A few numbers about what was happening at St Cross during January:
- Number of enquiries (email etc): 95
- Number of researchers in person: 5
- Number of person-days in the reading room: 8
- Collections consulted: medieval & early modern mss, George Malcolm papers, college archives
- No of non-research visitors: 4 individuals
- Blog posts: 3
- interesting events: display from archives, manuscripts and early printed books for Balliol JCR
Lunchtime talk: Unlocking Archives
a seminar series about research in Balliol College’s special collections
‘AL Smith on the Home Front’
Anna Sander, Balliol College
Friday 19 February 2016, 1-2pm (HT5)
Balliol Historic Collections Centre
St Cross Church, Manor Road OX1 3UH
* all welcome *
Arthur Lionel Smith (1850-1924) was Balliol through and through: matriculated 1869, Tutor 1874, Lecturer 1879, Fellow 1882, Dean 1907, Master 1916. Though he was a particularly engaged and hardworking Fellow and Master of Balliol, a great part of his time and energy was devoted to work outside the college (even including a five-year Fellowship at Trinity) and outside Oxford. In this illustrated talk, Anna will open up some of his extensive personal, academic and administrative archive to show some of his activities at home and away during the First World War.
Anna Sander is archivist and curator of manuscripts at Balliol College.
Feel free to bring your lunch. The talk will last about half an hour, to allow time for questions and discussion afterwards, and a closer look at some of the Balliol special collections material discussed.
notes for illustrated talk given 8 January 2016, Weston Library (Bodleian), Oxford, as part of a DIY Digitization Workshop Day on the informal uses of digital photography in special collections.
This talk has not been published elsewhere. An expanded and updated version will be published later in 2016 as part of a collection of workshop proceedings.
DIY digital photography by and for staff and readers in a small archive
The organisers have asked me to talk about my perspective on how keepers of special collections in smaller institutions are adapting to the use of digital photography and online platforms by and for themselves and their readers, including the role of cheap and readily accessible digital photography and platforms for sharing or manipulating such images. I’ll talk about one aspect of my work as Balliol’s archivist and curator of manuscripts (and some of it is not all that informal): creating digital images of Balliol’s archives and making them available. Most of my digitisation work relates to the medieval manuscript books so I’ll focus on that today.
This I what I do in these particular circumstances; my practice and thinking have evolved over time and they continue to change. It’s not the only way, but I hope it provides food for thought, discussion, practice and policy.
Equipment & procedure
For some flat documents, I use an Epson GT-15000 scanner, A3 size, scanning at 200-600dpi. While I understand that tiff format is better, I scan and photograph in jpg unless I’m asked for tiff, because tiffs are huge and my current storage capacity, sharing platforms and PC power can’t deal with large numbers of tiffs. For photographs, I used a Nikon Coolpix 7600 camera 2005-2013, replaced in October 2013 by a Nikon Coolpix P770. Images produced by the new camera are 3000 x 4000 pixels and files are about 3.5-4.5 MB. For a couple of projects photographing physically large but straightforward ledgers, I’ve borrowed a mobile book cradle, with its own lights, from the Oxford Conservation Consortium.
I photograph as much as possible under natural light, and using cold/daylight fluorescent lights. To support the manuscripts I use the standard Clarkson foam wedges and cloth covered lead weight snakes, sometimes a bone folder to hold down a particularly springy page. That’s it for equipment. Rare requests for photos of watermarks, ie with illumination behind and through the page, or under UV light, I take to the Oxford Conservation Consortium studio down the road – I don’t have facilities for either. I want to acknowledge and thank the OCC conservators as well for their ongoing support with many aspects of this work, not only manuscript repairs and handling techniques but advice on camera equipment and photography tips as well.
Rather than just one shot per page I take numerous closeups wherever necessary. This attention to detail means that it can take four or more exposures to document a single side, but it’s quick and the intention is that not only the original enquirer but subsequent users will be able to answer as many questions as possible from the images, whether before or after, or even sometimes instead of, consulting the original. Ideally I or they shouldn’t have to come back to this same manuscript and take further more detailed photos later.
As a lone archivist I have to prioritise my time carefully. Rather than starting with MS 1, all photography is done in response to specific academic enquiries from individual researchers or research groups. I’d prefer to photograph whole manuscripts, but for practical reasons, if someone asks for only one text or one section of a book, I’ll only photograph that, at least for now.
