Schooling

Well, I'm a little late again this week, for the same reason as last week - I had a paper to write. This one is also blog relevant, and so I'll be posting it at the tail end of my thoughts for this week - it's 11 pages or so on the history of bookbinding for preservation purposes. It's a kind of strange topic, I guess, but I actually had a lot of fun writing this paper, which is vaguely unusual for me.

Schooling is on my mind a lot these days. With only one semester left at SLIS, questions of "what next" loom large in my mind. I'm very interested, as I think is pretty obvious from the topic of this blog, in preservation and conservation, and I intend to go back to school. I've looked at about 8 different schools that offer various levels of continuing education in this area (hmm...can I name them? University for the Arts in Philidelphia, Center for Creative Studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara, the Oregon College of Art and Craft in Portland, the Center for the Book at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, the Book Arts program at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, The American Academy of Bookbinding in Telluride, Colorado, the North Bennet Street School in Boston, Westdean in Sussex, England, and the Kilgarin Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. Whew! I cheated. :) ) and I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out what, exactly, I want to do. So many of these programs have focuses other than that which I'm interested in - for example, the Kilgarin Institute, while it has an excellent certification program, is mainly focused on training administrators, which I have no interest in being. Many of the others are focused in fine arts - a few of them offer BFA's or MFA's. Then there is the expense to consider! When all is said and done, I've realized I sort of have my heart set on the North Bennet Street School.

I've been thinking a lot about why this one is most interesting to me. First, it's in Boston, which I have heard by all accounts is very nice. It's also close to my family, both in New York City and in New Hampshire, and close(ish) to my friends in Binghamton, New York. It takes me way far from my friends in Bloomington, but then again most of them will be leaving Bloomington when they finish their educations any way. Second, it's not typical school. I'm so sick and tired of going to "normal" school - I've been a student for almost 21 years at various institutions, and that's a whole lot! This is more like an apprenticeship, though - 40 hours a week for 36 weeks a year. And there are only 6 students per class, in a two year program. Third, well, it feels right. I've spent a lot of time talking to my coworker Lilly about NBSS - she really would like to go there also, and she has applied before and interviewed there before - and it sounds like a great place. Maybe her enthusiasm is just contagious! Still, I'm going to be visiting the school in less than two weeks (on December 19th) and I'm starting to get nervous. What if I make a bad impression? What if I don't like it? What if I think it's the greatest thing ever - won't I be sad if I don't get in? What, in short, am I going to be doing with my future? These are such big questions! Fine bindings or conservation bindings? I really want to do both! And I don't know if that's horribly unrealistic of me - it would seem like a fine binder would inevitably know enoug about binding in general to be more than capable of doing conservation binding, but maybe I'm missing something important about how all of this works. Books, or should I look at some other area of conservation? If I'm interested in something else, than NBSS is the wrong place. But I think books are what I want to be working with...

Anyway, the visit is coming up, and so I spent a lot of time talking to Lilly this week about this. It seems like there is so much to think about...but I guess I'll write more later.

In other news, I'm thinking of starting to post tips and such in addition to other stuff. This would, I guess, mostly be advice and reminders to me, which is fine, I've got some books in really bad shape! For now, though, I've got things I need to get done, so I'll end with the paper I wrote!! :)

Claire Houck 12/7/2006

The History of Preservation Book Binding

Books get worn out and old. No matter how well made they are, inevitably, books will fall apart in a variety of ways, depending on their construction and use. Sometimes the glue wears out, or the paper deteriorates, or the covers come of, or they get eaten by insects; no matter the means, without proper care, all books will cease to exist. How people have chosen to preserve their books has changed over time; in Medieval times, books were constructed of the best materials possible and then chained to their stands to prevent abuse by patrons, as a preventative to destruction. Nowadays, a wide variety of treatments for all manner of problems are available. One area of conservation where attitudes have shifted a great deal, particularly in the last one hundred years, is in the use of rebinding as a means to preserve books.

Since the introduction of the book (as opposed to the tablet, the roll, or any other of a number of types of documents produced through history), book bindings have developed increasingly complex and detailed structures. Paper is fairly susceptible to damage, and so in order to protect the text it was necessary for books to have protective outer layers – covers. “The reason for binding books,” explains Edith Dielh (1946), “is primarily to preserve them intact.” (p. 17) Without bindings, the sections of the book would get separated and damaged; binding them together was a straight forward and relatively easy way to maintain a book with all the text together and protect the paper from harm. (Diehl, 1946)

Books became the predominant form of written material early in the first millennium A.D., and with the spread of books came also the spread of book binding. In the almost 2000 years since then, a large variety of types of bindings and materials have been used. Books have been bound with glue of many types and with string, with covers made of everything from wood and fine metal to board, leather, or cheap paper. Early manuscripts were most commonly both written and bound in monasteries, where they were carefully stewarded by the monks in residence; later books, especially after the introduction of the printing press in the 1450s, were frequently sold unbound and then would be bound by the purchaser in a fashion that appealed to them. As a result of this practice, most early books have unique bindings, and it is generally expected that no two copies of the same old manuscript will be bound in quite the same fashion. (Clark, 1901; Diehl, 1946; Foot, 1993)

Books became increasingly popular, and thus increasingly common, after the introduction of the printing press. The value and rarity of books had once meant that owners jealously guarded them, and that great care was taken to use only the finest materials in their production. However, as books became increasingly common, more and more short cuts were taken in their production. While spending top dollar on production would still ensure that the books were well bound and secure, books became cheaper, and those who purchased them were often poorer, and so their production became flimsier. These problems of production increased steadily until the 19^th century, when mechanized binding tools of various sorts became the standard, and hand binding became increasingly uncommon. Where the books of old where hand crafted, hand sewn, and carefully checked and double checked for problems, modern books are produced in the millions with barely a thought for whether or not the materials with which they were made would stand the test of time. (Clark, 1901; Diehl, 1946; Foot, 1993)

Books from all time periods are prone to various types of harm. Bindings can be particularly vulnerable for a number of reasons. Light, air, heat and humidity can cause fading, cracking, warping, chemical breakdown, and other harmful effects. Insects and fungi can eat away at the glues and other organic materials used in production. As materials age, they often breakdown through natural processes that cannot be stopped no matter how carefully cared for the book is. And, of course, use damages books. Every time a book is removed or placed on a shelf, every time it is opened, every time a person interacts with a book in anyway, the book is danger – it might be dropped, spilled on, bent, thrown around, scratched, ripped, or any number of other abuses, intentional or accidental, can be exercised on it. Indeed, some of the worst, most irreparable damage done to books has been caused by people of the past attempting to repair a book without adequate knowledge of the construction of book or the problems inherent in many of the materials they used. (Bryne, 1956; Foot, 1993; Harvey, 1993; Swartzburg, 1980; Young, 1981)

Little is said about preservation practices in Medieval times period. This is in large part probably due to the general destruction of most monastic libraries throughout England and France caused by the Reformation and the French Revolution. (Foot, 1993) However, what information there is makes it clear that part of the duty of the library and librarian to see to it that the books were maintained in the best condition possible. The first and foremost way of doing this was to care for the books on a day-to-day basis, making sure that they were carefully used and handled gently. The duties of the librarian were frequently detailed in the rules of early monasteries; their duties in terms of caring for the books were often clearly delineated. For example, the “Customs of the Augustinian Order” state that: “The librarian, who is called also Precentor, is to take charge of the books of the church; all which he ought to keep and to know under their separate titles; and he should frequently examine them carefully to prevent any damage or injury from insects or decay.” (Clark, 1901, p. 71) Another source is equally lucid, saying that “The precentor shall…provide coverings for the books in the library, and make good any damage done to them.” (Clark, 1901, p. 68) However, when books became worn out – which they inevitably did - rebinding was one the primary means by which to do this. The “Customs of the Augustinian Order” discuss this duty of the librarian, saying that “as the books ought to be mended, pointed, and taken care of by the Librarian, so ought they to be properly bound by him.” (Clark, 1901, p. 71) This binding would be done within the monastery; there was not generally enough demand for books outside of religious institutions to maintain more than scattered workshops throughout Europe. (Diehl, 1946)

