The next stage in processing the Bill Lawrence collection, the subject of this series, is scanning. Scanning creates digital copies of documents and photographs. The purposes I envisage for the digital copies of Bill’s collection include:
- Sharing with family members
- Ready accessibility for research
- Examining close-up detail
- Improving legibility
- Reducing wear and tear on the originals
Making digital copies adequate for all these uses within time, cost and equipment constraints requires compromises. So before I start there are some decisions to be made.
Scanning is for access not preservation
One decision that I made while deciding what I intend using the digital copies for is that I am not producing copies for preservation. I frequently see scanning document and photos referred to as a means of preserving them. Scanning does not preserve anything, it makes copies. Paper and photographs only benefit from scanning if they are handled less and suffer less damage as a consequence, because the digital copies are used instead. I also see people suggesting that the original may be discarded once scanned. Even a high quality digital copy is not the same as the original. If it is worth scanning it is worth keeping. Why would you throw a unique original away? I made decisions about what was worth keeping when I catalogued the collection. Paper documents and photographs can be expected to last decades if kept in moderately good conditions (e.g. a room that you live in). In comparison, digital copies are very fragile indeed, and require constant care if they are to remain useable and accessible in the long term. I can replace lost digital copies by re-scanning, but I can’t replace the originals.
My aim is to make working copies, but also pay attention to archival recommendations. My research purposes require good quality images in an accessible format. In the case of this collection, anything that fulfils my needs will likely exceed the expectations of family members, who would be happy with photocopies.
A good quality image for research purposes clearly shows all detail and is faithful to the appearance of the original.
Scanner or digital camera?
It is much easier to achieve consistent image quality using a flat-bed scanner than a digital camera. Scanners have their own light source, a fixed distance between the sensor and target and collect the image data line-by-line by moving the sensor over the target. Consequently images are in focus, of consistent exposure and resolution, and may be very high resolution.
Although digital cameras feature autofocus, automatic exposure and white balance, quality of the image will vary with the light source, camera support and distance from the target. Camera sensors collect all the image data at once, so resolution is limited by the number and size of pixels on the sensor. A handheld camera using ambient light is unlikely to achieve consistent images. Using a camera stand or tripod to set the distance to the target (standardising resolution), and ensure sharp focus; and studio style lighting to standardise exposure and white balance can overcome the difficulties. Some people claim they can digitise more quickly using a camera, but I think this is true only if some quality is sacrificed or the studio is already set up. Claims that apps and mini-studio products convert your phone into a scanner are technically inaccurate. They use the camera in optimal conditions, and may process the images afterward.
There are situations when using a camera is preferable, or the only option. Archives in the UK generally do not allow the use of devices that require contact with the document, which rules out using a portable flat-bed scanner like the popular Flip-Pal or any of the wand or mouse devices. In case you are wondering how that is justified, self-service photocopying is also not allowed. Three dimensional objects, very large documents that don’t fit on a scanner, and documents with features that are difficult to scan well (e.g. watermarks) often warrant careful photography.
Taking account of the equipment I own, my A4 flatbed scanner is the best option for Bill’s collection. Only a few documents need to be scanned in more than two pieces. I don’t own a mini-studio or have practical space to set one up. I may use my digital camera to capture watermarks, and for some creative images.
Digital images are made up of pixels, the tiny squares (usually) that you can see if you zoom in enough. Data for each pixel consists of values for constituent colours (Red, Green, Blue) and other properties like brightness. Resolution is measured in pixels per inch or ppi, which is also called dots per inch or dpi. The higher the scanning resolution, the more fine detail is captured.
Archival institutions do not have universal recommendations, but do have similarities. The National Archives (TNA, United Kingdom), British Library (BL) and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA, United States of America) all agree a minimum of 300 ppi for documents. For documents with significant elements of less than 1.5mm, NARA and BL suggest 400 ppi or more. Size matters when it comes to scanning photographs, with smaller photographs needing higher resolutions. TNA suggests a minimum of 600 ppi, BL a range between 300 ppi and 1200 ppi, and NARA between 600 ppi and 2800ppi. Another way of expressing resolution is as the minimum number of pixels along the longest edge of the document. Using this measure NARA suggests 4000 pixels for documents with fine detail and small photographs, and up to 8000 pixels for large photographs. The Smithsonian keeps it simple with a recommendation of at least 6000 pixels along the longest edge for all artefacts.