I use Microsoft Picture Manager, part of the Microsoft Office suite, for basic tasks such as checking focus, filenaming, cropping and rotation, because my ordinary office PC has trouble with Adobe Bridge. But I need to use Bridge to insert the filename into the EXIF data title field for each image because that’s the information Flickr uses to create its filenames. A bit clunky, but it’s about using what’s available as efficiently as possible.
I have to spend some time checking the image quality and renaming the photos so that filenames reflect the manuscript number and foliation, and so the computer and Flickr will both arrange in the order I want, but I don’t edit or process the photographs much – they are not high enough quality in the first place to be perfectible, and I want them to be as ‘honest’ or WYSIWYG as possible. Researchers can then manipulate their digital copies for contrast or other parameters in whatever way is most useful to them.
When I started, I chose to share images on Flickr because it was very inexpensive for unlimited image capacity, fairly friendly to use, and the biggest, most visible and most quickly growing share image resource on the web. I also like its potential for tagging, extensive text descriptions, and creating collections and galleries. though I’ve done little of that so far because I’m concentrating on creating the images requested, and because there isn’t (yet) a systematic way of copying and storing that added information outside of Flickr.
I chose not to host the college’s images on its own website because of the disproportionate demands this would put on the college’s IT department and the dangers of non-continuity using in-house software. As Will Noel said in his Mackenzie Lectures here at Oxford a couple of years ago, referring to the Parker Library’s Parker on the Web project with Stanford University, it’s more effective to let the manuscripts people do the manuscript stuff and let the image sharing platform specialists take care of that end. It was also important that the images be as widely visible and findable as possible, not just in a college web presence but in context with other similar material, particularly as the vast majority of special collections users are always and necessarily from other institutions. Flickr’s growing use by other special collections institutions meant that it would be on the map for researchers to check for relevant images. a belt and braces approach will help more people find what they’re looking for , so Balliol’s manuscripts are also catalogued online on the archives & manuscripts website, and images are linked from the catalogue text. I also use Oxfile for sharing large numbers of files with individuals, and the Flickandshare app for downloading whole sets from Flickr at once.
Other sharing platforms are available, and it’s worth having a good look at several to decide which suits your needs, or indeed to get ideas of how images might be presented or used. I’ll recommend the way I used to explore the options: the Bodleian’s 23Things for Research, a self-guided investigation of all kinds of digital tools, and the similarly structured Society of American Archivists’ 23Things for Archivists.
What’s good about allowing researchers to take their own photographs?
Good will: It’s just so much better than awkward encounters with researchers who want images and find the fees exorbitant, or those who try to take their own images clandestinely. I do believe strongly that academic institutions, professional staff and researchers should be free to cooperate!
Preservation: I’m not a dragon keeping people away from manuscripts or information. But I AM a dragon about preservation and good handling technique etc – so if all arrangements for access are clear and open, communication has already been established, and it’s easier for me to work WITH researchers, to make sure they are handling and supporting the material well and using lighting correctly.
Reader relations: people are usually surprised and grateful at this open attitude. That good feeling isn’t just pleasant; it leads to: helpful suggestions; sharing citations, sets of images, and contacts; the occasional speaker for our research seminar series; and researchers sending colleagues for more research.
Collaboration: it’s surprisingly rare that a researcher takes better photos than mine. But in those cases, I ask for a copy of the images and I also ask to post them online and/or share them with other researchers, with proper acknowledgement. This is highly unusual (apparently) but for the most part they are more than happy to collaborate in that way as well.
What’s good about doing ms photography myself?
I’ve been asked: Why not put a good thing on a larger scale, obtain external funding for digitization and outsource the photography to a professional?
As well as low cost and good time management, because I can respond individually to requests and fit them in around my other tasks, the great advantage of doing the digitisation myself is that I get to know the manuscripts extremely well. While photographing, I’m also checking in detail for physical condition, learning to recognise individuals’ handwriting, discovering/replacing missing or misplaced items, prioritising items that need conservation or repackaging, noticing possible items for exhibitions and so on. If a photographer did this work, the only product would be the photos; all that direct encounter with each page would go to waste. And a reactive approach is more efficient – all images created are used at least once. So far, I’d rather invest time in direct collection management than filling in endless grant applications that only result in half a dozen mss getting photographed at a time. Having developed working practices and being in close touch with those who request and use the images, I’m now in a good position to involve others in image creation – the current work structure is a good base for new possibilities to develop.
