Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

need help with National Register of Historic Places guidelines

need help with National Register of Historic Places guidelines

2010-01-27 by Paul

I would very much appreciate some fellow photographers' critique of the current National Register of Historic Places photo guidelines. These guidelines recently expanded their usual guidelines when they accepted only black and white archivally processed darkroom prints. Please read these guidelines and afterwards see my questions:

  -----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Image file format (Set the camera for highest image quality).
BEST: Tag Image File format (TIFF) or RAW format images. This allows for the best image resolution.
Acceptable: JPEGs converted to TIFFs, by a computer conversion process, are acceptable; however, JPEGs must not be altered in any way prior to conversion, (other than renaming them).
Do not use the JPEG setting on the camera, if a higher quality setting is available.
RGB color digital TIFFs are preferred.


Digital Camera Resolution (Set the camera to the maximum or largest pixel dimension the camera allows).
BEST: Six megapixels or greater 2000 x 3000 pixel image) at 300 dpi
Acceptable: Minimum two megapixels (1200 x 1600 pixel image) at 300 dpi

------------------------------------------------------

Here's the link for the complete list of guidelines:

http://www.nps.gov/history/nR/publications/bulletins/photopolicy/index.htm

-----------------------------------------------------


The guidelines also state they will accept color digital images, but from I have learned on this forum is that color digital images compromise the archival qualities of prints. Paul and others believe (and I agree) that the most archival prints are made with Eboni carbon ink cartridges, which is what I use in the 3MK approach in an Epson R1800. Also, I needed to convert the jpg to tiff in order to use QTR. 

Last fall I had a good e-mail exchange with a staff member of the Register and she said my approach would be acceptable, that they would accept black and white prints using 100% carbon ink in the cartridges.

Now they are telling me however (see above) that I must submit only the unaltered files. I tried to explain that I must alter them in order to achieve a black and white print. In Photoshop, I call up my original color jpg file (shot in a Canon Pro-1 at its highest jpg resolution, 3264x2448 pixels), then I use Channel Mixer to convert to black and white, and sometimes apply a Curves adjustment for contrast.

I simply have to alter the original camera files to get a good quality black and white print, I can't just print the  right-out-of-camera file. I tried to explain to them that even with traditional darkroom photography, I usually had to crop the print (I was using medium format, with square images), I had to use different contrast filters in the enlarger, perhaps do a little dodging and burning, etc. So even then I "altered" the print.

It's quite a Catch-22. I sometimes think the people setting up these guidelines, with all due respect, don't understand some of the aspects of digital photography. I'd  really appreciate some comments, feedback, suggestions... whatever!

A computer friend of mine said that when we think we're on the leading edge, we're actually on the bleeding edge!

Thank you all so much,

Paul

Re: [Digital BW] need help with National Register of Historic Places guidelines

2010-01-27 by mrjimbo

Paul ,
It's not as bad as you think.. I suspect you need to talk to a few other offices.. Specifically if your shooting Historic building's they must conform to the HABS standard.. Other offices have different standards depending upon their needs.. Try to understand their standards and then the why of them.. They are moving somewhat actually.. For Historic Building's they typically don't want a color negatine.. B&W is their standard.. That neg will store for 500 years when properly done in little to no space.. The good news is that they are accepting pure carbon ink prints now so hurray.. 

jimbo
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 8:12 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] need help with National Register of Historic Places guidelines


    
  I would very much appreciate some fellow photographers' critique of the current National Register of Historic Places photo guidelines. These guidelines recently expanded their usual guidelines when they accepted only black and white archivally processed darkroom prints. Please read these guidelines and afterwards see my questions:

  ----------------------------------------------------------

  Image file format (Set the camera for highest image quality).
  BEST: Tag Image File format (TIFF) or RAW format images. This allows for the best image resolution.
  Acceptable: JPEGs converted to TIFFs, by a computer conversion process, are acceptable; however, JPEGs must not be altered in any way prior to conversion, (other than renaming them).
  Do not use the JPEG setting on the camera, if a higher quality setting is available.
  RGB color digital TIFFs are preferred.