So, 300 ppi is adequate for most documents in Bill’s collection, and 600 ppi is a good starting point for the photographs. At what resolution would you scan the passport? The most informative pages contain personal details of Robert and Mary Spencer (Bill’s grandparents), small photographs (47mm x 67 mm), ink and embossed stamps, signatures, and a detailed background pattern. Although not strictly necessary for genealogical research, I am fascinated by the anti-forgery features. For genealogical purposes, I need clear representation of stamps, signatures, handwriting and printed information. So the smallest features of interest to me are the background pattern and letters in the embossed stamps (which contain the Royal Arms). After some experimentation, I found 1200 ppi gave me the detail I wanted.
Note that passports are official documents that remain property of the government and parts of this passport, particularly the Royal Arms, might still be subject to Crown copyright. The guidelines for making copies are aimed a current passports. Even though the people are long dead and passports have changed considerably since this passport was issued in 1922, making it very unlikely that copies could now be miss-used, I am going to exercise caution and not publish images of whole pages or the Royal Arms. The photograph of Robert Spencer has been over-stamped in ink. Zooming in on his ear and part of the stamp, an area 10mm high on the original, you can see the effect of resolutions of 300, 600 and 1200 ppi:
Colour and Other Considerations
Depending on the model of scanner there may be a range of settings available. A basic scanner such as the Flip-Pal only has settings for 2 resolutions (300 ppi and 600 ppi). More advanced models have an array of settings including brightness, contrast, colour saturation and balance. NARA offers some sage advice:
“Some people suggest it is best to save raw image files, because no ‘bad’ image processing has been applied. This assumes you can do a better job adjusting for the deficiencies of a scanner or digital camera than the manufacturer, and that you have a lot of time to adjust each image”.
Only if default settings fail to produce an acceptable result will I make any adjustments.
I choose to scan all documents in colour because an authentic copy makes it easier to see different inks in handwriting. Some documents might be more legible scanned as greyscale images. Assessing colour fidelity is difficult because each scanner & digital camera collects the data slightly differently and each computer screen and printer interprets the data differently. Screens come with differing capabilities, so my stand-alone monitor is capable of much greater range in colour and contrast than my basic laptop screen. Calibration of equipment can overcome the technical differences, but remember that no two people see colour the same way. I limit my colour correction to collecting calibration information by scanning a colour reference card (e.g. QPcard) once during a scanning session. Archives may include a colour reference and scale card in each image and calibrate the images after scanning.
Some adjustments are best done during scanning. Printed materials like newspapers and magazines may require adjustment to the de-screening setting, which corrects the moiré pattern that may occur.
Adjustments to contrast can enhance text legibility, especially if the original is faded. This can also be modified using image editing software.
Digital Image Format
Common image file formats produced by scanners include JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group, file extension jpg), TIFF (Tagged Image File Format, file extension tif), BITMAP (file extension bmp) and PDF (Portable Document Format, file extension pdf). Each has advantages and disadvantages. Ease of use, quality of image data, preservation of image data, file size and support for image metadata are all considerations.
Many archival institutions use tiff for archival master copies, because it preserves the image data without any loss. JPEG files store the image data in a compressed form that discards some information (known as ‘lossy’ compression). Consequently Tiff files are considerably larger than JPEG files.
For this project I choose to save files as JPEGs, as the small compromise in image quality is outweighed by the ease of use and support for metadata.
Preparation leads to consistency
Having decided on scanning protocols, the images I scan will be consistent quality and suitable for all the purposes I envisage. I also have a starting point for future projects.
My choices for scanning protocols are not the only way of completing a scanning project. You could make different choices because you have different aims and constraints. It is important that you know what decisions you made and why you came to those decisions. Then you are in a good position to keep what works and modify what didn’t in future projects.
© Sue Adams 2016
When I acquired the Bill Lawrence collection on New Year’s Eve, I was taken by surprise. I wanted to ask questions, so I whipped out my phone and started recording to capture information. I find that when making notes with pen and paper, I always miss chunks of information, especially at family gatherings where there are many distractions.
