[STOCKPHOTO] Re:Advice sought on a "historic" photo archive

[Bob Croxford]

This may or may not be the list of publications produced by the
company in question. It is a list of one of the largest regional
newspaper publishers. Imagine if the 'landfill solution' was adopted
company-wide? Of course, I have no idea if this is the same company
that we are discussing.

Dear Ian

Dear Ian

One of the newspapers in your list is a case in point. All copies of
the actual newspaper are available in microfiche form for researchers
at a local library. This means that the photographs can be seen in
the original context and story. A well funded archive turned down a
huge quantity of prints and negatives from that newspaper because
pictures of the 1954 winner of the flower arranging prize at every
village in the newspapers coverage area had only ever been of
interest to one person; the winner.

Of far greater importance is the condition, treatment and access to
what are truly important photographs. As an example J C Burrow was a
pre-eminent photographer of mines in 1890s Cornwall. I have seen a
portfolio of his prints made by himself and can tell you that the
quality is mind-blowingly amazing. On a scale of one to ten I would
rate Burrow's prints at ten and Ansell Adams around seven or eight.
This guy used 10x8 glass plates and captured huge underground
galleries using magnesium flash powder. When he died many of his
negatives were washed off and used as greenhouse glass. A few, I
think its 96, are kept by the Royal Cornwall Museum. They contract a
local portrait photographer to do contact prints which are an
absolute disgrace because they are so flat. They refuse point blank
to allow anyone who has the slightest idea of how to make a decent
print access to them. I met someone who was doing a project on
Cornish mining and was in despair at not finding good quality prints
of Burrow's work. The Royal Cornish Museum have many other fine and
historic images which they treat in the same way. Unfortunately they
are not alone and the same story can be found all over the country.

Bob Croxford






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mike Shipman/Blue Planet Photography]

Education of the institutions holding photographic archives is also key. A
person just can't give up their archive to any old place. Sometimes that
can't be helped, as it sounds in the case of the Burrow plates. At some
point, perhaps the RCM will have a new person in that position that will
have a more open ear and allow the reprints to be done properly. At least
they are being held somewhere reasonably safe rather than in a shoebox in
someone's garage.

When I first Met Al Weber, I had thought that photo archives existed nearly
everywhere. I worked at the Denver Museum of Natural History (in the Zoology
Dept) and that museum has a very large photo archive that they maintain
themselves (and acquire photo archives that follow the museum's mission
statement and are reviewed for content - at least they did when I was there.
Since then the museum's name and focus has changed). I also thought, rather
naively, that well known photographers have plans in place for archiving
their collections in their estate. After hearing Al's presentation, I was
very surprised to find out I was totally wrong. The photographers themselves
apparently did not see the value of their work beyond the internal meaning
to themselves. I've seen that thinking posted here in recent days. I find it
very interesting (not disparaging anyone, I think it might be some kind of
inherent thought process) that for all the open-mindedness and
subject/environmental awareness photographers have, they aren't able to see
past a myopic view of the usefulness/utility of their work. We are judging
the value of our own work (and being very limited in that scope) when in
truth, especially as stock photographers, we have little or no control over
how our work is perceived by others. Mundane subjects, or what we might
consider mundane (photos of my neighborhood, for example - home
construction, neighbors interacting, children playing and growing up, etc. )
documented at a certain time and/or over a period of time, may seem
irrelevant to us as individuals. We may not have spent much effort in
creating those images, or had a specific project or purpose in mind. But, 20
years or 50 years from now those photos will be significant in showing what
life was like today.

When I go into antique and junk stores and look through all the old photos
in boxes and bins that came from estate sales and garage sales I wonder who
these people are, what was their life like, who is left of their family, and
why are the pictures here and not with someone who cares? Unfortunately,
many of the photos are without any documentation as to who or when or why.
Many will end up as craft projects or with luck framed and re-hung for
viewing. Most, though, I think, are tossed out after a while. I'm digressing
a bit here, but Bob did mention a good point that the "condition, treatment
and access" are important components of photo archives, although I would
disagree somewhat with the "to what are truly important photographs"
portion. Not all photo archives are able to be saved, that's the way it is.
Prioritization needs to be done as to the importance or relevance of an
archive to history. I think all photo records are worth something, but agree
that some work which best expresses a certain period of time, has
exceptional quality, coverage, and meaning, are going to be saved first. My
disagreement, a small one, is with the determination of which photos are
more important than others. It's partly a subjective undertaking based upon
the biases of history and the biases of the person or persons conducting the
evaluation. We judge the relevance of photographs based upon current
historical conditions and its relationship to the past. We can't project
importance into the future. Which is why we must try to save as much as we
can for those future folks to make that connection.

Mike Shipman



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ian Murray]

Post by Bob Croxford
Dear Ian
One of the newspapers in your list is a case in point. All copies of
the actual newspaper are available in microfiche form for

researchers

Post by Bob Croxford
at a local library. This means that the photographs can be seen in
the original context and story.

Dear Bob,

Agreed that the newspaper will have a selected photo from a shoot but
not all the others of, for example, the politician's visit to the local
high school in 1969 that weren't selected. Did Leif Skoogfors realise
that his picture of Kerry sitting behind Jane Fonda at a Peace rally
would have such later importance or the famous photo of Bill Clinton as
a schoolboy shaking hands with President Kennedy? I don't claim to know
much about printing but rather assumed that a scan from a newspaper
would inevitably be low quality.

A further point for consideration is the viewpoint and attitude that
these large publishers of regional newspapers display towards
photography today if they are so willing to chuck out what staffers
produced in the past. Is this part of the explanation for low rates,
job cuts, and the idea that relying on images contributed from mobile
phones or snaps taken by journalists is 'good enough'. Treating past
photography in such a reckless way as though it is a valueless
commodity undermines all photography.

These days I don't think these huge publishers have any care or real
connection with the communities whose newspapers they have bought and
who they claim to serve.

Regards,

Ian Murray