I’ve now worked out a procedure document that means it’s efficient to train a student, and recently I had an OU Careers Service microinternship placement student photographing mss and processing images for a week. In that time she completed two full manuscript orders and finished a third – that’s a big help, but is also sufficiently small-scale that I am still closely connected with the work. It’s great work experience too.
Are they good enough?
For images I create, I have to consider both quality and usability for current use and long term preservation, or at least for medium term re-use. They’re not intended to be publication quality – rare requests for extra high quality or resolution photos are individually outsourced.
In terms of service, I’m able to fulfil reprographics requests in reasonable time and to a standard that satisfies enquirers. I’ve yet to have an enquirer say the photos weren’t good enough for their study purposes. I have had people say the images were sufficiently good that they did not need to come and check the original. And some of my images have been published, so in some cases they are of adequate quality for that as well.
Regarding permanent preservation of digital images, all facsimiles are tools: they don’t replace the original and so far no format is permanent, in terms of either physical preservation or machine-readability, or indeed usable or acceptable quality. Microfilms in their day were supposed to be a permanent preservation format, but not only does it have issues of physical preservation and decreasing availability of reader/printer machines, readers find the black and white, scratchy, often poorly focussed films of unusably poor quality for their research purposes. I have to assume that these manuscripts will be photographed – using whatever format and equipment has evolved – again in their lifetimes. That’s inevitable – I just have to try to ensure they don’t need to be done again in my lifetime.
What is the cost?
Because reprographics are part of my regular work schedule, the cost is my time & the £50 or so fee every 2 years for our unlimited Flickr account.
Do you charge for access or images?
No (except outsourced images, for which cost is passed on to the requester). Special collections are extremely expensive to maintain, and often have to sing for their supper, but on the other I know how frustrating it is to be denied the chance to take one’s own photographs and then also to be charged the earth for a few images. Institutions like ours, whose own members may need such cooperation from other collections and their curators, should err where we can on the side of the scholars! Most of the requests for images I receive which aren’t for medieval manuscripts are from private family history researchers, and since many of those enquirers would otherwise have no contact with Balliol or Oxford, I think it’s good for the relationship between college, university and the wider public to be helpful in this way. It can also be expensive and time consuming to collect payment, plus VAT.
Pace institutions that do charge for access or images – I’ve been there and I acknowledge that there are other situations and reasons for charging. Balliol did not have a digitisation programme before I started. It did not produce photos in-house, or charge users to take their own photos, so I was able to begin with a clean slate.
Balliol College does reserve the right to charge for permission to publish its images, but may waive this for academic publications.
What about copyright?
Copyright in unpublished material and images of that material is legally complex and still pretty vague and inconsistent in the UK, and we’re all watching developments in that area, with the advent of the Orphan Works Register and so on. We are relieved that at least preservation copying is now permitted for unpublished works.
For older material that belongs to Balliol, I’m with the British Library’s image reuse policy on this one. Ideally, as much as possible should be as available online as possible, for reasons of both access and preservation. For now, however, I’ve retained ‘all rights reserved’ status on all the Flickr photos, as the College has not yet formally considered Creative Commons licenses.
I was asked by the college as soon as I proposed starting this way of sharing images about copyright and image security. As soon as a digital image is taken it has a life of its own, and its use and sharing can’t be practically controlled much at all – however, this hasn’t been a problem for Balliol thus far. The college has not suffered financially or intellectually, and indeed its reputation in this area has improved considerably!
Digital photography opens up so many opportunities to make familiar research methods quicker and easier, and to discover new questions to ask of old material. It’s to the college’s advantage to be forthcoming and as open as possible about its collections, and thus to become a hub of shared knowledge about Balliol’s manuscripts, rather than having researchers privately sharing information and pools of unauthorised photos, that perhaps aren’t well documented or well organised. It’s good for the college to have high staff knowledge of the collections, and of collection use in the wider world of research, including new publications about them. The best source for much of both is from researchers themselves. I don’t want any feeling of researchers having to work around or in spite of curatorial staff – we should be on the same side. Better to be open, so we can communicate effectively, and ask for researchers’ input and collaboration. I hope I haven’t only adapted to the use of digital photography by staff and readers, but embraced it.
– Anna Sander, January 2016.
‘DIY digital photography by and for staff and readers in a small archive’ by Anna Sander (Balliol College, Oxford) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
A few numbers about what was happening at St Cross during December:
- Number of enquiries (email etc): 71
- Total remote enquiries in 2015: 1137!
