laminated it, and had no further complaints.

Another story is from Wilhelm's Preservation and Care of Color Photographs. It's a summary of a study done by the Art Institute of Chicago on work that was sent on a long travelling exhibition. They wanted to see how well work survived under travelling conditions, so they took multiple densitometer and colorimetric measurements before and after. They also made rigid demands on display lighting and temperature and humidity conditions at all the institutions on the tour. Some of the results were as suspected: in general silver prints did much better than c-prints. But there were surprises. Some prints degenerated much more than anyone had predicted. Among these was a Stieglitz platinum print, which developed a significant yellow stain. The study wasn't designed to figure out why this happened, but the assumption is that it had to do with huge temperature swings during transportation--like from sitting in crates out on the airport tarmac in direct sun. No one's archival testing simulates conditions like these.

Mark Sawyer

1-Aug-2005, 02:38

With all due apologies to those who study and follow the ANSI/Library of Congress standards, the sad truth is, for nine out of nine photographers selling work "processed to museum standards," what it means is "well, the guy at the framing store said this was 'museum-quality' matte board, or pretty close to it..."

Seven out of nine for professional conservators...

Steven Barall

1-Aug-2005, 08:59

Archival is a lot like love. It's a feeling...

paulr

1-Aug-2005, 13:50

Michael, I don't know. If you go to the wilhelm research site and download the book (free pdf file) you should be able to find the source of the information. Maybe it will point you toward someone involved in that study, or in conservation of that collection.

Sal Santamaura

1-Aug-2005, 14:25

Perhaps this specification

HAER (http://www.cr.nps.gov/habshaer/haer/manual/chapter3.pdf)

might offer some guidance.

Brian C. Miller

1-Aug-2005, 14:57

Yeah, bingo, its a properly processed fiber print. The HAER standard should have included toning, though.

Kevin Crisp

1-Aug-2005, 15:14

I first saw this phrase on the Permawash bottle. If somebody has one handy, perhaps the standard referred to is listed on the bottle.

Brian Ellis

1-Aug-2005, 21:27

The Heico Perma Wash bottle specifies longer and shorter times and says the longer times are "required to meet archival specifications." But it doesn't say what those specifications are or where they might be found. I never trusted even their longer times, washing film for two minutes or prints for ten minutes just seemed too short to me no matter what the label on the bottle says.

paulr

3-Aug-2005, 00:03

This might help put the whole question in perspective. I just stumbled onto the annual report of an actual museum (SFMOMA) and looked at last year's acquisitions. These are the media listed for the museum purchases in painting and sculpture:

1) formica on plywood and wood

2) charcoal on paper

3) plastic bottles with screw caps, galvanized and stainless steel wire, water, isopropyl alcohol, food coloring, and cotton/polyester clothesline

4) watercolor on paper

5) watercolor on paper

6) beeswax, pigment, and human hair

7) silver leaf, neolithic tools, and artificial resin on canvas

8) animal material, plaster, steel, and button-down shirts

If there is a museum standard, it's one that includes human hair, water color paints, food coloring, and ... um ... "animal material." So I would hope it could stretch to include your not-quite-perfectly toned silver prints, too.

Paul Coppin

3-Aug-2005, 09:07

When I first learned to do B&W back in the early sixties, "archival processing" was pretty as Michael Smith relates... fibre base paper (Agfa Brovira was popular), use of a stop bath, not water, hardened fixer, minimum one hour wash @68deg at a certain minimum flow rate, nitrate testing, followed by selenium toning, storage in acid free/rag only folders... etc.

Paul Butzi

3-Aug-2005, 10:38

If there is a museum standard, it's one that includes human hair, water color paints, food coloring, and ... um ... "animal material." So I would hope it could stretch to include your not-quite-perfectly toned silver prints, too.

So the SFMOMA considers all of those works 'archival'? Really? Plywood, archival?

And I thought conservators were typically frustrated by that sort of thing - oil on plywood, or oils on masonite, where the base material outgasses nasty stuff like formaldehyde for the next 100 years or so, discoloring everything it touches.

I've gotten several emails back from folks who claim their prints are processed to the 'museum archival standards'. So far, none have pointed me to the standard they use other than to specify what their processing looks like. Quite a few of them don't appear to have seen the more recent stuff from Doug Nishimura, since they're still doing brief toning in selenium for permanance, not color shift.

tim atherton

3-Aug-2005, 10:48

Paul,

I think the point was that for museum collections such as SFMOMA "archival" isn't reallyon of the criterea in deciding on what to acquire.