The invention of the printing press brought great changes in the demand for books, but did little to alter the nature of preservation practices. One source from 1508 source describes the main forms of repairs needed by books as “new bydying and bordyng with covers and claspyng and chenyng.” (Clark, 1901, p. 191, sic) However, practices do change somewhat. A 15^th century church library, upon determining that a previous librarian allowed the books to fall into disrepair, first and foremost hires a binder. (Clark, 1901, p. 209) This is a change from the past; books have become common enough that binding is no longer handled as a purely internal manner within the church – hiring an outside binder is a clear indication of this change, for in previous eras the monks would have handled all of the work. It was also becoming common for a great deal of money to be spent on the maintenance of the books; at the same church as above, for example, the greatest expenses the library had were those related to binding. (Clark, 1901, p. 232)

Outside the churches, binding practices were also shifting. Collecting books was becoming fashionable, and it was increasingly common for the private citizens engaged in this collection to spend money lavishly on fine bindings for their books. Much of this binding did take the form of “preservation” in some respects, for it was also very common for collectors, upon acquiring an old book in a tattered and damaged cover, to promptly send it to the binder in order to have it rebound in a fashion that matched the rest of their collection. The buyers of these books clearly felt that what they were doing was for the best – the books were, after all, in damaged condition, and they were far better protected this way. In the Renaissance, preservation activities were not conducted with any thought on saving history or keeping a record of the past. No particular value was placed on old bindings simply because they were old. Indeed, evidence suggests that these collectors would often have books rebound even when the original binding was sound. (Clark, 1901; Foot, 1993; Swartzburg, 1980) In so doing, though, they created new artifacts with new and different value from a modern perspective.

The practice of mass rebinding of new books remained common even until the 20^th century. Though increasingly through time it came to be understood that there was historical significance in preserving original bindings, many collectors in particular felt that they were in a way obligated to restore and change the books that had come into their possession. It often became a simple matter: what was of value about the book – it’s original (often badly damaged) binding, or the book contained within that binding? If the binding was not particularly artistic or interesting from the collector’s point of view, there wasn’t any reason, from their perspective, to preserve the original binding. Indeed, by having it carefully rebound, they were doing their best to preserve the contents of the book. Of course, not all had such pure intentions. Commonly, “the great collectors in both England and France in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were eager to see the possibly rather tatty bindings on their incunabula replaced by the brightest and grandest of bindings that their own age could produce.” (Foot, 1993, p. 420) This practice culminated in the 19^th century, when collectors would indiscriminately have their acquisitions rebound, to the loss of thousands of original, earlier bindings. (Foot, 1993)

By the turn of the 20^th century, attitudes towards books were beginning to change, to be come recognizable, in many ways, as our modern attitude. This shifting attitude can be seen clearly in “The Private Library,” a book by A.L. Humphreys (1897). On the topic of old books, Humphreys states in no uncertain terms that the owner should “never destroy and old binding if you can help it. (p. 60) Where as in previous centuries, books were not, apparently, historicized, by the beginning of the 19^th century the prevailing attitude towards books was as something that “the ages have handed…on to us” and that it was “our duty to hand them on to coming generations, clean, sound, uninjured.” (p. 62) Though it’s not clear at what point this shift occurred, it is obvious that increased value was being placed on old things, regardless of the condition they were in. This is not to say that Humphreys did not believe in other forms of preservation – indeed, he talks about several methods that can be used to repair old books – but the goal has become to restore the existing book structure rather than replace it. (Humphreys, 1897)

Attitudes towards the binding of rare books have changed little in the past one hundred years. As in 1897, it is commonly felt now that as much should be done as possible to maintain books in their original form, and that the only preservation steps that should be taken are those necessary to prevent books from completely falling apart. This is complicated, of course, by the question of what constitutes a rare book, but that is a topic far to complex to attempt to tackle in this paper. However, this generally includes any old books (the exact cut off year varies from library to library), first editions, fine bindings, and any number of other books of interest such as association copies. The means of preserving these volumes is to keep them in protective boxes. In extreme cases, they should be sent to professional binders/conservators who will be able to keep intervention to a minimum and can strive to maintain these books in as close to their original condition as possible. However, “everything possible should be done to retain what remains of the original [binding], and added materials should be functional, chemically safe, strong, durable, and unobtrusive.” (Tribolet, 1970, p. 134) (ALA, 1923; ARL, 1993; Foot, 1993; Horton, 1969; Swartzburg, 1980; Tribolet, 1970; Young, 1981)

Another facet of binding for preservation became increasingly important and discussed throughout the 20^th century, though. The proliferation of low quality materials in book publishing throughout the 19^th century and the development of a mass market for books meant that increasingly binding for preservation was seen as two distinct tasks. Before the 19^th century, books were generally produced unbound, and therefore a minimum amount of care had to be taken in their binding. However, mass market books, cheaply produced, poorly bound, and published by the thousands, became common as mechanized means of publication spread. These volumes were so inadequately made that they could not survive circulation in a library setting – while they were adequate (if only barely) for use by a single private individual who might purchase them, repeated use would cause them to fall apart. These books needed to be rebound in order to allow them to be of any use at all. Slowly, librarians and collectors came to realize books needed to be cared for differently than the shoddy common works available at that time, and increasingly efforts were made to preserve these books in their original format. (Foot, 1993; Harvey, 1993; Higginbotham, 1990; Humphreys, 1897, Swartzburg, 1980)

Rebinding books for library purposes was a major issue at the turn of the 20^th century. Generally speaking, “between 1876 and 1910, binding was the principal preservation technique in…libraries.” (Higginbotham, 1990, p. 63) Books had become increasingly common; about a hundred years after this popularity surge started, librarians and other collectors were starting to notice that the use of poor materials was a large problem. Books that weren’t very old were falling apart on the shelves for a variety of reasons, while older books that had been made before the increase in production were still by-and-large sound. (Harvey, 1993; Higginbotham, 1990; Swartzburg, 1980)

There was a constant struggle as libraries tried to balance the expense of good bindings with considerations of quality and durability – the key consideration they faced was the question of at one point good materials ceased to be worth the expense of using them. Thus, as librarians considered rebinding books for mass circulation, they took increasing care also in selecting materials for use in the rebinding. Many libraries ran their own in house binderies, but over the course of the 20^th century this became increasingly uncommon precisely because of expense – it was simply less expensive for all involved parties to send the binding work to commercial binderies. (ARL, 1993; Harvey, 1993; Swartzburg, 1980)

Experience was the only way to test which materials were best, however. Thus, extensive testing was done with a wide variety of materials, and libraries communicated across the U.S. and Europe, comparing experiences with materials, trying to determine which materials would degrade the least over time while still being inexpensive enough to be usable in any practical sense. (Harvey, 1993; Higginbotham, 1990; Humphreys, 1897, Swartzburg, 1980)

