A recent survey, (May 2005), of Archives and Record Offices throughout the UK has provided some interesting variations on the attitudes of archivists to the use of cameras and subsiduary equipment.
Queries were forwarded to 117 bodies, ranging from those housed in remote areas to those in major cities and conurbations. England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were included.Only eighty replies were received, even though further requests were sent to those not at first responding.
Interestingly, there were almost as many variations in the responses as there were replies, and there was no clear difference between those from major archives and the smaller ones. They varied from the very officious to the friendly and helpful. Two that banned photography by visitors, made it quite clear that they did not want work taken away from their resident photographer.
The use of tripods seems to be more related to the available space than for any other reason, but the most contentious subject was that of flash photography. This was banned in the majority of archives and record offices.
Investigation into this subject has shown that the banning of electronic flash photography as a reason to protect documents, etc.,is possibly based on erroneous information or historical practice. The background to this appears to be based on the understanding that UV light can damage delicate materials and result in the fading of certain dyes. However, the Xenon flash tubes fitted to modern cameras exhibit a very low output in the wavelength below 350 nm. And with the normal covering of polycarbonate plastic, the output represents very little more than the spectrum of visible light.
Timothy Vitale, the Paper and Photograph Conservator and Consultant, for Preservation Associates, has this to say:
"Digital cameras may be better tools for digitising material with high sensitivity to physical damage. Flash units would be the desired form of illumination. Flash illumination has a very short duration, 1/1000-1/4000 of a second; thus, the lux hrs are very low." *
In addition, Terry Schaeffer, in her "Effects of Light on Materials in Collections" concludes that,
"Some ultraviolet sources used for laboratory examinations of objects, as well as photocopier light sources, have the potential to be much more damaging than xenon photographic flashlamps." **
Curiously, few archives show reluctance to photocopy documents, and yet the potential damage to delicate material and books from this means is obviously far greater that the use of flash photography.
Of course, if a very fragile item or document was exposed to multiple flashes, then some degradation could result, simple from the exposure to excessive light in the visible region. However, it should be realised that multiple flashes from the usual hand held camera would need to be in excess of thousands to make any measurable impact. Flash photography is likely to be far more annoying to other researchers than it will be damaging to any document.
This is also born out by information from The National Preservation Office of The British Museum by directing me to the web site page of Stefan Michalski's at:
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/an20/an20-6/an20-607.html
Michalski concludes:
"In other words, flash may very well be banned for reasons of copyright, or as a disturbance to the act of contemplation (my personal vote) but there is no preservation reason. I think the ban started originally because flash bulbs (and their precursors, the open magnesium flash) were a genuine fire hazard, and an explosion hazard (hot fragments) and a garbage problem. Of course, tripods, hot studio lamps, and bulky equipment are still hazards, and a photography policy is still necessary, but please don't wave the red flag of conservation over flash cameras".
To a large extent, the advent of the modern digital camera is going to render the need for flash unnecessary, since they are much more capable of capturing images in low light situations.
The issue of fees is becoming one of concern. Some archivists are quite honest in their approach to the subject. More people taking their own photographs, means less photo-copying, and less revenue for the archive. This is an understandable argument, but applies more to the much used facility, than to the infrequently visited ones.
There is a very wide fee structure in evidence, and I am not talking here about photography for commercial exploitation. The personal researcher can be faced with charges ranging from nil to as much as £2 per image in one case and £11 for fifteen minutes in another. How these fees are arrived at is unknown, but there must be the assumption that the 'Let's see what we can get away with' syndrome is in operation in some cases.
No one, who has anything to do with archives, will deny that many are underfunded and, in consequence, often understaffed. The recent spate of research into genealogy has also placed an increased burden on the facilities, and there are many more people snapping away with their cameras than in the past. Where there is sufficient staff to supervise these activities there seems little problem, but it is still difficult to understand why some National archives retain a blanket ban on photography.
There are no doubt issues at stake that I have not covered or considered, and I shall be very interested to hear from anyone who wishes to add to or discuss my findings and, in some cases, my assumptions. It has obviously not been possible to make a personal visit to so many archives, much as I may have wished to.
I can be contacted at mailto:amspca1-rocams@yahoo.co.uk
Peter Amsden ARPS ABIPP
References:
*Timothy Vitale "Light Levels Used in Modern Flatbed Scanners" RLG DIGI News Oct. 15th 1998 Vol 2 No. 5 ISSN 1093-5371
**Terry T. Schaeffer "Effects of Light on Material in Collections" Getty Publications 2001. ISBN 0-89236-645-1