Transform any digital photo into a genuine daguerreotype
September 23, 2007
Honestly, people — if this sort of delightful coincidence* keeps happening I’ll have no choice but to start thinking of the Internet as some kind of magic happy wish machine.
Remember my post about how to tell the difference between a daguerreotype and an ambrotype? I mused about how much I’d love to have a dag of a modern marvel like an ipod or the fabulous steampunk Neverwas Haul. If you visit the original post, you’ll see a comment from Mr. John Danforth, Modern Daguerreotypist.
And here’s the coolest part:
John Danforth loves to hand craft daguerreotypes for people based on existing photos they already have. John says high resolution color digital files work best. Many of his customers choose a favorite wedding photograph to be rendered as a beautiful keepsake.
How much does it cost? Well, considering the fact that each one is handmade it shouldn’t be a surprise that they aren’t cheap. A 4×5 inch daguerreotype will cost you $400, a whole plate (6.5×8.5″) will put you back $800-$1,200 depending on whether you want to frame it or have it in a custom leather case. All of John’s daguerreotypes are glazed with anti-reflective, ultra-clear museum glass.
Why Daguerreotypes? According to John, there are two main reasons. The first is the incredible detail you get using this process. Anyone lucky enough to have seen a dag knows exactly what he’s talking about. The other reason is close to my heart: Longevity.
Longevity is very important to me because I want our way of life to be recorded in an accurate and accessible manner for our descendants. Because of this belief, I find it necessary to work in a medium that has longevity that can be measured in centuries and millennia. Do you believe that anyone will know what to do with a CD-ROM full of JPEG files in 10,000 years? Could you play an Edison wax cylinder if I brought one over to your house today?
D-reamy.
I contacted John and he’s willing to submit to some interview questions via email from yours truly. Contact me if there are any questions you’d like me to ask.
Other links of interest:
John Danforth’s website
John’s pages on newdags.com
Daguerreotype of 9/11
vintage dags in pantufla’s flikr collection
*The other coincidence was when I mused about how cool it would be to dye photo prints with coffee. Turns out my friend’s brother does exactly that…with cyanotypes. And then Mark gave me his hauntingly beautiful hummingbirds print. (Many, many thanks, Mark.) See what I mean about magic happy wish machine?
[Photo Credit: That's John in his studio, from a gallery about making dags on his website. I'm not sure who took the photo, but you can see the photographer's feet. 
]
Can I destroy my originals after I digitize them?
September 21, 2007
Jill Hurst-Wahl has a wonderful blog called Digitization 101. It’s aimed mostly at institutions like libraries and historical societies, but it’s full of wise advice for the family historian, too.
If you work or volunteer with an organization thinking about a digitization project, I highly recommend you check out what Jill has to say. She has wise words on all aspects of digitization, including hardware/software, copyright, metadata and preservation.
This week she has a great post titled Can I destroy my originals after I digitize them?
Jill’s conclusion?
The bottom-line is that destroying the originals after digitizing them should not be taken lightly. Really think about the implications. Put yourself 10 – 20 years in the future and think about what the implications of your decision might be. Is destroying the originals a decision that you will regret (or that your successors will regret)?
My conclusion? See my earlier post: Why “Scan & Dump” Is a Bad Idea (I’m talking to you, Tuscaloosa!)
UPDATE: By some strange coincidence, DearMYRTLE has a post about an apparent change is policy in Tuscaloosa. Well, it’s actually no more than a verbal promise. Ol Myrt is too savvy to confuse that with an actual change in policy. Read Myrt’s post for the full story.
Removing scratches from a CD or DVD
September 17, 2007
You probably know that scratches on a CD or DVD can make them un-playable. If you have young children or work in a public library, you know this only too well.
I’ve safely cleaned smudges off of pre-recorded DVDs using a soft cloth dampened with a little water, but I’ve never attempted to remove scratches. However, I know lots of librarians who do this routinely and manage to get a playable DVD out of the process.
I found a video tutorial you’ll likely remember for a long long time, but before you watch it I want you to read my disclaimers:
- 1. Your best bet is to treat your CDs correctly so they don’t get scratched in the first place. Put them back in a case with a center hub, don’t use sleeves, and don’t leave them lying around. I know that’s obvious, but prevention really is the best cure — in fact, it’s the foundation of every professional preservation program.
- 2. Keep in mind that a scratch on the top is far more dangerous than a scratch on the bottom. Why? Because the data layer is closer to the top. See my earlier article: Have You Been Protecting the Wrong Side of Your CDs?
- 3. When cleaning discs, always wipe from the center outward, not around the disc. You’ll see in the video that this rule is broken. It’s one of my main criticisms of it. This is because cleaning can cause it’s own scratches. If you have a scratch that travels in the same direction as the reading laser (around the disc) it’s difficult for the reader to compensate around it. A scratch that radiates outward is only passed by the laser once per revolution.
- 4. Using a window cleaner is kinda crazy. Don’t ever do this on a disc that holds critical data. Do whatever you want to music and movie discs — especially if they are skipping and pixelating. If you have scanned family photos and you want the data to survive long term, I simply can’t recommend using strong chemical sprays.
Ready for the fun video already?
Push play…
How To Remove CD Scratches With A Banana
Careful what you cache…because nice folks fight back
September 17, 2007
While I was away on various summer vacations, I missed a major brouhaha in the online genealogical community. There have been many, many pixels spilled on this topic already, so I’ll try to be brief.