By the 1920s, the Library Binding Institute and the American Library Association had taken steps to create standards. Commercial binders had been engaging in many dishonest practices; many librarians did not know enough about binding to be able to give accurate instructions about the needs of their books; materials ran the gambit from being high quality to being complete trash; in short, there were numerous problems that demanded standardized guidelines to streamline the binding process. These standards addressed all manner of workmanship and materials, and an edition of them are still in use today. Though originally, each individual institution had tested to see which materials they found superior, the standards saved libraries time and money because they no longer needed to duplicate these efforts. Considering that rebinding was as much as a quarter of a libraries budget each year, this was very important. (ALA, 1923; Higginbotham, 1990; LBI, 1999, Swartzburg, 1980)

Library bindings are now done under a large number of circumstances, and are generally taken care of at commercial binders. Determining which circulating books should be rebound is a matter of balancing considerations of use with considerations of expense. If a book is going to circulate very little, it is less expensive to leave it in its publishers binding. However, if the chances are high that a book will circulate enough that it will get damaged enough to require replacement, then it is worthwhile to have the book bound in a library binding. Other considerations relate to: the age of the book (many libraries will not send books published before 1900, or 1932, or 1800, or any number of other arbitrary cut offs); the scarcity of the book (as per the above discussion on the preservation of rare books in modern libraries); the suitability of the book for rebinding (for example, books whose margins are too narrow or paper too brittle are not candidates for commercial binderies); or the ease of replacement (of the book is very easy to replace, then binding it is probably unnecessary – this is a good “tie breaker” for instances where it’s borderline whether the book should be bound or not). Bypassing these concerns, however, many libraries send their paper backs and periodicals to commercial binderies immediately after their purchase. (ARL, 1993; Harvey, 1993; Horton, 1969; Oldham, 1993; Swartzburg, 1980)

Modern day library preservation practices have come a long way from the often-destructive practices of the past. As collectors, librarians, and a society we value durability and longevity, but we also place a great deal of value on historical evidence. Thus, even as we try to improve modern books by placing them in sturdier bindings that will allow them to survive the rigors of use and circulation, we also do as much as we can to preserve even the flimsiest bindings that give us a glimpse of how books were made in the past. Previous generations, however, did not necessarily place value in the same aspects of the book as we do now. Many practices that they would have considered commonplace and normal we look on now as something close to barbaric. What practices that we engage in on a day to day basis now will seem similar to future generations? We can only hope that the research, effort, and testing done in the past century have taught us well how to treat our books well, and that those works survive so that researchers of the future can consider our works as we have considered the works that have come before us.

Bibliography:

American Library Association Committee on Bookbinding. (1923) Care and binding of books and magazines. Chicago: American Library Association.

Association of Research Libraries Office of Management Services. (1993a) Spec Kit 190: The changing role of book repair in ARL libraries. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries Office of Management Services.

Byrne, B. (1956) Mending books is fun. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing Company.

Clark, J.W. (1901) Care of books. London: Cambridge University Press.

Diehl, E. (1946) Bookbinding: Its background and technique. Two volumes bound as one. New York: Dover Publications.

Foot, M.M. (1993) Studies in the history of bookbinding. England: Scolar Press.

Higginbotham, B.B. Our past preserved: A history of American library preservation, 1876-1910. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co.

Horton, C. (1969) Cleaning and preserving bindings and related materials. Chicago: American Library Association.

Humphreys, A.L. (1897) The private library: What we do know, what we don’t know, what we ought to know about our books. London: Strangeways and Sons.

Library Binding Institute. (1999) ANSI/NISO/LBI standard for library binding: An American national standard. Bethesda, MD: NISO Press.

Oldham, J.M. (1993) Preservation planning program: Managing a library binding program. Washington DC: Association of Research Libraries.Swartzburg, S.G. (1980) Preserving library materials: A manual. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Tribolet, H.W. (1970) Binding practice as related to the preservation of books. Library Quarterly 40 (1), p. 128 – 137.

Young, L.S. (1981) Bookbinding & conservation by hand: A working guide. New York: R.R. Bowker Company

Photographs

I'm a little late this week, not that it matters because nobody actual reads this blog - no big deal, it's for me, screw ya'll! ;) Anyway, I learned to make phase boxes last week. This coming week, I'll be making the items for my portfolio, since I'll be visiting the North Bennet Street School on the 19th and I want to have some things to show for my almost 7 months of experience doing binding-type stuff. Wow, I can't believe it's been that long!

Anyway, I have a paper to write, so instead of writing a big long thing, I'm just going to post a paper that I wrote last week. It's REALLY long (about 20 pages) and it's all about doing preservation for photographs. I learned lots about that doing this paper, which I guess is good, since it's not a topic I really knew anything about. It's more interesting than I thought it would be. Not that that is saying all that much, I suppose.

Anyway, the paper!

Claire Houck 11/28/2006

Photographic Preservation: An Overview

Photographic preservation is a matter of particular concern for archives that has received surprisingly little attention in the literature on preservation. One book claiming to be a comprehensive source on library preservation, for example, covered photography in a single page. (Harvey, 1993) Perhaps this is because libraries do not generally have to deal with large collections of photographs – the very nature of the photograph and the fact that photographs generally must be stored in box or scrap book form means that their care generally falls to archives of various sorts, and scholarship on archival concerns is in general less common. Whatever the reason, photographs face all the problems that books do – brittle paper, sensitivity to light, temperature and humidity, vulnerability to fungi and insects, etc. – and many more besides, because of the unique combination of materials that make up photographs.

What, then, is a photograph? While there are many different types of photographs, a photograph is basically “a metallic silver image lying on a support base of metal, glass, paper or plastic film.” (Weinstein & Booth, 1977, p.126) Some photographs are even made with platinum, pigments, wood, leather, dyes, or even cloth; preserving these, however, is beyond the scope of this paper. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Harvey, 1993). The image on a photograph is formed when light interacts with the light sensitive compounds (the silver layer, which is a silver halide, generally silver iodide or silver bromide) which is mounted on the support by means an organic compound – usually gelatin, albumen, collodion, or starch – which adheres the silver layer (or emulsion) to the support base of metal, glass, paper, or plastic film. (Harvey, 1993)

A few other features of the photograph are worth keeping mind when discussing how to preserve them. First, images can either be positive or negative; negative images show areas of light and dark inverted from how they are in reality while positive images show these values as they really are. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) Second, it is necessary to understand a few of the basic means by which photographs are made. After the photograph is exposed to light, it is washed in a solution of sodium thiosulphate (also called hypo) which “fixes” the image by removing the halide and leaving behind only metallic silver. If this is not done, the halide will continue to react to light until there is no image at all, but metallic silver is (relatively) stable. Then, the photograph needs to be washed to remove the hypo or else it will continue to remove silver from the image. Lastly, the image is dried. (John & Field, 1963, Eastman Kodak Company, 1985) Only once this is done will the photograph by finished; many of the unique problems in photographic preservation result from the inadequate completion of these steps in photo development. (Eaton, 1970) Third, it is wise to use research copies of prints and negatives whenever possible. Unless the original is needed for a specific reason, copies can be made that contain all of the image data of the original, allowing originals to be safely stored away from light and the damage that handling can cause. (Eaton, 1970)

It is of key importance that all chemical conservation of photographs should be done by trained professionals. Distinguishing between types of photographs can be nearly impossible even for those with training, and “procedures that work on one type of photography may ruin another.” (Weinstein & Booth, 1977, p. 152) Once the damage is done it is usually irreversible. When in doubt, it is usually best to do as little chemically as possible: “The essence of conservation is conservatism: too little is better than too much.” (Keefe & Inch, 1990, p. 5)

In general, as with all types of preservation, the key to conserving photographs is to store them in as close to ideal conditions as possible. However, ideal conditions for photographs vary somewhat from books, and sometimes vary depending on the type of photograph. However, a lot can be said on the topic of general ways of preserving photographs.