Audio recording is not a quick short-cut. It takes a lot longer to make sense of a recording than of written notes. The environment in which this recording was made was less than ideal. There are multiple simultaneous conversations, and the conversation wandered off topic to take-away orders and gossip that might be libelous if repeated here. In a recording of 33 minutes, just over 7 minutes relate to Bill’s collection and life.
So, I needed to extract the relevant parts and transcribe them. Stories Matter is free open source software built for oral history. It includes audio clipping and basic transcription functions.
Listening to yourself asking questions can be revealing. I had not realized that I interrupted Gill a couple of times, which probably limited the information she was giving me. In the following clip, I was good and just listened:
How much of that did you get? I have the advantage of having been present and knowing the voices of my parents, aunts and uncle. Here is the transcript:
GILL: That school that Bill went to, Ron, d’you remember Gilbert Harding?
GILL: He was at the same school
VAL: At the same time?
DOROTHY: Uncle Harry was as well, wasn’t he?
[talking over one another]
DOROTHY: Not at the same time
GILL: Cuz I remember them talking..
DOROTHY: Oh, I thought it was called an orphanage, because it was for children who had lost a parent or..
GILL: Yeah, but it wasn’t in the sort of normal way, every kid had lost both parents
DOROTHY: No, no, it was a school, but it was a boarding school, and they took in children that had lost parents
GILL: Yeah, and err.. Cuz, apparently when she [Bill’s mother] came back here her brothers said, you know, you must find some work to do and that, so she put Bill in there. But he was telling us and showing us this book and he was saying it was that bloody cold at night in this dormitory. An, you know, they used to get out of the dormitory at night. And the headmaster used to grow vegetables, so they’d go and pinch some carrots and eat ’em straight out of the ground, unwashed, cuz they were so hungry.
In just 1 minute and 16 seconds, this conversation raises a number of questions:
- Who was Gilbert Harding, and why should Ron remember him?
- What was the name of Bill’s school?
- Was it a school or orphanage? Why the confusion?
- Who was the ‘Uncle Harry’ who also attended the school?
- What book did Bill show when talking about his school?
With a little digging I have made progress on the first three questions, but will need to ask Dorothy and Gill for clarification on Uncle Harry and the book.
Gilbert Harding (1907-1960) was a radio and TV personality in the 1950s, which is why Ron remembered him. Gilbert attended the Royal Orphanage of Wolverhampton, also known as the Wolverhampton Orphan Asylum and the Royal Wolverhampton School at periods before and after his time there.
The school was open to children between the ages of 7 and 15 who had lost one or both parents. So, Bill, born in 1915, would have been an eligible age between 1922 and 1930, and Gilbert Harding between 1914 and 1922. So, Bill could only have been contemporary with Gilbert in 1922.
The Children’s Homes website gives insight into the social standing of children granted admission. Admission was granted to “orphans of professional men, principals engaged in agriculture, manufacture, commerce, or trade, or of mercantile or other clerks, or otherwise respectably descended”, but “orphans of journeymen, artisans, labourers, and domestic or agricultural servants, or child with a stepfather” were not eligible. The admission policy is not what we typically expect for an orphanage, which could account for the confusion over the status of the institution. It was both an orphanage and boarding school.
© Sue Adams 2016
Family gatherings are often where family history is shared. This New Years Eve (30 December 2015) was no exception. My Aunt, Gill, handed me a folder of documents. She had acquired them from her cousin, Penny. The documents belonged to William Henry Lawrence who died in 2009 aged 94, leaving them to his niece, Penny. William, or Bill as he was known to family, was the husband of Gwendoline Brown, my 1st cousin once removed.
All the documents share a common origin, and together, tell a story about Bill’s life. So they make a natural collection or, in archival terms, fond. I am always excited when presented with original documents from personal collections because these are the kind of treasures that don’t find a home in an official archive. In the early years of my family history obsession I would have eagerly shuffled the contents of the folder as I examined them. Experience of using archives has taught me to keep collections in the order presented. As I started to go through the pile, carefully preserving the order, my other aunt piped up, “They aren’t in any order. We had them all over the table when Penny showed them to us.” That was time to bite my tongue! It is useful to know that the photographs tucked into the passport is about what my living relatives thought, not how Bill arranged them.