For those of you who don’t know, Ancestry.com is part of the largest for-profit genealogy company in the world. (Source: Wikipedia). Earlier this month, they cached (copied) entire web pages of genealogical content off the Internet and served them up as part of their “Internet Biographical Collection.” Initially, this content was available only to paying subscribers.
There was a major uproar, including accusations of intellectual property theft.
Ancestry.com quickly moved the collection to a section that required registration for access, but no fees were necessary to see the content. After continued criticisms, they pulled the “Internet Biographical Collection” entirely and apologized to the genealogical community.
If you missed the smackdown, Kimberly at genealogy.about.com has a nice summary, complete with links to posts by all the major players.
Oh, and speaking of nice… 
At the same time this controversy broke, family history bloggers were busy spreading the love by tagging each other as Nice Bloggers.
I kid you not.
Denise Olsen of Family Matters started her More Naughty Than Nice post thusly: “Becky, thank you for including me as a nominee for the Nice Matters award although if you saw the steam coming out my ears at the moment, you might want to reconsider. . .” Then she tagged me as nice. Thanks, Denise!
So, my friends. What have we learned from all of this?
1. Family history bloggers are are tech savvy, and they keep in touch with each other.
2. Just because someone gladly shares information for free on their website, it doesn’t mean you can skip the part where you ask permission before you copy entire pages of his or her work. That’s not just copyright law, that’s good ethics and good business.
3. Nice doesn’t mean you don’t fight back when you feel cheated. Family history bloggers are an extremely nice bunch of folks, (it’s true, they really are) but they do NOT take kindly to you publishing their content without asking first.
4. Companies like Ancestry will change policy (quickly, I might add!) and apologize when faced with such resounding criticism.
But wait! Did Ancestry.com violate copyright or not?
I spent several years in charge of clearing permissions for a major children’s publisher. Even that doesn’t make me an expert. Basically, I know enough about copyright to realize that I don’t know jack about copyright.
Fortunately, Craig Manson (of GeneaBlogie) threw his expertise into the ring. Craig wrote a multi-part series called “Did Ancestry Violate the Copyright Law?” He teaches Law and Public Policy at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, and he is a member of the California Bar.
I highly recommend all of Craig’s posts about copyright.
P.S. I nominate Mary for a Nice Matters Award.
.
Ambrotype or Daguerreotype? A quick and easy way to tell the difference
September 11, 2007
There are two types of cased images you might find in your family collection: ambrotypes and daguerreotypes.
The quick and easy way to tell the difference between the two is that a daguerreotype will look like a mirror when you move it in the light. An ambrotype will not.
I was thinking about this today when I put away an ambrotype I purchased on ebay. It was listed as a daguerreotype. I don’t think this was a deliberate deception, just ignorance.
For more information about these hauntingly beautiful cased images, check out Wikipedia’s entries for ambrotype and daguerreotype.
The daguerreotype entry says this:
Daguerreotypy continues to be practiced by enthusiastic photographers to this day, although in much smaller numbers; there are thought to be fewer than 100 worldwide. Its appeal lies in the “magic mirror” effect of light reflected from the polished silver plate through the perfectly sharp silver image, and in the sense of achievement derived from the dedication and hand-crafting required to make a daguerreotype.
Wait a minute…
There are artists who use these historic photo processes today?
Talk about a beautiful anachronism! I would pay oodles of money for a daguerreotype or ambrotype of an iPod. Not that I have a budget for that kind of frivolity, but still. The Wiki has several links to these contemporary artists if that idea intrigues you, too.
[photo credit] “Erika” Ambrotype on black glass by artist/photographer Quinn Jacobson. Made May 2007, Viernheim, Germany.
UPDATE: OK. Forget what I said about the iPod. That was just the first thing that came into my head. What I really want is to see a daguerreotype or ambrotype of the Neverwas Haul.
.
Like a bad penny…
September 10, 2007
Hiya!
I’m back from my much needed vacation. Two delightful family vacations, actually. With a visit to the Society of American Archivists’ annual conference in Chicago in between. In Chicago, I had a chance to gab with fellow archival bloggers, which was fab.
So, yeah. I’m back. Woo hoo! But folks, I gotta tell ya — it was so so so gratifying to unplug for a spell. I hope you didn’t miss me too much. Thanks to everyone who checked in via email while I was gone. That was sweet.
Lot of stuff happened while I was gone, including a major uproar in the online genealogical community. Who knew such nice folks could be so scrappy in a throwdown? Long story short, one of the major genie companies (Ancestry.com) cached entire websites without permission, and then turned around and sold the content to subscribers. For about 24 hours, anyway. Until the bloggers got whiff of it and essentially shut down the “Internet Biographical Database.” More dish to come, for those of you who missed it.
I’ll also post about the oldest treasures owned and used by Practical Archivist readers, including yours truly. Before I do that, though, I need to get some more information about a footstool made by my husband’s great (great?) grandfather. So there’s still time to share your own treasures. All you have to do is leave a comment here. Anonymous comments are OK, spammy comments (as always) are not.
Retro Selecto [photo credit]. How about that vintage telephone ad up there? Dreamy, isn’t it? I have a serious weakness for punchcards. Do Not Fold, Spindle or Mutilate, heh. I found it on the supremely cool new blog from the mad geniuses at Boing Boing. It’s called Boing Boing Gadgets and oh man is it delicious.