Light: Light is harmful to all photographs, without exception. When objects absorb light, they are effectively absorbing energy, and chemicals in the objects can react with this energy and thus change form. Many of the chemicals in photographs are reactive with light, particularly in the presence of moisture, and the chemical changes that take place are uniformly bad. Though color images are particularly, even black and white images will fade over time. Photographs should be stored in the dark and displayed as little as possible. If they must be exhibited, exhibits should be of limited duration or images should be rotated periodically so that no one image is out for a long time. If it is impossible to prevent light from reaching photographs, try to minimize the amount of ultraviolet light that reaches the image, because it is the most damaging type of light radiation. Filters of various sorts can be used in order to protect from ultraviolet light; it is also possible to buy pre-treated plexiglass. Most types of bulbs produce at least some ultraviolet light; fluorescent bulb filters are easy to find and relatively inexpensive. Alternatively, tungsten bulbs generate very little ultraviolet radiation, but they make a lot of heat and therefore should only be used if it is possible to vent the heat away from the images. Incandescent bulbs should be avoided if at all possible because they are difficult to filter, produce light of dangerous wavelengths, and generate a lot of heat. (Swartzburg, 1980, Eaton, 1970, Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Time Life Books, 1972)

Temperature and Humidity: High temperature and humidity always speed up chemical processes. Given the fairly volatile nature of chemicals involved in the production of photographs, it is therefore of key importance that photographs be stored in carefully regulated conditions. Humidity should be maintained in the range of about 25-35% if at all possible. High humidity will result in fungal growth and emulsion degeneration, will cause film layers to adhere to each other, and will cause film to swell and ripple. Discoloration can also result from reactions that take place in the presence of moisture. Lower humidity causes brittleness and curling because paper needs a certain level of moisture (about 7%) to maintain its internal chemical structure. Temperature, ideally, should be 50 degrees or so. Indeed, many pictures can only be best preserved if they are cold frozen.

Many buildings, of course, do not have the infrastructure to maintain images at their ideal conditions. Air conditioners and de-humidifiers (or re-humidifiers, in especially dry areas!) should be used to maintain minimum beneficial conditions: humidity should be kept below 50% and temperature below 70 degrees. An warmer and wetter than that is a recipe for disaster - a rule of thumb is that every increase of 10 degrees doubles the rate of chemical reactions! Environmental regulation is a must to keep collections intact. Additionally, it is important that temperature and humidity be kept relatively steady. Rapid changes in temperature and humidity cause problems because emulsion and support materials react to moisture and heat differently, and so the two will separate from each other – destroying the photograph – if the climate is not regulated. (Swartzburg, 1980, Eaton, 1970, Weinstein & Booth, 1977, et al.)

Atmospheric Pollutants: Our air is, unfortunately, full of chemicals that react destructively with chemicals used to produce photographic images. Pollutants are produced constantly by manufacturing plants, cars, furnaces, and all manner of industry. Particularly dangerous are sulfur compounds, which form acid when in contact with oxygen and water. More localized sources of pollution can also be dangerous – resinous wood, cleaning chemicals, solvents, janitorial supplies, glues, paints, ply wood, card board, and other materials around the building can produce dangerous chemicals as well. Air also contains solid particles that can accumulate and be abrasive to photographic surfaces. If possible, air should be filtered thoroughly. Activated charcoal filters should be used to remove solid, particulate matter in the air, while various specialized filters can be used to remove out harmful gases. In particular, filters should protect against nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen peroxide. And don’t forget, filters wear out with time and need to be replaced; an old filter doesn’t protect the building at all! (Swartzburg, 1980, Eaton, 1970, Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Keefe & Inch, 1990, Time Life Books, 1972)

Facilities: It is frequently not possible to have an ideal building designed for the storage of documents and photographs. The best storage facility would be air tight, with top of the line infrastructure, no windows, excellent insulation, and temperature and humidity controls in every room. However, even though such facilities usually are unavailable – and are expensive to build – some steps can be taken to protect collections even in non-ideal situations. Do not store collections in basements or attics, which are usually subject to extreme fluctuations in temperature and humidity. If possible, choose areas that will allow for collection growth, and do not choose rooms that are adjacent to or below plumbing. Avoid rooms with carpet, drapes, and wallpaper, and try to minimize the amount of light that reaches stored materials. Also, always consider the location of electrical wiring, sprinkler systems, etc. – be mindful of anything that poses a potential danger to stored materials. Even though it isn’t always possible to avoid all hazards, it can be possible to prepare and plan for the dangers that surround the collection, but only if one is aware of them. (Swartzburg, 1980, Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Keefe & Inch, 1990)

Storage: The key to preserving photographs and negatives is in how they are stored.

Negatives and prints should be stored carefully. Envelopes should be made of acid-free paper, polyester, or triacetate. Seams should be avoided if possible; not only do adhesives used on seams contain moisture which can damage any part of a in contact with the seam, but the thickness of seams can also cause pressure damage to the negatives. Papers should be acid free, but not necessarily buffered – some types of film are vulnerable to the buffering included in paper. All photographs should be stored individually, because it is common for different layers of negatives to stick to each other if stored together. Images should be stored loosely with room to breath, on their edges, in metal or acid-free card board containers. Rigid separators should be used every few inches to make sure that none of the envelopes are slipping, because this will cause the negatives inside to warp. Alternatively, if it is not possible to store photographs individual, then they should at least be separated from other prints by sheets of interleaving. (Wilson, 1971)

Many materials are bad for prints and negatives, such as glassine, which will cause ferrotyping, and sulfur, which will react with the film and cause acid to form. Materials that come in contact with film should be selected according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. Materials that don’t conform to these standards will probably do more harm then good and should be discarded and replaced as soon as possible. (Swartzburg, 1980, Eaton, 1970, Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Keefe & Inch, 1990, Time Life Books, 1972, Reilly et al., 1991)

The ANSI standards are very clear about what types of materials are safest for photographs. Boxes should have a pH of 7.2 to 9.5, and an alkali reserve of at least 2% calcium carbonate. Likewise, paper that will be in contact with black and white materials should be made of rag, bleached sulfite, or kraft pulp; should contain alpha cellulose greater than 87%, should contain no lignin, and should have an alkali reserve of at least 2% calcium carbonate. Sizing should be avoided if at all possible, and if it is used it should be neutral or alkaline. Paper shouldn’t have metal particles or loose surface fibers, and waxes, plasticizers, glassine, and other such components should be avoided because they might transfer to the emulsion. The standards for color photographs are similar, except that alkali reserves should be avoided because buffering agents can damage color images, and the recommend pH range is a much narrower 7.0 to 7.5. (Keefe & Inch, 1990, ANSI, 1969)

Another good way to store prints (as opposed to negatives) is by mounting them on acid free, sulfur free boards. There are a few different ways to mount images, using hinges, glue, or tissue. Whatever method is used, it is most important to remember that nothing should be done to prints that cannot be undone without damage – attaching a print permanently to a mat is a recipe for disaster. As such, it is usually inadvisable to use adhesives, because glues can be difficult to remove. Hinges are by far the best means of mounting to protect prints, because they do not damage the print in any way and allow the print to be removed from the mount easily if necessary. However, other methods are sometimes necessary, especially when the prints have started to curl and need additional support to keep them flat. (Eaton, 1970, Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Keefe & Inch, 1990, Time Life Books, 1972)

Materials to Avoid: Many materials are bad for photographs. The standards for paper have been discussed above; some other things should be kept in mind, though.

