Re: lasers and flash

[Kimberly Kotary <kkotary@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Photography was dicussed in a workshop I went to years ago with staff
members from Historic House Museums.  One concern I heard was about
security.  Snapshots are a great way for potential thieves to "case the
joint." In that discussion, another paranoid person made a comment about
visitors with camcorders.  They said, if people have video tapes of your
site, why would they want to come visit again.

Kimberly Kotary

>From: Mark MacKenzie <mmackenzie@xxxxxx>
>Reply-To: Textile Conservators <TEXCONS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: TEXCONS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: lasers and flash
>Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:24:13 -0600
>
>on 2/8/05 2:21 PM, Jennifer Feik at FeikJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>  Recently in my museum a question has been raised about whether or not
laser
>pointers and flash photography are harmful to historic textiles.  Does
>anyone know of any research, or have any experience in this area?
>
>Thank you,
>
>
>
>Jennifer Feik
>Associate Registrar
>Museum of Church History and Art
>(801) 240-0297
>feikj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>This message may contain confidential information, and is
>intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
>is addressed.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>
>
>Hello Jennifer.  I see others have responded concerning the laser
pointer
>portion of your request so I will responed to the flash photography
concern.
>
>During my degree work at Queen's Univ. (now, many years ago)  one of our
>professors had studied this problem while with the Canadian Research
>Council.  Dr. Jim Hanlon's study proved conclusively that short term
>electronic flash photography poses no threat to art and artifacts.  His
>research findings hinged on the extremely short term duration of the
flash
>as normally experienced using photographic equipment.  In essence, the
>energy spike experienced by the artifact surface was over before any
energy
>level increase could be felt by the artifact.  In this case: "No
harm, no
>foul".
>
>I have had some lingering questions about  longer duration lighting such
as
>the older single flashbulb types which were very energetic and in
comparison
>to electronic flash guns, of very long duration.  I would carefully
control
>the use of this type of equipment in galleries.
>
>Modern photonic cleaning systems because of their enhanced energy levels
and
>extremely long duration of irradiation are greatly dangerous to works of
art
>but then these systems are not under consideration for allowing in
museum
>galleries.
>
>For the purposes of answering this question we are looking at consumer
grade
>photographic flash equipment.  This should be perfectly safe in most
museum
>and gallery settings where artifacts are actively on display.  This just
>happens to go "against the grain" of many museum professionals
and
>interested parties.
>
>There are other concerns museums and galleries should address when
>considering allowing flash photography.  Amongst these are showing the
>appropriate level of respect for an artifact or concerns with disruption
or
>degradation of the viewing/visiting experience of others nearby.
>
>Hope this helps your discussion.
>
>Mark MacKenzie
>
>--
>Mark MacKenzie, M.A.C.
>Conservator, Saskatchewan Western Development Museum
>www.wdm.ca
>mmackenzie@xxxxxx
>
>