So, I just learned about a Preservation ‘urban legend’ yesterday, while working a preservation “clinic” at a workshop hosted by my library. A man had brought a very brittle and fragile army base newspaper that belonged to his father. It was falling apart, and the paper was very pulpy and probably wouldn’t survive much more handling. He was afraid to scan it, because he’d heard that scanning could ruin it because of the light from the scanner.
LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE.
The notion that scanning a fragile paper document just once can be so dangerous as to ruin it forever is a myth. It is true that scanning will expose a document (or photograph) to a fairly bright amount of light, but it’s for such a tiny period of time that the damage is minute in comparison to other preservation dangers. Let’s also consider the cost-benefit analysis too: that tiny amount of light exposure is going to cause MUCH less damage than the damage from repeated handling or inadequate storage conditions, particularly for fragile or brittle materials. Also, think about how much light exposure those materials would get every time you had them out to show your relatives or friends: I’ll bet you a dollar it’s going to end up being more exposure than the little bit that comes from scanning. Also, it should go without saying that you should only have to scan your documents once if you do it correctly; if you scan them a dozen times, then yes they may receive enough light exposure that they could be at risk of fading. So when you go to scan/digitize your stuff, make sure you’re doing it at a high enough resolution and save your files in a safe space (and in multiple places: such as on an external hard drive, CD, and in the cloud). And also plan to migrate your files in the future, as storage technologies change and certain file formats may become obsolete or unreadable. Digital storage also has a finite lifespan (some as short as 2-5 years!), and DVD’s and CD-R’s become unreadable over time despite the best storage conditions. Preservation is an active process, not a passive one.
There ARE exceptions, of course: watercolors, certain very very old types of photographs (albumen prints, I’m looking at you), certain textiles, etc. But most of what you’re going to have in your own personal family archives are materials that don’t fall into those exceptional categories that require extra caution. Newspapers, printed books, black and white photographs, color photographs from the 70’s, old letters, etc: scan away! Remember, Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe! Scan your stuff, send copies to your relatives, make prints of your digital photos, and keep your originals in a cool, dry, and dark place.
Then, just this morning, there was a discussion on the PADG list about the very same thing! So if you’re looking for references to cite to your patrons, or to your stubborn relatives who are afraid to scan their old letters or documents, you might show them this paper by Timothy Vitale, who states:
“It has been said in some quarters that scanning is equivalent to exposing an object to a day’s, or a year’s worth of sunlight. This article examines that claim,and will show that not only is this not true, it may well be impossible.”
You might also check out this Conserve-O-Gram [Conserve O Gram No. 19/7 – “Archives: Reference Photocopying” (July 1993)] about reference photocopying best practices in an archive.
PS: Also, I KNOW we’re all smart enough to know not to put fragile documents through the sheet feeder of a scanner, and to instead put them on the scanning bed, right? RIGHT? Good. Happy scanning!
———————-
Errata:
And if any of you conservation geeks want to really get into the more technical literature, the Getty published a document called, “Effects of Light on Materials in Collections: Data on Photoflash and Related Sources” which is available as a free PDF download. This quote from the discussion section put the issue in a good perspective, IMO:
“A few extremely light-sensitive materials were identified during the literature review (see fig. 4.1). No substances were found to be so sensitive to visible light, however, that only one or a few flashes from a xenon photographic flash lamp with ultraviolet blocking below 360 nm would cause an unacceptable change in the object. Most highly sensitive materials are likely to be one of two types: (1) early photographs made with experimental processes, such as William Henry Fox Talbot’s halide fixed images, or modern experimentally processed prints that have not been treated for adequate removal of developer and fixer chemicals; and (2) objects incorporating certain natural dyes, or early synthetic dyes that were marketed while still experimental and before fastness testing was routine. If any of these objects have a history of extended light exposure—from extensive display, for example —they have probably already faded significantly.”