n Institute for Conservation
See our collection online at: Triarte.brynmawr.edu and at emuseum.net
--
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:46:19 -0600
From: Joseph Hoover
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Digitizing Photographs
Message-ID:
Thanks to everyone for your insights on this matter. Until we have greater
resources at our command, it seems flatbed scanning may be the best option.
Regards, Matt
__
Matt Wheeler,
Photography Archives,
Penobscot Marine Museum
Archives (207) 548-2529 ext. 211
5 Church Street
There are many considerations to be taken into account, and the best
solution will be particular to each institution and project.
I've noticed a few references to the heat produced by incandescent lights
on a copystand. For the record, flash is highly preferrable to incandescent
in most copystand
Frank
Kennedy
Sent: 23 January 2015 16:51
To: mcn-l@mcn.edu
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Digitizing Photographs
As was passed on to me by the NEDCC, the light exposure from a flatbed scanner
is similar to having the original object on exhibit for one day. With that in
mind, you can decide. A camera copy
Yes, I’ve used flatbed scanners everywhere from the National Archives to medium
sized art museums in the Midwest. As Joseph stated - it all depends on the type
of image - super uber fragile or not.
I’m not a conservator - but, I figure using a flatbed scanner and the fear of
light damaging the
As was passed on to me by the NEDCC, the light exposure from a flatbed scanner
is similar to having the original object on exhibit for one day. With that in
mind, you can decide. A camera copy stand will likely use powerful incandescent
lights which are highly damaging, but for such a brief time
In a case of a small museum with limited resources, I would go ahead and
use the flatbed scanner. Using a copy stand is a good approach, however,
unless your organization has the resources and money to hire (or find a
volunteer) a professional photographer who is experienced and can
accurately meas
If it hasn't already been said, photographing in a shoot-down copystand
setup will also allow you to avoid the glare from certain glossy and/or
rippled prints that frequently occurs due to the frontal lighting of a
scanner. For especially stubborn glare, the copystand approach also permits
you to
Yes Rob. Scanning photographs will reduce its life. Better to photograph
the photograph, and preserve it in a master uncompressed digital format
(TIFF) and as a second printed analogic source.
Unless you manage to have cold light scanners, which flatbeds are not.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:05 PM,
Matt and all,
As two cents from a non-conservator who cares for a collection of works
of art on paper (including their digital imaging), these days
camera-based capture does most often tend to be best--safe, accurate,
fast--with these materials, but each situation can be different.
Your one
Good afternoon. We have a collection which consists mostly of black and
white photographic prints and are beginning to digitize them using flatbed
scanners. However, I spoke to a conservator who advised that they be
rephotographed with a digital camera instead due to the intense light
exposure on a
11 matches
Mail list logo
