Ask the Experts

I will prolly get slammed for asking this BUT I will anyway. Let me explain. It may have some bearing on reproducing real photographs in sl, anyway.

I collect 19th century genuine photographs. I wish to take a copy of two of these photographs for research purposes. I intend to later import them into SL to show my partner. One is almost certainly an "albumen print", teh other is on paper attached to card. My question is this - does a photocopier or a scanner's light severely impact or endanger the original image of an early photograph? One is dated 1873 and teh other is 1883.

Please, if you think this is inappropriate to ask I understand. But, I would like an opinion from computer people out there who know a lot more about light intensities and reproduction of images than I do.

Serious thanks for anyone who answers.

There might some very slight degrading from the scanner light but I don't think it would be noticeable. The photos have survived 100+ years of light exposure. 10 secs more won't kill them. At the very least, you'll end up with an image you can clean up and adjust then you can put the photos themselves away in a dark place where they won't be further damaged.

The only thing that might give me pause was if the photos had significant value as historical or collectible items. Then I'd consult a professional.

Thanks Snickers - your "caveat" is most important. These pictures are historical and have intrinsic artistic merit. IMy intention is that they will be archively framed and only displayed in limited light circumstances for minimal amounts of time. I will refrain from scanning them.

A family member recently took copies of a couple of original photographs of mine, that were taken sometime before 1912, and I didn't notice any change to the originals. They look just the same as they always did - at least to the eye.

and agreed, one scan can save the picture itself. I have a 4 generation picture with my grandmother being the baby in the shot, taken in 1912. I scanned it and hid it away, and have since shared the picture with so many family members including putting it on display at a birthday party for Gram, all without harming the original except for that short scan

You could always take a macro photograph of the picture instead of using a scanner directly.

Perhaps have them professionally scanned and produce a giclee print? That would most accurately color match (giving you the closest digital file to the original) and produce a lasting print you could display while keeping the original stored safely.

Wouldn't the amount of UV exposure you describe in displaying it occasionally most likely be about the same as one scan?

So maybe do what the museums do, and display a replica instead, while the original is safely stored?

Guilty conscience? At least this was an actual question that might have to do something with SL other than some philosophical question or opinion.

"Guilty conscience"? What's that?
Yeah, we dont want philosophical questions or opinions. Naughty Jig!

You could ask someone who is still working with analogue photography and has an enlarger-these can easily be set up to take macro photographs of prints (I do that regularly, but then I have my own darkroom with cheapo second hand Eastern European equipment I got off Ebay for a penny-it's a rather time consuming but very hands on hobby...).

Then again, I have recently scanned two pictures of my great-grandparents from between 1912 and 1922, and the photographs still look the same.

I'm no photography expert, but know a little something on the physics and electronics side. This *might* be of help...

First off - if you are worried about bright light ruining the pictures, then the bright light of a scanner might not be the best thing. Might. I know nothing about 19th c. photography. It could be essentially harmless, or not-so-harmless. My guess is that it isn't going to do too much damage, but that's a guess.

What I do know is this: modern CCD cameras do not need a lot of light to operate, and are highly sensitive in regular normally lit rooms - in fact, they are even more sensitive to light frequencies that people can't see. If you simply placed the image out in normal room lighting, lined up the shot well and shut off the flash, you should get a fairly good digital image to work with.

There's a little more to it than that of course, such as reasonably consistent illumination, but seriously just a little bit of care setting up should allow you to get a digital shot that won't be any more damaging than just taking your pictures out and looking at them.

* * * * *

With photography there are a lot of... well, there are experts and then there are experts. Most of the really competent experts are casual and sane.

Then as in any field there are the 'marketing experts' - people who demand respect but really have been reading too many marketing brochures and 'sales specs' put out by manufacturers. My favourites are the off-the-deep-end audiophiles; the ones that demand gold contacts on everything and so forth.

I was a bit of a pill in college, having access to the right equipment... I used to sweep audio equipment with a frequency generator, a good mic and an oscilloscope between 0 to 20 kHz, then listen to 'expert opinions' from audiophiles. There are some issues with sound and how it reflects around a space, but more often than not I found that people just don't hear very well, especially directionally.

I could also generate a pure tone, and remarkably, most of the dyed-in-the-wool audiophile experts would talk about things they couldn't even hear. One musician (a college-age student no less!) couldn't even *hear* a tone over 14 kHz, but waxed eloquently about the importance of high end frequency response. On the same setup, I couldn't hear over about 16kHz myself, and even that just barely - probably because I'd been to the same loud parties he had been to...

Oh, Audiophiles...

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15412&postcount=28

These comments and letters are all very helpful to me - and I truly appreciate them. thanks!