Rubber bands, most forms of tape, paper clips, staples, many adhesives, and most other means of joining materials together are harmful to photographs. All of these should be removed if it is possible to do so without damaging the image. If it is necessary to keep a set of images together, they should be stored in the same folder and separated by sheets of interleaving. Some types of string and cord are also safe; materials can be grouped by tying them loosely together (still always separating individual pieces with interleaving!). Adhesives can be particularly problematic because usually once they are on applied to a photograph they cannot be removed. Never use rubber cement, no matter what, and if an adhesive must be used try to use methyl cellulose or starch pastes. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Time Life Books, 1972)

Almost all types of wood are bad for photographs, because they tend to off gas harmful chemicals that cause paper to discolor and become brittle. Storage drawers and boxes should not be made of wood, and if it is necessary to frame an image, use aluminum frames instead of wooden ones. Paper, as discussed, is also dangerous, and though it is tempting to use plastic instead, most types of plastic can cause problems, especially when dealing with photographic chemicals that are releasing gases, because plastic will not allow air to circulate, permitting harmful vapors to accumulate rapidly and hasten material degeneration. Plastics should only be used if they are of uncoated polyester, cellulose acetate, polyethylene or polypropylene. Paper should only be used if it contains no rosin and adheres to the ANSI standards described above. (Eaton, 1970, Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Keefe & Inch, 1990)

Selecting materials with which to store photographs, fundamentally, is a matter of balancing what is best for the photographs with what the institution can afford. It is not always possible to buy the absolute ideal materials for every sort of photograph. However, if care is taken it is entirely possible to avoid many of the dangers described above without increasing costs too much.

Fungi and Insects: Microorganisms are airborne, and thus can travel any where that air goes. When the humidity is high, fungi will grow on gelatin, paper, and other photographic materials, causing permanent damage as the fungus slowly eats through whatever it is growing on. Removing fungus can be dangerous, too, because the best way to remove it is with water, but gelatin is water soluble and other elements of the photo can also be damaged by water. Fungus will generally leave ugly stains on photographs in addition to the structural damage done.

Insects tend to live in older buildings, or any building that affords them a place to thrive unnoticed such as beneath carpeting or between walls. Insects will eat paper, gelatin, any fungus that has grown, and deposits from air borne particles. Aside from the direct damage that insects cause, their excreta will also cause staining and fading.

Though film cleaners can be used to remove some of the damage done by insects and fungi, there is not way to reverse much of the damage that can be done, and so the best solution is to monitor conditions constantly. Make sure that heat and humidity are not conducive to organisms, and isolate any infected materials found immediately. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Time Life Books, 1972)

Planning for Prevention: There are a few different ways in which planning is of key importance in all manners of preservation. First, disaster planning is incredibly important. Staff needs to know what to do in case of fire, floods, or other natural disasters (which disasters are relevant will depend largely on the location of the archive) – which collections are most vulnerable? Which are most important? Where should materials be taken? These and many other questions should be addressed in disaster plans, and all staff should be familiar with these plans in order to minimize the damage if the worst should happen. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) Second, it is important to form general plans for materials based on the extent to which they will be used, who will be using them, and what uses they will be put to. Rules should be established and enforced on how staff and patrons should handle photographs, where photographs can be viewed, who has access to originals instead of reproductions, etc. People are the main source of damage to old photographs, and this damage is generally not reversible, and thus it is very important to regulate how archived materials are used. Careful planning can also help to prevent vandalism and theft. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Keefe & Inch, 1990)

Damage Done by People: People can be very destructive towards photographs, both intentionally and unintentionally. Many photographs, for example, have been destroyed or permanently damaged due to failed attempts at conservation. This is why it is important to never try to chemical conservation without proper training. Other damage generally caused by mishandling includes tears, abrasions, scuffs to the emulsion, finger prints, scratched and soiled photographs, pencil and pen marks, broken glass plates, prints that have been rolled or mounted on acidic paper, and many other forms of damage caused by neglect or ill-informed good will. Indeed, much of the damage done to photographs is done by those working hardest to protect them, such as the well-meaning family member who thoroughly mounts all of the family photographs onto cardboard and then pastes them into a book with rubber cement, dooming them to slowly decompose into faded, brittle images before disintegrating completely. (Swartzburg, 1980, Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Time Life Books, 1972, Reilly et al., 1991)

Inherent Weaknesses: Unfortunately, the nature of photographs means that, inevitably, they will break down and fall apart. The chemicals involved in their production are reactive enough that this is unavoidable. However, some photographs have much longer life than others. The photographs that are most vulnerable are those made on low quality paper. Paper containing lignin, hemicellulose, glucuronic acid, rosin sizing, or metallic ions are much more likely to suffer damage then those made on higher quality papers or with glass or metal bases. (Swartzburg, 1980, Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Keefe & Inch, 1990, Harvey, 1993)

Fading and staining are very common problems with several different causes. While some fading and staining is caused by reactions with the atmosphere, most is caused by inadequate fixing and washing at the time of the photographs creation. Yellowish brown stains are usually caused by hypo left on the film during washing, for example; tarnishing has the same cause. Though rewashing photographs can help deal with these problems, chemical treatments are always chancy and are not always effective. Some fading takes place only when photographs are exposed to light; dark fading, on the other hand, occurs constantly to color photographs due to the unavoidable breakdown of the dyes used in their production; it cannot be prevented or reversed. This will happen under any conditions, though cold storage will slow the process down. (Swartzburg, 1980, Eaton, 1970, Weinstein & Booth, 1977, Time Life Books, 1972)

Over time, materials simply degrade. Glass is fragile and sometimes breaks. Gelatin and collodion, frequently used to adhere emulsion to the photograph foundation, can flake off. Metal corrodes, paper becomes yellow and crumbles, film becomes brittle, and many materials slowly release chemicals as part of their natural aging process. All of these processes, which can be slowed but never stopped completely by storing photographs as described above, contribute to the gradual destruction of the photographic record. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977)

Copying Photographs: In order to preserve images even when the physical artifact cannot be saved, there are several means that can be used to copy images. The best way of replicating images is to reproduce them photographically, either by replicating the original procedures used to make them or by taking modern copies of old negatives using up-to-date techniques. These methods preserve the most original photographic data and produce the highest quality copies. Alternatively, electrophotographic systems can be used, such as copying machines, but these methods tend to cause the loss of a lot of the original data (ie, image clarity, etc.). Lastly, digital programs can be used to replicate images; however, the constant changing of technology and the relative instability of storage media for electronic data mean that this isn’t the most reliable method of preservation, though digital preservation techniques are improving all the time. If possible, therefore, it is best to make copies using photographic means. (Reilly et al., 1991, NEDCC, 2006)

Types of Photographs:

Many types of materials fall into the category of “photographs,” including film of various sorts, photographic prints on paper, slides, and motion picture film. (Eaton, 1970) This paper will focus on still and non-projected photography, however, and leave the preservation of motion picture and slides to another report. The many kinds of photographs face different dangers as they age; thus, it is important to know a little bit about the different types of photographs and the unique problems that they face.