- Number of researchers in person: 6
- Number of person-days in the reading room: 7
- Collections consulted: AL Smith, College records (2), Greene-Reid, MSS
- No of non-research visitors: 3 individuals
- Blog posts: 3
- Flickr uploads: images from MS 199 and 200
- interesting events: Unlocking Archives talk (Charlie Dawkins, Merton); OU micro-internship placement photographing medieval mss (Mary Maschio, Queen’s); Anna teaching a session on archives careers and planning graduate research in archives with former St Cross volunteer, now Dr, Claire Williams, QML.
Happy New Year! Anna will be back in the office on 7 Jan but speaking at the DIY Digitization colloquium at the Bodleian Library on Friday 8 January, so full service in the archives resumes Tuesday 12 January.
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2015 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 9,900 times in 2015. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 4 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.
A guest post to close the research year at St Cross:
Robert Cowton was an early fourteenth century theologian based in Oxford, and Balliol archives house three manuscripts containing some of his treatises. I spent my week on a “micro-internship”, organised through the careers service, digitising these manuscripts for a group of researchers based in Germany. Making the images available online will hopefully save them, and the planet, a flight over. The three manuscripts, Balliol MSS 199, 200 and 201, are all executed in the same hand with matching decorations in red and blue ink.
I started off by photographing each of the pages attempting to give a clear and legible picture of the text. Wrinkles, curling pages and minute annotations did not make this an easy task. Handling a manuscript carefully and making the pages sit flat often seem to be diametrically opposed aims. If some of the pages are a little hard to read, this is because I have erred on the side of caution. Despite these challenges it was a real pleasure to work with the manuscripts; getting to feel the parchment and see at first hand the way the skin has been stretched and tanned to make it fit to write on. The tiny marginalia left by successive readers; from the eighteenth century page numbering (often with corrections) to the little pointed fingers indicating important parts of the text show the continued life of a text in a way that a modern printed edition cannot.
Once I had finished photographing the manuscripts I then jumped to the other end of the temporal spectrum and attempted to upload the images to Flickr. In order to get both Windows Explorer and Flickr to read the right title field data, each file had to be named twice, in two different programs. Once I had got through the renaming and uploading process it was very satisfying to see the whole manuscript online, waiting to be read.
I am very grateful to Anna Sander, the college archivist, for giving me this opportunity and patiently dealing with my questions and problems, as well as to the staff at Balliol library for giving me a desk on Friday afternoon and covering my lunch in college during the week.
– Mary Maschio (Queen’s College)
Anna adds: Some of Mary’s images have already had dozens of views, and I am very grateful for her help furthering the progress of manuscripts digitisation and sharing. I also thank the Oxford University Careers Service for organising the microinternship scheme, and appreciate their consistently excellent pools of applicants for these placements!
Thursday in brief:
- First thing: answer a few overnight emails. Get out next MS for student to photograph.
- student intern working on photographing medieval manuscripts project in the office all this week – brilliant to have her help, as she will have photographed two manuscripts and completed a third in response to a request from several overseas academics working together on an editing project.
- No readers to invigilate? Into the repository! lots of volumes and boxes to put away from a couple of box-measuring sessions and a busy reading room at the end of the year.
- For a change, head into the small repository and (finally) make a full shelf check and locations list, by hand, with pencil and paper. Faster than using our old laptop!
- process recent environmental monitoring data
- engineers arrive to look at the air conditioning plant
- after lunch, 36 new manuscript boxes arrive. Fetch out mss, attach labels to new boxes, start boxing.
- conservators ring: I will visit them later to discuss a question about some material on the bench at the moment and take them the used (ugh) insect traps for their regular census. We have never caught any really worrying beasties, so we’re moving to 6-monthly monitoring instead of quarterly.
- Collect bug traps from strategic places around the building. Mostly harmless but a peculiar grub-looking thing in one of them, never seen the like before. This may take some research… Off to conservation studio with bug traps, back with a couple of manuscripts that have had all the little repairs they need in preparation for boxing. Put them away – their new boxes won’t arrive until the new year.
- continue boxing manuscripts
- ‘Type up locations list from this morning’ has been on the agenda all afternoon, but has been shunted to tomorrow (maybe) by the boxes arriving and the visit to Conservation. Sufficient unto the day…
- No extra time to catch up after 5 today, stop by the lodge to borrow a gown and off to sing evening service at the Cathedral. Lots of Britten tonight!