Description of Photographic Collections Post

As archivists and librarians, the responsibility we have to provide useful information for researchers carries a lot of pressure. Balancing the need to spend enough time, but not too much, can be difficult considering the description, scope, authority subject headings, etc. This rings just as true for repositories in academia where bureaucracy reigns supreme and changes can come very slowly, especially if the archives or special collections do not amount of traffic required to facilitate staffing and budget increases.

The two photographic collection finding aids I looked at are from the University of Washington and the University of Oregon.  These two schools were selected primarily because I was interested in seeing how two different (one school is significantly bigger with an extensive library system and multiple satellite campuses and the other is a medium sized school in a not so metro area) yet similar (they’re both universities) institutions describe their content and their photographic collections accessible.

I entered “studio” into the search bar on both websites to see how useful the keyword search is, since quite a few of university search bars are almost useless due to the amount of results that come up in a search. I was able to find the “Guide to the Edward C. Adams Photographs circa 1902-1910” (available here:
http://digital.lib.washington.edu/findingaids/view?docId=AdamsEdwardCPHColl295.xml;query=studio;brand=default) within the first page of the UW website and the U of O website provided similar results to “Angelus Studio photographs, 1880s-1940s.” (available here: http://library.uoregon.edu/speccoll/photo/fangelus.html).

One important point that Helena Zinkham makes about description in chapter 6 of our textbook  is that “structured documentation is predictable and easy to absorb” and “the narrative style makes it possible to describe special qualities of photographs (e.g. sharp focus) in ways that access points do not,” which I found very true once I compared the two finding aids (165, 174 Zinkham). The Edward C. Adams photographs page is much longer, but the formatting and information is broken up into manageable chunks that are not overwhelming or difficult to discern. The structure makes it easy for the user to find what they need quickly and the paragraphs are not text block after text block, which can be difficult on the eyes after a few minutes. The writing in both, however, is clear and easy to follow. An issue I had with the Angelus Studio photographs is that, while much shorter, the text has little differentiation and it’s almost overbearing, especially the bibliography.

Another aspect of the Angelus Studio collection I found problematic is that it creates unnecessary barriers. For example, it’s great that they make note for the user that the collection has been digitized in their “Digital Collections” and online access is available, but there is no direct link to it. As Zinkham states, “the main risk is losing researchers because an archives hasn’t provided sufficient access,” and in some cases this could be reason enough for a user at home to get annoyed enough to lose interest in what actually seems like an interesting visual collection of local history (204 Zinkham). On the other hand, the Edward C. Adams site provides an item level inventory list and direct access to the specific image next to the listing.

It is important to note that this collection is significantly smaller than the one in Oregon, i.e. 3 boxes of glass and nitrate negatives versus 87 linear feet. But my argument still stands that there could have been more effort made in little places that would make a big difference in terms of access and ease of use. I do acknowledge, however, that the Edward C. Adams finding aid had additional grant funding by the National Endowment for the Humanities for encoding, which makes a big difference.

Both librarians and archivists know how important properly used subject headings and terminology can be in terms of access for the user. The Edward C. Adams finding aid categorizes them into personal names, organizations, geographic names, subjects and genre headings, whereas the closest thing I can find to that in the Angelus Studio photographs finding aid is at the end of the collection history (“Examples of the WPA subjects: Agriculture, Amusements, Bridges, Cities, Historic, Indians, Manufacturing, Old Portland.”). There is also generally an adequate balancing of subject description by way of describing of/about, generic/specific, time/space/activity, and events/objects in the Edward C. Adams finding aid that I find lacking in the Angelus Studio photograph collection description (584 Layne). This is most evident in the access points and in the introductory summary at the very beginning of each site.

Overall, the finding aid at the University of Washington’s site was easier to use and more informative than the one at the University of Oregon. I wonder, however, if this is consistent among all their finding aids, especially ones that didn’t have external funding, since grants usually entail specific standards and expectations by the grantees.