The conservators don't make those decisions - their job is to care for it as best as possible once the museum has it - whatever it is.

And that even a moderately well processed silver-gelatin print is "archival" compared to most of those things listed - it's all relative.

paulr

3-Aug-2005, 14:57

Exactly my interpretation.

But maybe they mean we should be printing on plywood, and toning in animal material and food coloring, while wearing button down shirts.

Paul Butzi

3-Aug-2005, 17:01

So my conclusions:

1. There's no such thing as a 'musuem archival standard'. Museums don't specify standards for creation of artwork, they acquire artwork and then the conservators are charged with 'archival' care, which means that they're expected to make sure the artwork lasts as long as possible given other constraints (such as the requirement that it be displayed).

2. Other organizations, such as the US LOC and the Canadian CCI, DO have standards for processing of B&W materials.

3. 99% of the photographers who talk about selling prints processed "to the highest archival standards", or to "Museum archival standards", are talking through their hat.

paulr

3-Aug-2005, 20:21

That's probably about it. But your earlier point, about conservators being frustrated by wildly impermanent materials, is also true. Sadly for them, though, that kind of frustration is just part of the job. Ever since the 50s or so when artists started using these materials, it became the museums job to deal with them as best they could. They knew better than to try to dictate what artists use.

But I'm sure they're thrilled when something shows up that's not only an important piece of art, but will last for a while too. It's a lot of work (and money) building a collection. The thought that at least some parts of the permanent collection have a chance at being permanent must be a relief to these guys.

kthompson

4-Aug-2005, 07:51

Archives have more standards about materials & processes used for photo collections, mainly because of the microfilm reformatting that goes on everyday in every state and federal gov't program for records, newspapers and the like. There are ANSI/ISO standards for the negs--everything from production to processing and storage--your state archives will probably have these posted someplace, to show their accordance with the standards (and the funding that goes along with that). This sort of trickles over into the SHPO--historic preservation--programs that most states run under the Federal level HABS program. This would be for the Nat'l Historic register (which recently went digital). There are standards for b/w film processing & printing within the NHR, which have RC paper as being acceptable--in the same way some types of inkjet materials are now acceptable, because they (NHR) have such good storage.

You can check with the AAM or the AASLH for their standards for the museums that have been accredited by them. Only about 10% or some small number like that of museums are AAM accredited. I work as a staff photographer for an AAM accredited museum. It's too wonky to get into everything you need, but it's top to bottom for the facility, policies and staff qualifications. Once you get accredited, then it becomes easier to get funding, and it also plays an important part in your ability to get traveling exhibits and loans from other insitutions--because your facility meets the same standards. You might be able to use a reference such as the Nat'l parks Service, NPS, "Museum Handbook". Most of this is online now, and it's a comprehensive policy manual for the NPS system. It covers many of these topics.

My point of view--well, I won't get into it. I work in a history museum, not an art museum. Museums are all different. Same goes for archives and libraries. They share some similar traits, but they vary widely in other approaches. I work in a dept that has all the museums lumped together, along with archives, preservation, archaeology, arts organizations, and libraries. We all work together but apart at the same time. We criss-cross on projects and support, but the indvidual policies often differ within each organization just by the nature of the work. Museums collect whatever they deem important to their overall missions and policies. Whatever they feel will tell the story or fill out the bigger picture. I doubt there is one "museum standard" though. There are many standards, actual bona-fide standards, but they all hinge around other standards. and it all comes down to the environment and in the end, fact of the matter is that nothing lasts forever.

I'm on an exhibit team now for a photo collection from the late 1800's--stuff from an old book that came out on houghton mifflin--rare views of the western part of my state, by a long forgotten photographer. It should be intgeresting--a mystery tale of sorts. The prints cover many processes, and some are in good shape, some pretty bad now. They were processed in creeks and the like. Hardly "archival" standards. Hardly meant to be used 100+ yrs later. They were in traveologues and book paste-up story boards. Adhesive stuck all over them. Text stuck to them...god knows what happened to the negs or plates. They're all dust now even if they survived. There is no conservation on earth that can save these. Only stabilize them. They tell the story though--just looking at the originals is such a different experience than the many coynegs we've shot and have used over the years for publications. This is a real-life museum collection, from my point of view. You can't control everything that comes to you, but you can try to control it after.