  Digital Camera Resolution (Set the camera to the maximum or largest pixel dimension the camera allows).
  BEST: Six megapixels or greater 2000 x 3000 pixel image) at 300 dpi
  Acceptable: Minimum two megapixels (1200 x 1600 pixel image) at 300 dpi

  ------------------------------------------------------

  Here's the link for the complete list of guidelines:

  http://www.nps.gov/history/nR/publications/bulletins/photopolicy/index.htm

  -----------------------------------------------------

  The guidelines also state they will accept color digital images, but from I have learned on this forum is that color digital images compromise the archival qualities of prints. Paul and others believe (and I agree) that the most archival prints are made with Eboni carbon ink cartridges, which is what I use in the 3MK approach in an Epson R1800. Also, I needed to convert the jpg to tiff in order to use QTR. 

  Last fall I had a good e-mail exchange with a staff member of the Register and she said my approach would be acceptable, that they would accept black and white prints using 100% carbon ink in the cartridges.

  Now they are telling me however (see above) that I must submit only the unaltered files. I tried to explain that I must alter them in order to achieve a black and white print. In Photoshop, I call up my original color jpg file (shot in a Canon Pro-1 at its highest jpg resolution, 3264x2448 pixels), then I use Channel Mixer to convert to black and white, and sometimes apply a Curves adjustment for contrast.

  I simply have to alter the original camera files to get a good quality black and white print, I can't just print the right-out-of-camera file. I tried to explain to them that even with traditional darkroom photography, I usually had to crop the print (I was using medium format, with square images), I had to use different contrast filters in the enlarger, perhaps do a little dodging and burning, etc. So even then I "altered" the print.

  It's quite a Catch-22. I sometimes think the people setting up these guidelines, with all due respect, don't understand some of the aspects of digital photography. I'd really appreciate some comments, feedback, suggestions... whatever!

  A computer friend of mine said that when we think we're on the leading edge, we're actually on the bleeding edge!

  Thank you all so much,

  Paul



  


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2649 - Release Date: 01/27/10 13:08:00

  ----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2649 - Release Date: 01/27/10 13:08:00


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] need help with National Register of Historic Places guidelines

2010-01-28 by Paul

Thanks, Jimbo. One of the architects I did a project for is familiar with HABS, and she's been very supportive of my work. I think I do understand their standards.. it's just that I see sort of a Catch-22. Maybe I said that in my original post (can't see it now!) but the Register said a few months ago they would accept my carbon ink prints. But in order to make those prints I had to alter the original files and they want unaltered files. That's my dilemma. Of course I did save the original files and will probably end up submitting those along with the "printer optimized files" I used to produce the carbon ink prints.

As for negatives... one approach I used a while back was to shoot "in parallel". Once my tripod was in place I mounted my digital camera and took color... then I swapped it for a film camera loaded with black and white film. Then I had the best of both worlds... I could scan the negative and get a good quality carbon ink print from that to submit along with the color digital print.

I'm encouraged by what you say about these organizations now accepting carbon ink prints. Can you provide me with more information on that, like which organizations are doing that for example?

Thanks for the feedback!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Paul ,
> It's not as bad as you think.. I suspect you need to talk to a few other offices.. Specifically if your shooting Historic building's they must conform to the HABS standard.. Other offices have different standards depending upon their needs.. Try to understand their standards and then the why of them.. They are moving somewhat actually.. For Historic Building's they typically don't want a color negatine.. B&W is their standard.. That neg will store for 500 years when properly done in little to no space.. The good news is that they are accepting pure carbon ink prints now so hurray.. 
> 
> jimbo

Re: need help with National Register of Historic Places guidelines

2010-01-28 by richardeskin

It seems to me that if they want files (not just prints), they would be much better off with .dng than raw files.  If long duration accessibility is important, proprietary raw files might not be supported 10 or 20 years down the road, but open format .dng probably will continue to be readable.

