Historic Photographs, Film, and Negatives

     In addition to my work with digitizing photographic prints at CECOM, I have been learning about photographic negatives and the special techniques required when working with these materials in an archive. The care and preservation of film-based photographic negatives can be challenging because the common types of film all behave differently from each other, even when kept in the same environment. Deterioration of photographic negatives is a serious concern as it can affect not just the negatives themselves, but other items within the archive as well.

     To properly care for film-based negatives, it is important to know the history of the film negative. In 1889, the first photographic film, a replacement for fragile glass-plate negatives, was developed by Eastman Kodak. These early negatives were made of cellulose nitrate, a substance that proved to be extremely flammable. Although a 1903 refinement of the film made the negatives sturdier and less flammable, nitrate-based films continued to be a major fire hazard throughout the first part of the 20^th century. In 1909, a major fire at a Pittsburgh film warehouse led to the development and implementation of regulations for the safe storage and handling of nitrate-based films, which remain in place today. Cellulose nitrate sheet film was in common use from 1889 until 1930, but nitrate-based films remained in use for rolled and motion picture film all the way until the 1950s, meaning that it is a common find in many archival collections.

     Safety film, which was developed as a replacement for cellulose nitrate film in 1923, solved the flammability issue by changing the film’s base to cellulose acetate, and in 1937 to cellulose diacetate. In 1947 diacetate was replaced with cellulose triacetate, which remains in use today, became the common base for safety films, improving issues of shrinkage, discoloration, and brittleness. The most stable film base, polyester (polyethylene terephthalate) was introduced in 1955. Although now considered the best film for permanent archiving, this film was never in wide use because of difficulties in its manufacturing and engineering.

     In order to house photographic negatives within an archive, it is necessary to identify the type of film used. This is most easily accomplished through a study of the negative and any background information about the photograph itself. Information about the subject, photographer, and date on which the photograph was taken can first be compared to the history of film-based negatives to determine which type of film would have been most common at the time. A visual examination of the film can reveal the manufacturer’s identification markings. Notches in the upper right hand corner of sheet film are used to identify the type of film. These notches and their meanings differ from company to company, so it is important to compare them to guides from the most common film manufacturers, such as Kodak, Agfa, and Ansco. Labels along the edge of sheet film and filmstrips are also useful in the identification of film type. Words such as “Safety” denote cellulose acetate, “Nitrate” denotes cellulose nitrate, and “Estar” or “Cronar” denote polyester. The use of edge markings to identify the type of film can be tricky, however, as negatives can be reprinted onto new film, meaning that a newer negative may say “Nitrate” on it because the original copy was printed on nitrate.

An example of a notch code guide from 1954, showing film from Ansco, DuPont, Eastman (Kodak), and Gevaert.

     If visual methods of identification are inconclusive, chemical and physical tests may be done to the negative in order to determine its make-up. These types of test should be used as a last resort, as they will destroy the negative, including the image on it. Destructive identification methods should only be completed by people whom are specially trained in the use of these tests, as they all use potentially dangerous substances such as trichloroethylene (a known carcinogen) or sulfuric acid.

     As I continue to work on my project at CECOM and continue to read more about the subject of archival preservation, I hope to learn more about how to properly care for different types of historic items. 

Works Cited:

Image. Code Notches for Sheet Films. 1954. U.S. Camera: November 1954. From: Photo.net Classic      Camera Forum. Accessed July 27, 2014. <http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00S1f0>. 

Messier, Paul, "Preserving Your Collection of Film-Based Photographic Negatives," Conservators of      Fine Arts and Material Culture Rocky Mountain Conservation Center (1993). Accessed July 19,  

    2014. <www.cool.conservation-us.org/byauth/messier/negrmcc.html>.

U.S. National Park Service, Identification of Film-Based Photographic Material, by Karen L. Bennett      and Jessica S. Johnson, Conserve O Gram (Washington D.C., September 1999). 

Interning at the Holocaust Museum #2

The second month of my internship with the Holocaust Museum was more of an eye opening experience about what it is like to work at a museum in the collections management division. I finished up my first project which dealt with using the nine database to update the records and conditions of a pending collection. This month I started a new project where I had to take a collection, this one in particular had 114 three dimensional objects along with a manuscript collection, and I needed to enter all of the data from the condition report into the database and take sure all of the measurements matched up. Once I made sure all the measurements, condition reports, and people involved were properly entered into the database I then had to rehouse all of the objects into different boxes and bags that were better fit for preservation.  I also learned how to check and make sure if an object is ready for the accessioning process so that it can be assigned a number. I learned the rules and regulations when it comes to making a proper check on the deed of gift description and I learned how to properly identify if there is an issue with the copy right of a donation. If there was a problem I had to email someone who works as a curator and get the proper description or papers to complete the process, overall the entire accessioning process is very specific and requires a lot of work from a variety of people. If an object did pass and received an accession number I learned how to properly record and enter the number in the museum database. This is an exciting project because of all of the history involved and I find it exhilarating to learn how to properly manage and organize all of it. On a side note I also spent a day learning how to properly construct the boxes that the objects go to when they are shipped off to another museum for a loan or for when we return an object, it was fun and interesting to learn everything from the photo process for condition reports to actually putting a box together to ship the object.