Conservators? They conserve. Archivists and preservation managers--they're more responsible for material selection. They work in archives, not museums. There's a difference. One clue can be found in reformatting programs---look at how they handle the original, and what the final goals are. Think about this in relation to a museum, or a library. This is your discussion really--what is an artifact? the actual object--work of "art"? Or the information.

Sorry to get wonky--too much coffee before work I guess.

paulr

4-Aug-2005, 12:30

not wonky at all ... those are all good points. there's absolutely a difference between an art museum and an archive, an art object and information. An institution that stores historical information on microfiche is probably not one that collects beeswax on human hair. but there's probably a lot of overlap and gray area, too ...

kthompson

4-Aug-2005, 15:56

If you say something like "processed to museum standards"? this doesn't mean anything really--since museums collect, rather than produce. if there was a standard, that stipulated that museums would only collect the most stable objects? well, there'd be almost no museum collections--there certainly wouldn't be much career opportunities for conservators, that's for sure....

"archival standards" might be a better term to use, that's what I mean by look at the archive. same way for the building surveys. they are taking an unstable item, whether a book or a newspaper, or an old building and documenting it onto a more stable medium, then making preservation masters and working duplicates for access. But all this is not "fine art"--it's producing a preservation master.

if you think about the object? in the archive, the original will be stored away with limited access and copies will be used instead. in a library, the original might actually be copied and then thrown away (this might happen in an archive as well)--the master copies take the place of the original, and so-called surrogate duplicates are used to disiminate this information. in a museum--the object is treated like an artifact. It can be copied and reproduced if necessary in some form or the other, if it's too fragile for display, or it might be temporarily shown, and then rotated in & out of storage for safety as well. But it's not like the thing that gets copied and then thrown away.

I had a hard time with these concepts at first---I remember working on a project, where the thing I had to photograph had been salvaged out of a dumpster from another reformatting project. I learned after some time though, that in the end, the goal is the same. To preserve--only it's accomplished in different ways based on the nature of the work. I also grew to understand the burden of trying to save stuff--the obligation that goes with it. It's very complicated in some ways, and it's not something that many people outside of working in a museum or an archive can actually understand.

Having a one-of-a-kind, work of art is good for private collectors or art galleries, or the artists themselves. On the other hand, having a one-of-a-kind severely limits it's use to the general public. What good is it to collect something that nobody will ever see, or learn from? There is no answer to any of this--it's just kind of a soul-searching way to look at it.

paulr

4-Aug-2005, 21:09

Your last point might be worthy of its own thread. It's certainly one of the reasons a lot of people have suggested that the book is the ideal final form for photography.

Oren Grad

4-Aug-2005, 21:27

It's certainly one of the reasons a lot of people have suggested that the book is the ideal final form for photography.

I think this is a great point, not sufficiently appreciated. When the book production is done by someone who really knows what he's doing, the result can be an object beautiful in its own right, not merely a second-best reproduction of something else. William Clift's Hudson Landscape is one of my favorites in this respect, but I'm sure people here could come up with other examples.

kthompson

5-Aug-2005, 12:53

well, it was just a random thought...everyone thinks that way now & then...I worked on something recently, where I had to cull through some files. one thing I've always had to do was to shoot b/w negs for a longterm documenation file. anyways, I had to weed out some inactive files, and pulled a couple of thousand negs out. The bulk of them, I've never even seen before, and I was filing negs around them for over a decade. So--I was thinking about those people that shot those negs, that never get used, but sit in a file forever. How are they different from what I produce? Well--I shoot 4x5 for one, most of these were 35mm or 120, and not made by trained photographers. They have some quality issues--which is why primarily they were not being used, but at the same time they were kept because the objects have never been pulled and photographed again. Maybe some have been loaned out and aren't readily available. Maybe some are lost even. So this is what remains. You know it's boring work digging through files one by one, by hand for a couple of days straight. your mind wanders....you think of the next person, twenty, thirty years from now, going through what your negs and wondering what the heck the stuff is and why you're keeping it.

it's the same way with the objects, only worse almost, since it's a formidable task to deaccession an item. Then about every one of them is unique in some way, juts like the one of a kind art object. Then you have time, money and space issues associated with them coupled in with changing tastes and attitudes--so it all comes down to the fact that a lot of things will probably never be displayed. It's kind of frustrating in some ways, but I know every museum is like this. about all I can say about that...