Their criteria should probably also focus more on resolution and size, e.g., 300 dpi at a given size, without need for interpolation than for a number of megapixels.

Another approach they could consider are two images, one with a color and density standard included in the image (reference image) and second without but otherwise identical (display image).  

Their standard for an unaltered file using RAW also suggests a possible lack of understanding of digital photographic processes.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> I would very much appreciate some fellow photographers' critique of the current National Register of Historic Places photo guidelines. These guidelines recently expanded their usual guidelines when they accepted only black and white archivally processed darkroom prints. Please read these guidelines and afterwards see my questions:
> 
>   -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  
> Image file format (Set the camera for highest image quality).
> BEST: Tag Image File format (TIFF) or RAW format images. This allows for the best image resolution.
> Acceptable: JPEGs converted to TIFFs, by a computer conversion process, are acceptable; however, JPEGs must not be altered in any way prior to conversion, (other than renaming them).
> Do not use the JPEG setting on the camera, if a higher quality setting is available.
> RGB color digital TIFFs are preferred.
> 
> 
> Digital Camera Resolution (Set the camera to the maximum or largest pixel dimension the camera allows).
> BEST: Six megapixels or greater 2000 x 3000 pixel image) at 300 dpi
> Acceptable: Minimum two megapixels (1200 x 1600 pixel image) at 300 dpi
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Here's the link for the complete list of guidelines:
> 
> http://www.nps.gov/history/nR/publications/bulletins/photopolicy/index.htm
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> The guidelines also state they will accept color digital images, but from I have learned on this forum is that color digital images compromise the archival qualities of prints. Paul and others believe (and I agree) that the most archival prints are made with Eboni carbon ink cartridges, which is what I use in the 3MK approach in an Epson R1800. Also, I needed to convert the jpg to tiff in order to use QTR. 
> 
> Last fall I had a good e-mail exchange with a staff member of the Register and she said my approach would be acceptable, that they would accept black and white prints using 100% carbon ink in the cartridges.
> 
> Now they are telling me however (see above) that I must submit only the unaltered files. I tried to explain that I must alter them in order to achieve a black and white print. In Photoshop, I call up my original color jpg file (shot in a Canon Pro-1 at its highest jpg resolution, 3264x2448 pixels), then I use Channel Mixer to convert to black and white, and sometimes apply a Curves adjustment for contrast.
> 
> I simply have to alter the original camera files to get a good quality black and white print, I can't just print the  right-out-of-camera file. I tried to explain to them that even with traditional darkroom photography, I usually had to crop the print (I was using medium format, with square images), I had to use different contrast filters in the enlarger, perhaps do a little dodging and burning, etc. So even then I "altered" the print.
> 
> It's quite a Catch-22. I sometimes think the people setting up these guidelines, with all due respect, don't understand some of the aspects of digital photography. I'd  really appreciate some comments, feedback, suggestions... whatever!
> 
> A computer friend of mine said that when we think we're on the leading edge, we're actually on the bleeding edge!
> 
> Thank you all so much,
> 
> Paul
>

Re: need help with National Register of Historic Places guidelines

2010-01-28 by Paul

Thanks, Richard,

I have to say I also posted this question over in www.photo.net, and someone there mentioned .dng files - and I had to respond by saying I'd never heard of that format! Obviously I'm on the low end of the learning curve.

Your suggestions are well-taken. But then how do we get the National Register to understand this new approach, incorporating your comments? I have had some positive e-mail exchanges with one of their staff, and these ended up with their accepting my proposal to do carbon ink prints instead of their recommended color digital prints. But I had to alter the original prints to print good b/w and they don't want altered files. That's my dilemma. I think I'll end up sending them _both_ my original files and the printer-optimized files. 

With all due respect to the Register, I have to agree with your last paragraph. I had to think also that they aren't that familiar with digital processes either. (Of course, I'm still learning, too!)