While the amount of work and people involved for every part of the collections management process is certainly an eyeopener the most revealing aspect of museum and collections management life revealed itself to me when we visited the National Capital Radio and Television Museum in Bowie Maryland. This museum was founded by people who just loved to collect and restore old radio and television sets. While I did learn an extraordinary amount of information about the history of television and radio and its impact on our country the management of the museum and its means of collection management really showed me the contrasting nature of how museums all run differently. At the Radio and Television museum almost all of the staff were volunteers who took their own time to make the place run, they have one paid staff member on hand with a budget that is almost made up entirely of donations. Their collections division consisted of an offsite facility that was much smaller and less sophisticated than the one I have been interning at there was no climate controlled multi-floored environment but they still found ways to make their preservation methods work. This experience showed me just how different the collections management division can be at another institution, these men and women were able to make an incredibly place to work and properly preserve and manage their objects even though they had a lack of resources, it was truly astounding to see just how different this place was. It was also a fantastic place to visit and I highly recommended it to anyone remotely interested in Radio and Television.

Next moth will bring more challenges as I am beginning a new project on incoming collections which will encompass all of the skill I have learned so far while adding new ones. It is an exciting place to intern at and really has me interested in looking into a career in collections management.

Matthew Wilson

Documents, objects, and sites: Considering a moving public history career

Over the past few weeks I’ve been contemplating a question for aspiring public historians: How would you best understand—and feel connected to—a historical figure? For example, you’ve no doubt read extensively about Honest Abe in history books and other popular literature over the years. To more deeply appreciate Lincoln as an individual, however, would you rather see his penmanship on original documents, stand before his famous top hat, or visit the place where he lived as a child? Which would move you the most? Now, beyond your personal preference as a visitor, consider your role in helping the public discover the Lincoln. If you would like to create a moment of inspiration for the public to truly understand him, what tools would you use: documents, artifacts, or sites?

From left to right: Lincoln's boyhood home at Knob Creek, Kentucky, now part of the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park; his July 22, 1862 draft of the Emancipation Proclamation, now held as part of the Robert Todd Lincoln Family Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress; the top hat he wore to Ford's Theatre on April 14, 1865, which has been part of the Smithsonian Institution's collections since 1867.

The relative power of these three main mediums of public history seems to be truly personal. Of course, there are many factors that influence how you perceive each encounter, including how clearly the information is presented (whether in person or on paper). Your background, interests, and prior knowledge certainly shape your experience with each as well. As Freeman Tilden reminds us in his classic text Interpreting Our Heritage, visitors respond differently to content and thus interpretation should be customized based on their interests.

It took me 3.5 years of professional experience, a year of graduate school, and a month and a half of interning at the Smithsonian to realize that public historians also have inherently different interests. This is probably a strikingly obvious observation to many, but it’s a new concept for me to articulate. As a consumer of history—someone who loves soaking up history in any form on weekends—I consider museums, historic sites, and archives equally interesting. I certainly believe these three types of history institutions are equally important. However, as an emerging public history professional, it has occurred to me that I do not find documents, artifacts, and sites equally engaging to work with.

Personally, papers do not speak to me in the way objects do. Although Michael Johnson (based on his Denmark Vesey findings published in the William & Mary Quarterly) would likely disagree, I feel that digital facsimiles can sometimes reveal even more than original documents can with the ability to zoom, search, and hyperlink with other rich content. I find sharing a space with original objects that were held, owned, worn, or used by historical actors to be extremely poignant. Objects, however, do not cast the same sense of awe that I feel when visiting a historic building or site. While objects and papers can feasibly be transported, historic sites simply cannot. Instead, they serve as vehicles to transport visitors from the present to the past.

I have long been enamored with visiting battlefields and historic house museums. It recently dawned on me that my attraction stems from the simply matchless power of place. Standing on the very same floorboards as a historic figure almost literally allows you to walk in their shoes. These sites offer an opportunity to become part of where history happened. Historic sites touch all the senses, and they can be deeply affective regardless of age, ability, or language.