Daguerreotypes: Daguerreotypes are the first type of photograph. Invented in L.J.M. Daguerre in 1839, they were very popular until about 1860. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) Daguerreotypes are composed of a layer of silver plated onto a sheet of copper. (Swartzburg, 1980) These sheets are exposed in light, and then developed by exposing the plate to mercury vapor. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) Daguerreotypes were always stored in protective cases when they were made, with a bronze mat and a box which usually contain important information about who produced the photograph and who the subjects were, and a sheet of glass over the image. (Keefe & Inch, 1990) These images are fairly stable, but the silver will tarnish with time and if not cleaned carefully, the image may be destroyed in the cleaning process. (Time Life Books, 1972)

Ambrotype: Ambrotype images are glass negatives that were rendered positive images by placing them in a case with a dull black surface beneath the negative. (Swartzburg, 1980) They were produced commonly from 1854 until 1881. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) As with daguerreotypes, they usually have protective cases, and it is only with extreme care that the image itself should be handled. The black backing of ambrotypes – usually made of paper, cloth, or paint – generally wears out before the image does, though, so often rejuvenating ambrotypes is simply a matter of replacing this backing. (Keefe & Inch, 1990) Ambrotypes are very difficult to clean; even treatments that won’t harm the negative itself will often remove the hand coloring that was common to this type of photograph. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977)

Tintype: Tintype images were produced on sheet-iron coated with collodion and a silver halide. These images are similar to ambrotypes and the two are often confused; the large variety of tintypes makes it difficult to state one strategy of preservation – most were made on iron, but some were also made on cloth, leather, cardboard or paper. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) Tintypes were cheaper and more durable than ambrotypes, but they deteriorate relatively quickly because the metal on which they are mounted dents easily, and they often lacked the protective cases that preserved daguerreotypes and ambrotypes. (Time Life Books, 1972) Generally, tintypes are not considered particularly valuable, though, which is fortunate because copying them can be challenging because damage to the backing material usually shows in copies. (Keefe & Inch, 1990, Time Life Books, 1972)

Calotypes: Calotypes are the earliest form of photograph printed from a separate negative. (Swartzburg, 1980) They are very uncommon because William Henry Fox Talbot, their inventor, jealously guarded his patent and so wouldn’t allow others to use his process, and because they developed so slowly that there use was often impractical. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) Calotypes have not survived well into the present. (Time Life Books, 1972) They were made on paper, and they tend to fade due to inadequate fixing (improper use of hypo to remove the remaining silver halide). (Weinstein & Booth, 1977)

Wet-plate negatives: Invented in 1951 by Fredrick Scott Archer, wet-plate negatives became the dominant form of photography in the 1880’s. The process of producing wet-plate negatives involved coating a sheet of glass with collodion and silver halide and then exposing the image while the coating was still wet. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) This type of photography became increasingly popular because it allowed for the production of multiple paper prints in a way that previous methods had not. (Swartzburg, 1980) However, these negatives are delicate, because they are on glass. Furthermore, the image was often coated with varnish, and as the varnishes have aged they have started to crack and flake off, removing the image as well; other times the varnish has become sticky, adhering to envelopes, with similar results. Furthermore, cellulose nitrate was often used in the production of collodion, and it decays with time, producing bubbles that can destroy the emulsions. These plates are very common but they are falling apart, inevitably, over time. The only real way to preserve them, unfortunately, is simply to reproduce the images that they contain on more stable film. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) In general, glass negatives are relatively stable; the most serious danger that they are in is that they will break if they are not handled and stored carefully. (Eaton, 1970)

Dry plate negatives: Dry plate negatives became available in 1881. They were very convenient, and were the first type of negative to be available in large quantities and produced in factories. Gelatin is used instead of the collodion used on wet plate negatives, and the nature of the chemicals allows these plates to be sensitive to light over long periods of time. These plates can be problematic, though. They are especially vulnerable to water; when it gets wet, gelatin will “shock,” which results in tiny fractures to the entire surface of the emulsion. The bond between the glass and the gelatin is also weak, and sometimes the gelatin needs to be reattached. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977)

Albumen paper: Albumen paper was introduced in 1855. It is made by coating egg whites (albumen), sodium chloride and silver nitrate onto paper. (Swartzburg, 1980) These images are usually golden brown because they were toned with gold chloride. The prints were very thin, and so were generally mounted on card board in order to keep them safe. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) However, they are very subject to fading and staining; 85% of all albumen prints are already seriously discolored, and the only way to preserve the images is to copy the prints to another medium. (Keefe & Inch, 1990) A small number of glass negatives were made using this process as well, but these process proved impractical and was not done after 1854. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977)

Collodion/Gelatin emulsion papers: Introduced in 1891, these prints are sturdier than albumen prints because the paper is thicker. Indeed, this type of paper is still made today. (Swartzburg, 1980) These images were noted for the fine detail that they showed; the nature of the development process produced very fine images. Collodion papers tend to become brittle and show tiny cracks, though, and are vulnerable to heat. Gelatin papers are more stable. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977)

Developing out paper: Introduced in 1880, these types of images develop much faster than older media did, producing an image in about 30 minutes. They are also easy to enlarge, allowing for the miniaturization of negatives. This type of paper is still the standard for black and white photography, and has been made in a few different ways. Chloride papers produce blue-black images and are very sensitive to light. Bromide papers, the first type produced, tend to produce more gray images. Chloro-bromide papers, more common now, produce a more brown-black image, can be varied by the use of different developing solutions. These different types of paper all require different types of treatments, but can be very difficult to distinguish from each other. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977)

Cellulose nitrate film: Cellulose nitrate film is by far the most dangerous, unstable type of photographic material. Produced first in 1889, the cellulose nitrate is highly flammable and may spontaneous combust in certain conditions. Furthermore, as it degrades, it releases chemicals that not only destroy the film but will damage and other photographic materials with which they come into contact, dissolving emulsion. As such, it is of critical importance that cellulose nitrate film be identified and isolated from the rest of collections. The film generally only has a life span of 20 to 75 years; much has already been lost. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) Nitrate film can be identified through a variety of means. It is often labeled, which makes it easy to find. If it is not labeled, it can be identified by its unique degeneration process. First, the film discolors, the image stains and fades, and the emulsion becomes soft and tacky, sticking to other film or to paper. Later, the film base will become brittle and will crack if folded; as the process continues, though, it becomes soft again, and will display noticeable gas bubbles and emit the small of nitric acid. Not long after this, the film will reduce to an unrecognizable, sticky, misshapen mass that will often drip out of folders and gather in drawer bottoms, before finally drying into a brown powder. This process cannot be stopped; though it can slowed by storing the film in a freezer, the only solution is to reproduce the images and then destroy the film. (Keefe & Inch, 1990) It is impossible to over-emphasize just how dangerous nitrate films are to photographic collections!

Acetate films: Much more stable than cellulose nitrate films, there are several different types of acetate films. (Eaton, 1970) Also called safety-base film, the biggest danger with this type of film is that it tends to shrink with age, causing the different layers of the film to separate from each other. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) Furthermore, with age, the film fades and becomes sticky or brittle, which destroys the film. This degradation can be recognized if the film smells of vinegar. (Reilly et al., 1991)

Polyethylene coated papers: Used for modern black and white prints, resin coated papers are fairly sturdy but deteriorate quickly in light. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) These “plastic” papers have advantages over fiber-based papers, but they are not very durable in the long term, and thus should only be used for utility copies and reproduction. Especially dangerous are stabilization prints, which were made quickly by using short cuts in the development process. These short cuts mean that the stabilization prints contain dangerous levels of chemicals that can damage photographs stored with the prints; thus, as with cellulose nitrate tape, stabilization prints should be copied and then removed from contact with other photographic images, or they should be fixed and washed again to remove the excess chemicals. (Keefe & Inch, 1990)

Color photographs: The first color photographs were produced in 1861 by James C. Maxwell. There are many different types of color prints, most of which are sadly unstable because no dye has been discovered that doesn’t discolor or fade over time. In general, all color images are more vulnerable to light, temperature, humidity, and pollution than are black and white films. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) Basically, color prints are inherently unstable. (Keefe & Inch, 1990) All color photographs are produced by a combination of cyan, yellow, and magenta dyes. (Reilly et al., 1991, Wilhelm, 1993, Wall, 1966)

