Week 6

As discussed in my previous entry, my supervisor asked for me include in my recommendations some discussion and guidelines for the elements to be produced as part of the duplication process. I looked at some of the materials on standards for duplication and their recommendations were pretty consistent with one another. As I expected all of the articles stressed that a film-to-film duplication of the materials is the only recognized duplication method. Digital Beta can be used as an access copy, but is not really appropriate as a preservation master due to the potential for obsolescence and the relative instability of digital beta as compared to film.

However, the archive's grant is to make a digital access copy. They plan on going ahead with this as they need digital access copies for a future exhibit. My supervisor would like to make a film preservation copy in the future, but that will require another grant, and the digital duplication needs to move forward before any future grants can be expected to be awarded.

This leads me to believe that for the time being, the digital beta-cam access tapes can be used as preservation copies until the film preservation masters can be created from the originals. In that case I wonder whether it would be prudent to create additional digital beta copies or DVD/VHS surrogates as temporary access copies. Doing so would protect the "temporary preservation masters" until real duplication could take place, yet still allow for access to the content in some form...

Week 5

Toward the end of my internship this week, I had an interesting conversation with my supervisor. I asked her which format the archive would be duplicating on to. She indicated that she had not yet decided, but there had been some discussion of the archive electing to use digital beta. Then, we started to discuss some of the issues of duplication. Specifically, if they have the films duplicated to digital beta, then the digital beta become the preservation master copies. Then, the archive would need to create access copies in some form or another. These copies would be what they used to present in exhibitions, make samples to put on the web, and so forth.

I’ve volunteered to come up with a plan for the duplication, determining how many duplicates they would need in order to maintain a preservation master and have an access copy. I am pretty confident about how to do this for preservation microfilming, but I am not sure if it will completely translate to moving image materials. I guess I’ll need to do some research into what the standard practice is for this sort of thing. I expect the Gracy book to helpful here, but I may need to expand my literature to some degree.

Week 4

After my investigation last week of the storage conditions at the museum, I decided that investigating proper storage conditions for cellulose acetate films would be a priority. After some investigation into the literature I had gathered for the project, I have learned that both the macroenvironment (that is, the temperature and relative humidity of the storage space) and the microenvironment (the structure and type of enclosure, as well as any additives to the enclosure such as desiccants) can have an effect on the longevity of cellulose acetate films, particularly where vinegar syndrome may be present.

Because the films will not undergo any conservation treatments before the fall, it is unlikely that they will be put into any permanent storage in the meantime. Eventually, it would be nice to move them to a very cool, dry storage macroenvironment. The literature indicates that the proper macroenvironment can have the greatest impact on the reduction of acetic acid. In the meantime, though, the microenvironment could be improved in such a way that could help to preserve the films. For example, vented rather than sealed or open containers can improve the condition if the materials are not kept at colder temperatures. Also, desiccants such as zeolites or activated silica can impede chemical degradation. I hope to suggest that the Archive take these measures to help improve the microenvironments of the films in the time before the restoration begins.

Week 3

This week, my supervisor and I went over the survey questions that went along with the assessment. This has proved to be extremely helpful, as it is helping me to fill in those gaps that I was unable to complete just from observing the collection. I also got the opportunity to get a look at the storage room where the collection is kept at the Carnegie Museum of Art. This has given me a better understanding of the storage conditions at the moment and will help to form my recommendations for the final project.
One thing I’m a bit unclear on is the degree to which the survey and assessment should focus on my materials. That is, I’m unsure if my questions should be answered for the entire institution or just the department I am looking at. Otherwise, the assessment is progressing nicely.
Although I feel that it would be inappropriate to describe the location or the storage facilities that house the collection here on the web, I would like to mention that the films have been removed from their original metal reels. Now, they are loosely wrapped on spools and are kept in nonreactive canisters. Within each of the canisters is a paper vinegar syndrome test. The archive has saved the original metal reels and any containers or labels that came with the films.

Week Two

This week I continued my work on the assessment of the collection. One interesting thing that I realized this week is that according to the records kept by the archive, many of the reels are composed of a number of different film formats. For example, one of the films, 2001.35.FilmB, is composed of at least five different film brands, including DuPont B&W reversal, Ansco B&W reversal, Kodak B&W reversal, Agfa B&W reversal and AA-1 B&W spliced together. The condition of these films varies and some are described as having some degree decomposition, while others are described as being in good condition.

I wonder what the implications of these compound films are for their preservation. In class this week, we discussed the importance of not really altering the films in any permanent way. However, it seems to me that we are also told that like materials should be kept together, particularly in the case of nitrate film. My understanding is that nitrate films, as they degrade can pose a hazard to other film materials. If that is the case, it seems that in some cases, unstable films that are spliced into other, stable films should be removed and isolated. Although this would involve some permanent alteration to the original object, it seems as though it might save the film as whole.

Although it is unlikely that the Teenie Harris Archive has any nitrate film in it, (I think that the conservators who made the initial description of the collection would have mentioned the presence of nitrate, but maybe not…) based on the years that the film is belived to have been shot, it is certainly not impossible.

Unfortunately, I have yet to get my hands on the film itself yet, I have not been able to get my hands on the film itself. However, this week my supervisor and I are going to take a look at the material and I am going to attempt to determine exactly what types of film are in there. Also, I will be going over the survey we received in class. So far, so good.