Of course, questions of authenticity complicate historic sites. What about buildings that are reconstructed to appear historic or have been significantly modified to come up to code? Structures that have been removed from their original context? Settings that have changed so significantly they would be unrecognizable to the historical actors? Teresa Moyer and Paul Shackel raise all of these questions in their book, The Making of Harper’s Ferry National Historical Park. Although these issues can complicate the interpretation or presentation, I don’t believe they take away from the power of a historic site. The story of a building or site’s preservation can be incorporated into the interpretation to form an engaging and unique narrative. 

Again, these insights are likely obvious to others—but they only clicked with me once I had hands-on experience in each of these main practices of public history. I fully intend to visit archives and museums wearing my “history consumer” (or, graduate student) hat. Moving forward in my career path, however, I will be aware of why my interests lie with historic sites and will seek opportunities that allow me to share my passion for place with the public.

An Overview of My Internship at CECOM

Image 1: Lab Test of cargo courier used by the Signal Corps Antarctic Research Team (1956-57).

     This summer I am an intern with the CECOM Historical Office of the United States Army (http://www.cecom.army.mil/historian/) at Aberdeen Proving Ground. CECOM is the U.S. Army Communications and Electronics Command, which is tasked with the development, testing, and sustainment of C4ISR systems (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) throughout the Department of Defense. CECOM traces its history to the U.S. Army Signal Corps and was originally headquartered at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, but was moved to Aberdeen Proving Ground under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). During World War I, the need for a dedicated Signal Laboratories led to the development of Fort Monmouth on the site of a former horse racing track.

     In addition to the laboratories and training school constructed on the site, other facilities were constructed on Fort Monmouth (then known as Camp Alfred Vail) to consolidate the operations of the Army Electrical Development Division to develop and test radio equipment and establish a pigeon breeding and training facility. In 1919, all Signal Corps Schools were relocated to Fort Monmouth, ensuring that the facility would survive the demobilization of the Army following the end of the war. Many of the technologies that would be used by the U.S. during World War II were developed by the Signal Corps Laboratories in the years between the wars. These developments included improved radio equipment such as the “walkie talkies” and field telephones used throughout World War II. Most importantly, the Signal Corps Laboratories worked significantly on the development of RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging) after the project was transferred from the Ordnance Corps in 1930. The project was top secret, and so in early Field Manuals, RADAR was defined as a term used for communications radio sets.

     During World War II, the Signal Corps played an important role in the U.S. war effort, both in the United States and on the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific. The Signal School trained men for communications roles throughout the Army and the Signal Laboratories continued to develop new technologies for the war effort, including the first synthetically-produced large quartz crystals, a development which eliminated the U.S.’s reliance on imported quartz for use in communications devices. Following the end of the war, the Signal Corps continued to make important discoveries and innovations, such as Project DIANA, a radar antenna constructed at Fort Monmouth that was capable of transmitting and receiving signals bounced off of the moon. This development paved the way for future developments in artificial satellites such as the first communications satellite, Project SCORE. It was launched in December of 1958 and broadcasted a Christmas message from President Eisenhower back to Earth.

Image 2: Sphere Spotter antenna of DIANA moon radar in 1957.

      The Signal Corps as an institution continued to change in the years following World War II, adapting to the challenges faced in the Korean War, Vietnam War, and the overall challenges faced during the Cold War. Reorganization in the military led to new responsibilities and new names for the Signal Corps Laboratories, including ECOM (Electronics Command-1962), CERCOM (Communications-Electronics Readiness Command-1978), and, in 1981, it became CECOM following its merger with CORADCOM (Communications Research and Development Command).

     As an intern at the CECOM Historical Office, I will be working with the digitalization and indexing of a collection of photographs from the Communications-Electronics Museum Collection. These images span the history of the Command, but are primarily from World War I through the 1990s. The collection covers many different subjects, from images of personnel, commanding officers, and buildings at Fort Monmouth to equipment in the lab and in the field. Although I am primarily working with photographic prints, I am also learning about the identification and preservation of photographic negatives. As I continue with my work at APG, I will also learn more about how the Army, and the federal government in general, work with and preserve historical artifacts. I am interested in seeing how the Army’s policies regarding history differ from the policies of the National Park Service, where I had previously held an internship.

Image 3: Mule with radio pack, c1912. (Rear View)

Bibliography:

CECOM LCMC Historical Office, A Concise History of Fort Monmouth, NJ and the U.S.

Army CECOM Life Cycle Management Command (U.S. Army CECOM Life Cycle Management Command, 2009).

Image 1: Image #2605, “US Army Photo collection, C-E Museum Acquisition” from the

CECOM Historical Office archive, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

Image 2: Image #2681, “US Army Photo collection, C-E Museum Acquisition” from the

CECOM Historical Office archive, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

Image 3: Image #2076, “US Army Photo collection, C-E Museum Acquisition” from the

CECOM Historical Office archive, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.