Joly Plates: The first type of color photograph commercially available, these images are not panchromatic and tend to be unrealistic. (Keefe & Inch, 1990)

Autochrome: The first widely available color medium, autochrome was introduced in 1907 by the Lumiere brothers. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) These images are rather like pointillist paintings, and are made with potato starch, which can be problematic in terms of fungi and insects. (Keefe & Inch, 1990)

Tri-color cabro: Invented in 1905 by Thomas Manley, these color images have some of the best stability of any type of color image. This is because they are produced by creating three black and white negatives of the same scene as exposed through different color filters, and then the images are recombined. Unfortunately, the process is complicated and time consuming, and thus not used much. A similar process was developed in 1946 by Kodak, called the dye-transfer method, which involves applying gelatin color matrices to paper one at a time. (Keefe & Inch, 1990) Though this method is complicated, it is archival quality; dye transfer images can be used to preserve degrading color photographs, but because the process is time consuming it can’t be done for all images. (Time Life Books, 1972)

Chromogenic photographs: Produced by creating the colors at the time of development, this film consists of three separate layers of color-sensitive emulsion in layers. There are a few types of chromogenic film which all use different types of processes. The most common is the reversal process, which produces two negative images which are reversed into a positive image (this was originally marketed as kodachrome by Kodak). Other variations are used for Polaroid prints, which, like the original daguerreotype and ambrotype images, only have one original. (Keefe & Inch, 1990)

Conclusion

In a paper of this length, it is not possible to go into detail on all of the different types of treatment possible for photographs, nor to discuss in depth all of the dangers to which photographs are exposed all the time. There are many topics on which I have not been able to touch; great books exist full of hands-on methods that can be used by those with relatively little training to protect photographs. I haven’t been able to discuss matters related to selection, appraisal, or storage, which are of key importance, for it is always of importance in matters of preservation to consider what should be preserved and what shouldn’t. However, those topics are best left to future papers or other students.

Different types of photographs require radically different treatments; what will save one will destroy another. By storing photographs carefully, using archival quality materials, they can be preserved for as long as a few hundred years. (Weinstein & Booth, 1977) However, even with the most careful treatment, photographs remain very vulnerable to damage, and will inevitably degrade with time. As such, it is necessary for us to constantly be working to reproduce the important aspects of film, before the images of our past are lost forever.

Bibliography:

A note on the use of sources for this paper: Most of the works that I was able to find contained the same information over and over again with little variation. This is why many of my notes are from the same works – these works were the first books in which If found these facts. It was incredibly common for me to find the same facts in 3 or 4 or 5 books, but annotating all of them seemed impractical. Though I feared that this made it look like I only really used 3 of my sources, I decided to go with my “original” annotations rather than artificially try to vary them. I suspect that this replication of information is due to the relative paucity of scholarship in this area – the quantity of cross referencing between my sources (some of it not credited!) was truly amazing.

American National Standards Institute (1969). American National Standard specifications for photographic film for archival records, silver-gelatin type, on cellulose ester base, PH 1.28-1969. Washington, D.C.: American National Standards Institute.

Eastman Kodak Company (1985). Conservation of photographs. Rochester, NY: Eastman Kodak Company.

Eaton, G. (1970). Preservation, deterioration, restoration of photographic images. Library Quarterly, 40 (1), 85-98.

Harvey, R. (1993). Preservation in libraries: Principles, strategies and practices for librarians. London: Bowker Saur.

John, D.H.O. & Field, G.T.J. (1963). Photographic chemistry. Great Britain: Chapman and Hall Ltd.

Keefe, L.E. & Inch, D. (1990). The Life of a Photograph. Boston, MA: Focal Press.

Long, M.S., Munoff, G.J & Ritzenthaler, M.L. (1984). Archives and manuscripts: Administration of photographic collections. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.

Northeast Document Conservation Center. http://www.nedcc.org/leaflets/leaf.htm. Accessed 11/29/2006.

Reilly, B.F. Jr., Reilly, J.M., Norris, D.H., Puglia, S.T., Stefano, P.D., Van Haaften, J., et al. (1991). Photographic preservation and the research library. Mountain View, CA: Research Libraries Group.

Swartzburg, S.G. (1980). Preserving library materials: A manual. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

Time Life Books (1972). Caring for photographs. New York: Time Life Books.

Wall, J. (1966). Overcoming the problem of permanency in colour archives. The Photographic Journal, 107 (April), 141-144

Weinstein, R.A. & Booth, L. (1977). Collection, use and care of historical photographs. Nashville, TN: American Association for States and Local History.

Wilhelm, H. (1993). The permanence and care of color photographs: Traditional and digital color prints, color negatives, slides and motion pictures. Grinell, Iowa: Preservation Publishing Company.

Wilson, W.K. (1971). Care of books, documents, prints and films. Washington, D.C.: The National Bureau of Standards.

Oh, the Horrible Brittleness!

Well, despite my intentions of getting to do some more mount spines, it became more practical to work extensively on custom pamphlet bindings of various sorts - mostly envelopes and sleeves.

It's amazing to me just how much damage acidity does to paper. The effects of age are so evident on these old pamphlets. Many of the date from the turn of the century or before, and were bound at some point a long time ago in card board bindings held together with sewn bindings and linen. Originally, these were probably very nice, supportive secondary bindings for these pamphlets. But now? Well, the pamphlets are badly damaged themselves, often the paper is so brittle that it's hard to pick the pamphlet up without having little bits of paper flake off. The linen used to hold it in place in the binding is so old and worn that it frays at the touch, and can pull apart if you try (which I was careful not to do except when I was certain that the pamphlet was safely removed from it). The string breaks by accident when the slightest pressure is applied to it. And the thick cardboard that is supposedly protecting it all breaks apart at the slightest pressure. In short, all the hard work and money invested in the past to try to protect these books has proven completely useless.

It's very sad to me, really. It's sad to see how much these books have deteriorated, how much they continue to deteriorate. But more than that, it's very sad to me that we can't do more to protect them. These poor old pamphlets, falling apart as they are, deserve some attention, some deacidification, some serious treatment. But there is just so much that is falling apart that we simply cannot give each piece that much attention. So instead, they get 10 to 15 minutes at most (many get less than that!) of me making them a simple mohawk sleeve, modifying an acid free envelop to kind of custom fit it (the lucky ones get custom made envelops, but that's only if they are a weird size), and fit into a pamphlet binding and attached with double sided tape. It's so horribly inadequate somehow, yet it's better than nothing, and it's really all that we can do because there are dozens more of in the same or worse condition on our shelves waiting for treatment, and probably thousands more in the libraries on campus waiting for someone to notice that they are slowly turning to dust on the shelf. Now, at least, they will slowly turn to dust in a nice sleeve and acid free envelop - perhaps they will turn to dust slightly slower. That would be nice. Maybe someone will get to them in time to help them - to scan and preserve them, really, since there is little else that can be done wihtout creating a custom facsimile of some sort.

Yet I know that it's more likely that they'll get placed back on the shelf and largely forgotten, and eventually they'll just crumble and that will be that. And that is very sad to me. I hope that what little we can do really does help.

Some Thoughts On the Things that People Do To Books

My plan, by the by, is to post weekly in this blog, after I finish my work for that week, with some reflections on what I've learned and stuff. Yeah, stuff.