Later, at home with a table clear of New Year Chinese takeaway & fish and chips, I set about cataloguing the collection. First, I recorded the origin of the collection and asked Penny if she was happy for me to use the documents on this blog. It is important to establish whether there are any concerns that might need addressing. That covers the first stage (accession) of archival cataloguing described in Provenance of a Personal Collection – Archival Accession, Arrangement and Description.
The next step is to gather related items and put them into an order. The arrangement process can be summarised in 3 steps:
- List everything and count the number of items. There are 59 items in this collection.
- Decide what to keep. This collection has already been sifted by Penny, so there isn’t anything to be discarded, except an empty plastic pocket.
- Group related things together in a hierarchy.
This video from York Libraries and Archives gives guidance for community archives.
As you can see from the video, the same collection was grouped differently by the participants, but both were equally valid. An analogy is the ways in which you could arrange a pack of cards. If you want to check the pack is complete, you could sort by suit, then by value. If you were playing rummy you would group runs in suits, and triples of matching value. For cribbage combinations that add up to 15, and pairs are important. It is easy to return a pack of cards to its original order because the information in on the cards. Historical documents are rarely so amenable.
Some people advocate organising your genealogical documents according to the people they relate to, working through your family tree. This approach is problematic, because it fails to preserve provenance information, does not accommodate documents that don’t relate to individuals and is vulnerable to changes in conclusions that are an inevitable part of genealogical research. Bill’s collection could be split between himself, his parents, grandparents, and a ship. That would lose the information that these documents were Bill’s own, and that he kept them for many years. It is possible to record that information separately, but I think that is doing things the hard way. Going back to the cards analogy, the less shuffling the easier it is to see and understand what you have.
You may recall that the collection had been shuffled, so my task was to re-create a logical order. I settled on 5 categories (series), some of which were sub-divided (files):
- Official documents
- Passports 1 item
- Civil registration 5 items
- Personal documents
- Correspondence 6 items
- Other 2 items
- Largs Bay. Voyage, ship history 5 items
- Military papers. WWII 9 items
- Photographs 31 items
Within each category, I sorted the documents by date order and numbered them accordingly. Most of the photographs are undated. I grouped them by size, paper type, markings on back and content, so photos processed at the same time should be together. There is still work to do on the photos, so I am not going to assign sub-divisions within them.
To stop shuffling when I start working with this collection, I put the photos in a slip in album and the documents in a display book with plastic pockets. This is cheap and readily available storage, which is adequate for the short term. In the longer term, I may invest in proper archival storage.
The next step is detailed description of both groups and items. I have basic description from the first list of items that could be used as a title for each item. Essential information for most descriptions include: creator, date, title (what is it), description (more details), extent (e.g. how many pages in a leaflet, how many items in a series), level (collection, series or item), reference.
So, the first few catalogue entries look like this:
|Title||William Henry Lawrence (1915-2009) collection|
|Description||Documents relating to William Henry Lawrence, his parents (William Henry Lawrence & Edith May Spencer) and maternal grandparents (Robert Spencer & Mary Ann Marsden Bentley). Born in Australia but returned to Britain on SS Largs Bay after his father’s death. Photographs, army papers from WWII, passports, civil registration certificates, national health & national registration documents, letters, telegrams, business card, funeral bill.|
|Extent||2 files, 6 items|
|Title||Passport. 289463. Mr R Spencer, wife Mary Ann Marsden Spencer nee Bentley|
|Creator||Foreign Office, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.|
|Description||Valid for British Empire. Issued 20 November 1922, expiry date 20 November 1924, renewal Melbourne 10 January 1925 – 20 November 1925, stamps 11 Jan 1923 Fremantle; 10 January 1925 Melbourne|
|Dates||20 November 1922|
|Title||Birth Certificate. Gwendoline Dorothy Brown. 11 August 1915|
|Creator||Superintendent Registrar. Balsall Heath, King’s Norton.|
|Description||Birth Certificate [short form]. Entry no 263, book 6a. Gwendoline Dorothy Brown. Born 11 August 1915, registered 22 September 1915.|
|Dates||22 September 1915|
After arranging the collection, I am able to find documents and see how they relate to one another. As I add more detailed description, the catalogue becomes an even more valuable resource. More information than typically appears in citations is included.
Would you like software that helps you build your own genealogy archive catalogue?
© Sue Adams 2016