I appreciate your feedback!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "richardeskin" <richeskinphoto@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> It seems to me that if they want files (not just prints), they would be much better off with .dng than raw files.  If long duration accessibility is important, proprietary raw files might not be supported 10 or 20 years down the road, but open format .dng probably will continue to be readable.
> 
> Their criteria should probably also focus more on resolution and size, e.g., 300 dpi at a given size, without need for interpolation than for a number of megapixels.
> 
> Another approach they could consider are two images, one with a color and density standard included in the image (reference image) and second without but otherwise identical (display image).  
> 
> Their standard for an unaltered file using RAW also suggests a possible lack of understanding of digital photographic processes.

Re: need help with National Register of Historic Places guidelines

2010-01-28 by ben

Why not shoot the originals as 4x5 B&W negatives, scan them, then print 3k carbon prints on RAG paper.  That would give you the best quality, and permanence.  Everyone should know that writing files to CD is not archival.  Some CDs break down in as little as six to seven years.  DVDs are better.  I write my important files to gold CDs which are better then the silver ones, but only by a factor of about four.

The real problem with both CDs and DVDs is that will the equipment be available to read them if they survive 50 years from now.  How many of you out there can read a floppy yet?  I was still using them only twenty years ago.

Another problem with CD's and DVD's permanence is write speed.  Disc written at high speeds do not keep as long as ones written at slow speeds.  The dye that records the info in the disc fades with time and use.  The data is written more precisely when written at slow speeds, and the fading has less effect in making the data unreadable.

I have been shooting 4x5 B&W, scanning the negatives, and printing 3k prints both in carbon and pigment and the quality is great.  Much better then shooting digital with any of my three DSLRs (Canon 1Ds, 5D, and Nikon D3).  The range of tomes captured in a 4x5 B&W negative can not be matched by any sensor.  My PhaseOne/Hasselblad is the only one that comes close.

Ben

Re: need help with National Register of Historic Places guidelines

2010-01-28 by Paul

Ben,

I take your points... that workflow is certainly ideal. I've done something very similar on a previous project (see a few messages back) but I am not equipped to do 4x5. I have used medium format and 35 mm film, otherwise my approach was very similar to yours. I used the pure carbon ink 3MK inkset and I use rag paper (Premier Art FineArt Hot Press).

I share your concern re: CD's and CD players. The playback devices become more and more hard to come by in working condition. I remember a few years ago when I had some data on a 5 1/4 floppy but couldn't retrieve it. Same with some 3/4" videotapes that I wanted to burn to DVD.

I've heard that flash drives are more reliable, no moving parts. But I suppose they would susceptible to some kind of deterioration also.

Thanks for your comments!

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ben" <benjschneider2@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Why not shoot the originals as 4x5 B&W negatives, scan them, then print 3k carbon prints on RAG paper.  That would give you the best quality, and permanence.  Everyone should know that writing files to CD is not archival.  Some CDs break down in as little as six to seven years.  DVDs are better.  I write my important files to gold CDs which are better then the silver ones, but only by a factor of about four.
> 
> The real problem with both CDs and DVDs is that will the equipment be available to read them if they survive 50 years from now.  How many of you out there can read a floppy yet?  I was still using them only twenty years ago.
> 
> Another problem with CD's and DVD's permanence is write speed.  Disc written at high speeds do not keep as long as ones written at slow speeds.  The dye that records the info in the disc fades with time and use.  The data is written more precisely when written at slow speeds, and the fading has less effect in making the data unreadable.
> 
> I have been shooting 4x5 B&W, scanning the negatives, and printing 3k prints both in carbon and pigment and the quality is great.  Much better then shooting digital with any of my three DSLRs (Canon 1Ds, 5D, and Nikon D3).  The range of tomes captured in a 4x5 B&W negative can not be matched by any sensor.  My PhaseOne/Hasselblad is the only one that comes close.
> 
> Ben
>