I know nothing about this subject, but that's never stopped me from posting in a Jig thread.

Honestly, I'd contact either a local museum's or university library's archivist for advice on this.

That's because I think common sense could lead one astray. My first thought was that photons are photons, they're all traveling at the speed of light, so all that can matter is wavelength, and from that logic, a brief exposure to bright light should be the same as extended exposure to dim light. Bzzzzt! Wrong! "Don't stare into the sun." Whatever chemistry is happening to make an image fade with light, it could be sensitive to how frequently those photons arrive--how much energy is added without having time to dissipate.

Everything is in motion at the speed of light, including us - all moving through spacetime at the speed of light. The motion through time and the motion through space totals the speed of light, which means that time doesn't change from a photon's perspective. Just thought I'd mention that.

And thus, both Phil and Qie, teh people whose photograph WAS taken in OUR past are at some point in our spacetime continuum STILL posing for the camera or on their way to be photographed. The moment is eternal. Or is that arguable by a scientist on our forum?

Are you suggesting that we are mere photons??? I can't speak for Qie, of course, but I can assure you that I am a little more than just a photon, or even than a whole mass of photons

Well if you really want to get philosophical then take the quantum route... if you scan the photographs in and they're ruined then at the exact same time another parallel universe is created where they are perfectly OK.. so you can't lose really......

...or something like that, I'm a mathematician not a physicist.

My gut feeling is that a scanner won't damage your photos. It's UV light that's the culprit, and scanners don't emit that.

But I googled it anyway...I didn't find any evidence that scanning your pictures will harm them...at least, if you don't use an automatic sheet feeder. Those can munge up things you put in them.

Star dust Phil, star dust ...
Maybe we exist at all levels at all times and the lovely man smiling out at me from his study in London in 1883 is still smiling ...

Thanks Lindal. These are so lovely as photographs that they must be cherished. I have allowed some photographs I collect to be copied but in the case of these delicate and ephemeral images I must be very careful and remember that I am simply a guardian of them.

Hi Jig,

I used to run a digital photo restoration business many years ago before digital cameras were available to consumers. A large portion of the business was based around the use of a flatbed scanner, so I wouldn't be too concerned with 5-10 seconds of exposure to high intensity florescent light. It does not start any accelerated photochemical deterioration. Your photos will age at a normal rate. Long term exposure to direct sunlight and unfiltered florescent light is much worse (lots of UV) for your photos.

I would, however, be more concerned with my handling of the photos. Any duplication process usually involves direct handling of the photos. For example, perspiration salts can attack the gelatin in which the silver is embedded causing silver in the contaminated areas to oxidize. I use surgical gloves to avoid this.

Flatbed scanners are also able to focus about 1/4 inch away from their glass surface. Photos that are framed and matted don't necessarily need to be removed from their protective mountings in order to capture the image (unless portions are hidden).

If you want to read about the care of old photos in more depth, I recommend this source:

That seems the best analogy---we all glimpse the sun many, many times in our lives, yet don't expect damage to our eyes unless we suffer sustained direct exposure.

Anyway, the Yale Library site has an interesting point about potential damage:

"There has been a rule of thumb that is often stated when it comes to the amount of light exposure a scanned object receives when scanned on a flatbed scanner: “the equivalent of one day on display under proper lighting conditions.” In a 1998 Technical Feature article in the RLG DigiNews, author Timothy Vitale, Paper and Photograph Conservator, backed up this often-quoted rule with facts.

"After testing seven flatbed scanners, he discovered that most scans would be 1-15 lux, which is a “miniscule fraction of the useful life of an artwork or document.” Interestingly, he suggested to cultural institution professionals to focus instead on the physical protection of the item to be scanned: “Issues associated with a document's physical protection during scanning, such as damage to spine or friable paper should be of greater concern to librarians, archivists, or curators when flatbed scanners are used for digitization. Digital cameras may be a better tool for digitizing material with high sensitivity to physical damage.”

[[[which seconds the ideas in Namssor's post, of course]]]

http://www.library.yale.edu/preservation/handdig.htm

Thank you very much. I am realizing that this is a most complex field to approach and collect

uv light is generally what you want to avoid, especially with albumen prints, and very lacking in most commercial bulbs... heat is another factor.

generally you should be safe with a scanner, I'd doubt it'd be a noticeable difference even if it was affected...

however if you are (understandably) paranoid about the process, you could mask most of the image except for a small test area... if there are no noticeable after effects, proceed as normal.

side note: uv is basically damaging to almost everything art, which is why you don't see windowed rooms in profesional museams (at least not that give direct sunlight to displayed paintings)