Denise,
I think
you have already asked us, what you need to know from the board. Do they want a “permanent record” for
something for now that can be redone in x number of years. You can not determine that for them,
let them tell you. If you think it
is prudent, put together a pros and cons list for each way including cost estimates
for the board to consider. I can
tell you what I would do, but it really is their call.
Tracie Evans
Collections Manager
Texas Ranger Hall of Fame and Museum
PO Box 2570, Waco TX 76702
254/750-8631
-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Denise Haynes
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006
7:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Photographing
Collections
Thanks so much for the advice, Heather!
When I mentioned the non-archival quality of digital photography,
I was referring to the upgrading that was needed every so-many years to store
the information (cds and computer programs), in addition to the quality of the
printed copies. In my day job, we use B&W photos because (when stored
properly & when TRUE B&W film is used) they can have a shelf
life of 75 years or more, thus more or less establishing a 'permanent record'.
[National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmark photo
policy] Whereas, computer printer ink and photo paper is not really
archival, but ok for short-term use.
I suppose my question should be: should I look at photographing the collections
as establishing a "permanent record' or just think about it as something
that will probably have to be done again in 'x' number of years?
Denise
Find e-mail,
documents and more on your PC instantly with Windows Desktop Search-FREE!