This week has been fairly good. My mount spine needed to be redone because of a little nobbly bit on the bottom of the spine, but the second turned out fine. My second attempt at a mount spine also needed to be redone, because I didn't get the board all the way into the little spine pocket, but again the second one turned out great. Karissa informs me that I will have more opportunities to do mount spines next week, which pleases me greatly. I like to do a treatment a bunch of times, just to make sure that I've really learned it and can do it again when necessary. (case in point: I've only done a few hinge covers, and now I barely remember how! Then again, I did a bunch of Kyle boxes all at once, and now I'm pretty sure I can still do them no problem. :) ) I also learned how to make custom pockets and the like and then mount them into pamphlets. This isn't a terribly difficult procedure, but I rather enjoy it. The most complicated for this treatment have been the books that needed custom envelopes made and also needed to have a custom pamphlet made because they were too big for the "standard" sizes.

Anyway, today, I had two experiences that really got me thinking about the abuses that patrons commit to our darling books. The first involved a bound journal from 1977. Someone had used a pen to gouge through all the pages of an article, thus not only removing the article from the book but also leaving vile blue ink lines down the remains of the pages they had removed. I had to double side the pages of the article and then tip them (read: glue them) into the book. The second was that the boys from ALF came to visit us with a book for us to treat. This happens from time to time: if they find a book in desperate need of conservation, they bring it over for treatment before putting it in the vault. Today's, though, was very interesting. They showed it to Karissa, and there were general comments about how disgusting it was. A few minutes later, Karissa called us all over to share with us this discovery. The book was entitled something like "The Economics and Politics of Public Health." At some point in the past, some delightful person had chosen to spit a wad of chewing tobacco into this book, about 2/3 of the way through. Now what remained was a disgusting clump of old, chewed tobacco and a large brown stain on both of the pages.

Why would someone do that? Ripping out the pages of the journal, that I can vaguely understand - people are lazy, and god forbid they go use a xerox machine like everyone else. But I could understand spitting the tobacco on the floor more easily than I can comprehend why on earth someone would want to spit into a book. Were they bothered by it's contents? Were they afraid they'd get caught if they spit it on the floor? Were they just lazy? I can't escape the feeling that they just didn't care. And that makes me very sad somehow. I want to dedicate my life to preserving and fixing books so that future generations of patrons can have access to them; meanwhile, some of patrons care so little for our carefully guarded volumes that they would spit in them rather than go two minutes out of their way to find a garbage can.

We're probably not going to be able to fix the book. Fortunately, the libraries have two copies of it, so it won't be the end of the world. Still, I hope that this is the last time I ever see something like that. I fear, though, that in the course of doing this sort of work, I'll be amazed more than once by the horrible, stupid things that people do to our books.

A budding bookbinder

This summer, I did and internship with Jim Canary at the Ruth Lilly Preservation Labratory at Indiana University. I had taken a SLIS (School of Library and Information Science) course with Jim the previous semester on preservation in the library environment. I liked it a lot and found the topic very interested. I was reminded of how much fun I had when I bound a book myself in Middle School; I was reminded of watching Ghostbusters 2 for the first time as a little kid and thinking that the art conservationist's in it had the coolest job ever; I was reminded that saving old things had always been something of an aspiration of mine. I greatly enjoy hand crafts and always have, and I wanted to save old books. We looked at old bindings in class, we visited Heckman Bindery, and all and all I kept thinking that this was something that I wanted to do, that I thought would be a lot of fun. The Bindery in particular made a huge difference in my thoughts on this topic; even as I watched the vaguely unhappy appearing employees, I couldn't escape the feeling that this was something I really liked and wanted to do. Jim mentioned that day that he sometimes took interns; I asked him before the end of the day.

My goals going into the internship were simple: learn as much as I could that anyone would teach me, and bind a book. Any book. Two months later, I had learn to mount a book exhibit, how to make mounts, how to build phas boxes and clam shell boxes, and I bound two books of my very own. I had learned a great deal about different treatments that I hadn't done, too, and, most importantly, I had learned that I liked doing this! I enjoyed it loads. I proudly displayed my two little bound books to all of my friends. They thought I was a bit strange, but that didn't stop me from being a bit proud.

I kept a journal over the course of the internship, I should probably post it at some point. :) It's really long, though. I babble a lot about making lots of phase boxes and all that manner of thing. There were times I didn't like it all that much - monotonous tasks can get dull sometimes.

The part of the internship that really made a huge difference, though, was helping Jim with the exhibit that he was planning. It was an exhibit of designer bookbindings. I had never encountered designer bookbindings before, but as soon as I saw them, I looked and I knew that this was something that I could do, something that I wanted to learn to do. Beautiful colors of fine leather, elaborate designs and art, all still a book, books beautifully printed with wood block prints....this was an art form that I wanted to produce with my own hands. It doesn't need to be the only thing that I do with my life - there are lots of other things I want - but it's something I want to try. For the first time since I was a child, I really feel like there is something that I can conceive of just doing and doing for a living for years to come. I had always wanted to use crafts to make a living, but there is no money to be made in embroidery no matter how good I am at it, and there is not much money to be made in costume making unless one is doing so for theater, which never really interested me - I want to put cool clothes on regular people (ie, myself!). Bookbinding takes art and books and craft - things I love - and tosses them all together into a form that I can really engage with. I've never been so excited about a potential career path! At least, not since I was in 9th and 10th grade and thought that astronomy was the coolest thing ever.

So here I am! I'm in my second (and, apparently, last) year of graduate school. I had been intending to complete three years and leave with a history degree and a library science degree, but the cost of out of state tuition coupled with the change in my interests makes this seem impractical. I'm focusing my library education on rare books. This is a new journey, one that I don't think that I want to forget. Life may be complicated right now, but at least it's interesting!

What, then, are the state of things now? After the end of my internship, I started working with the other half of the Ruth Lilly Lab, focusing on general collections rather than the books of the Lilly Library. We do a lot of treatments in a relatively routine fashion. I've bound hundreds of pamphlets (and have the calluses to prove it!). I've learned to do hinge covers, mount spines, Kyle boxes, how to bind pamphlets three different ways, how to make custom pamphlet bindings...I have so much more to learn, though, and I'm very excited about it all. I only learned mount spines last week, it was nice to get to do something more complicated. I like making boxes too, though it gets repetitive. I love binding pamphlets for reasons that defy explanation. There is just something so...relaxing...in the rhythm of making them. I work 10 hours a week, and will be working 20 hours a week next semester. I only have two classes before I graduate.

In December, I'll be visiting the North Bennet Street School in Boston, which has a bench apprenticeship in bookbinding. There are a (small) number of bookbinding programs of various sorts in the country; most of them are in book arts. There's also the Texas program in conservation, though accounts I've heard suggest that I shouldn't do that unless I want to be an administrator. I can't escape the feeling that I really want to go to Boston; I usually trust my instincts, but I don't want to make a foolish choice.

Anyway, I'm going to ramble in this blog about new things that I learn to do, thoughts on books and the like, etc. This isn't a blog for my life in general, that's what my LJ is for. :)

Why I'm Starting This Blog

Very recently, I have stated firmly that I felt that blog's were inappropriate and silly in most contexts. Yet less than a week later, here I amd creating a blog. Why, oh why, you might ask, is Claire creating a blog? Well, I want to keep a bit of a diary of my bookbinding and conservation related stuff - this is a major change in my life! - but I am not organized enough to keep this as a written diary, and I don't really want to burden my friends in Livejournal with this nonsense, because I doubt most of them would be interested. In short, I'm starting this blog as a personal diary. I doubt that anyone will find it all that interesting, but it's not for anyone else it's for me. So there! :)