Re: need help with National Register of Historic Places guidelines

2010-01-29 by richardeskin

I would encourage you to further engage them on their goals and concerns, rather than directly on their standards.  If together you could be clear on their concerns and what they are trying to accomplish (or avoid), you could possibly show them alternate ways to achieve those goals that serve both of your needs.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> 
> 
> Thanks, Richard,
> 
> I have to say I also posted this question over in www.photo.net, and someone there mentioned .dng files - and I had to respond by saying I'd never heard of that format! Obviously I'm on the low end of the learning curve.
> 
> Your suggestions are well-taken. But then how do we get the National Register to understand this new approach, incorporating your comments? I have had some positive e-mail exchanges with one of their staff, and these ended up with their accepting my proposal to do carbon ink prints instead of their recommended color digital prints. But I had to alter the original prints to print good b/w and they don't want altered files. That's my dilemma. I think I'll end up sending them _both_ my original files and the printer-optimized files. 
> 
> With all due respect to the Register, I have to agree with your last paragraph. I had to think also that they aren't that familiar with digital processes either. (Of course, I'm still learning, too!)
> 
> I appreciate your feedback!
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "richardeskin" <richeskinphoto@> wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that if they want files (not just prints), they would be much better off with .dng than raw files.  If long duration accessibility is important, proprietary raw files might not be supported 10 or 20 years down the road, but open format .dng probably will continue to be readable.
> > 
> > Their criteria should probably also focus more on resolution and size, e.g., 300 dpi at a given size, without need for interpolation than for a number of megapixels.
> > 
> > Another approach they could consider are two images, one with a color and density standard included in the image (reference image) and second without but otherwise identical (display image).  
> > 
> > Their standard for an unaltered file using RAW also suggests a possible lack of understanding of digital photographic processes.
>

Re: need help with National Register of Historic Places guidelines

2010-01-29 by Paul

Excellent point, Richard, a very positive direction to take. When I had my initial conversations, by phone and e-mail, with the Register staff person, I sent her some links and articles stating the case for carbon ink printing. I was in fact trying to be helpful by way of pointing out the archival benefits of this kind of print. Maybe I didn't do a very good job at that... perhaps I will have another opportunity. I'm quite sure I share their concerns, it's something we're all concerned about and we do have a common goal. I did send some sample prints as well (hard copies, not e-mail attachments) and she approved them. We're all on the cutting edge here and lately I've seen more and more references to carbon ink printing - perhaps we'll reach a critical mass some day.

Thanks again, you've expressed a very constructive approach.

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "richardeskin" <richeskinphoto@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> I would encourage you to further engage them on their goals and concerns, rather than directly on their standards.  If together you could be clear on their concerns and what they are trying to accomplish (or avoid), you could possibly show them alternate ways to achieve those goals that serve both of your needs.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <paulmwhiting@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks, Richard,
> > 
> > I have to say I also posted this question over in www.photo.net, and someone there mentioned .dng files - and I had to respond by saying I'd never heard of that format! Obviously I'm on the low end of the learning curve.
> > 
> > Your suggestions are well-taken. But then how do we get the National Register to understand this new approach, incorporating your comments? I have had some positive e-mail exchanges with one of their staff, and these ended up with their accepting my proposal to do carbon ink prints instead of their recommended color digital prints. But I had to alter the original prints to print good b/w and they don't want altered files. That's my dilemma. I think I'll end up sending them _both_ my original files and the printer-optimized files. 
> > 
> > With all due respect to the Register, I have to agree with your last paragraph. I had to think also that they aren't that familiar with digital processes either. (Of course, I'm still learning, too!)
> > 
> > I appreciate your feedback!
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "richardeskin" <richeskinphoto@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems to me that if they want files (not just prints), they would be much better off with .dng than raw files.  If long duration accessibility is important, proprietary raw files might not be supported 10 or 20 years down the road, but open format .dng probably will continue to be readable.
> > > 
> > > Their criteria should probably also focus more on resolution and size, e.g., 300 dpi at a given size, without need for interpolation than for a number of megapixels.
> > > 
> > > Another approach they could consider are two images, one with a color and density standard included in the image (reference image) and second without but otherwise identical (display image).  
> > > 
> > > Their standard for an unaltered file using RAW also suggests a possible lack of understanding of digital photographic processes.
> >
>

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.