James Reilly, assisted by Ryan Boatright
I-35: The Identification of Photographic Print Processes
9-13 June 2008
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Reilly’s Care and Identification of c19 Photographic Prints was useful, interesting and a great foundation. Coe’s Colour Photography was useful for the photographs; the text was so technical as to become tedious. The other volumes were worth reviewing for the images. 2: Yes. Wish there was more published in this area. 3: Very good. The one book was hard to obtain and is still on-order for me, waiting until the beginning of the fiscal year! The optional background readings were an excellent overview of the history of photography. I learned a lot from them. 4: Not easy to find, but very useful. 5: Very useful as an introduction. 6: Very useful. 7: Very helpful. 8: I was very familiar with both, so they were good pre-class refreshers. 9: Enabled me to hit the ground running.
2) Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class appropriate and useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?
1: The class binder was a terrific way to follow the presentations. The methodology for identification sheets is excellent, summarizing key information; overall a most useful tool. Color illustrations for the workbook and a sample packet would both add to this already valuable tool. 2: Course binder with PowerPoint presentations extremely helpful. Illustrations in color would make it even more valuable. 3: They were outstanding. I could write pages on how useful the identification sheets and website will be in the future. 4: Yes. 5: Yes. Very useful and will continue to be utilized and referenced. 6: Very useful; will continue to be a resource. Process identification guide sheets and binder full of presentation slides in note taking format. 7: The notebook and its documents will be of great help when I leave. 8: Great course materials; the binder will be very useful (process sheets and PowerPoints with my notes added). 9: The notebook with PowerPoint printout was terrific for taking notes and is a great takeaway reference source to have.
3) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?
1: The combination of context and actual material made the entire course relevant. I also appreciated the instructors’ willingness to answer questions and be flexible in responding to the group’s needs. 2: Discussions of processes and identification useful. Overall approach to examining aspects of graphics, looking at surface, tone, gloss, paper, &c., to put together clues most valuable for long term. Appropriate level for our group. Excellent content. 3: c19 photographic identification was the most relevant for me, by far, but knowing more about photomechanical processes and c21 post-photography methods should be helpful. 4: The course will be very useful. Content level was appropriate. 5: All was relevant, but identification of newer color and digital processes was most useful. The intellectual level of the class was appropriate. 6: All aspects. The class group had good wide-ranging knowledge of photographic processes, used in a variety of settings, for various purposes. 7: This was exactly what I expected and what I was hoping it would be. Both instructors listened to the students and adjusted as appropriate; wonderful sessions. 8: Yes; discussion of all of the photo processes covered. Hands-on photographic identification – great variety and numerous examples. 9: The course content was exactly what I expected and wanted.
4) What did you like best about the course?
1: The actual physical interaction with the materials. This offered the opportunity for “guarded” examination, and for asking questions. JR and RB were wonderfully generous with their expertise. 2: Depth of knowledge of the instructors; mix of lecture and hands-on work. The two instructors complemented each other beautifully, each having his own background and knowledge to bring to different aspects of the course. 3: The instructors and their careful and thoughtful organization of the course and of course materials. They obviously put a great deal of work into this, and they were very approachable in class. 4: Interaction with instructors and classmates. 5: The hands-on identification and then review of those identifications. 6: Having access to JR and RB’s combined knowledge and perspectives – great team teaching experience. 7: The instructors. They are excellent at explaining the facts and entertaining at the same time. They are able, in words and images, to make difficult material easier to comprehend. This has been a delight. 8: The instructors – depth of knowledge, comfort with imparting knowledge, clear, humorous and personable. Having a second, knowledgeable instructor helped with the flow of the class and materials, provided a second point of view, and helped with individual attention when working with materials. 9: Having such knowledgeable teachers. JR’s explanations of complex photographic and photomechanical processes are the best I have ever heard. RB’s hands-on experience with more recent technology was very informative. Two instructors for the identification sessions to work with the students was essential.
5) How could the course have been improved?
1: Provide a color version of the workbook. Do the all-format test on Thursday afternoon, and use the final day for clarifying where there was confusion. Perhaps end with a group exercise that leaves the class upbeat. Consider doing the final test with teams of two. This will help reinforce good thinking and analytical process. 2: Larger classroom space. 3: No final exam, or at least an open book final. The amount of material covered was staggering and almost impossible to memorize in four days time for an exam. 4: The two tests were not especially useful, highlighting only how difficult photo identification really is. 5: Color handouts instead of black and white. Sample sets (at least of digital) that we could take home. Would have been cool to take apart a daguerreotype and ambrotype. 6: Only with an exhaustive packet of process examples. 7: I think the format of a test at the beginning and the end is silly and a waste of time. It did nothing to further the course and should be dropped. 9: In no possible way! This course is a winner (and I have taken many RBS courses).
6) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS teaching collections and of materials owned by UVa’s Special Collections. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week?
1: All worked well. Especially useful to have two instructors. One could manage the material while the other engaged the class. 2: Appropriate attention was paid to handling. 4: N/A. 5: Given that the photos used are for teachings purposes, I think our handling was appropriate. 6: Careful handling. 7: The worst example of handling was the demonstration of Audubon printing on Wednesday night. It is a terrible example to set for students when the director does not handle rare material well. 9: Materials appropriately handled.
7) If you attended the Sunday and/or other evening lectures, were they worth attending?
1: Sunday’s lecture on the history of RBS gave good context. 2: Did not attend. 4: It is always worthwhile hearing TB speak about the state and future of RBS. 5: N/A. 7: I did not think these added much to the week. 9: I enjoyed the film about street booksellers and TB’s Linotype talk.
8) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year?
1: Yes. Thanks to both instructors for an enlightening, useful, intellectually engaging and fun course. As a “first” this went well! 2: Yes. I strongly recommend this class to anyone working with photographic, photomechanical, or digital output print collections. Superb content and highly enjoyable; most fun I’ve had at RBS – this is my fifth class. 3: Absolutely. I am encouraging the two processors in special collections technical services to take this course. 4: Yes, but I always feel that I do. An excellent course overall. This course deserves to be an RBS standard. 5: This is my first RBS course and is one of the most worthwhile and educational programs I’ve attended. Very much worth the cost. This class is very useful, but the amount of information can be a bit overwhelming. 6: Absolutely! 7: Yes, this class was worth the money. 8: Yes. Don’t hesitate – take it! I appreciate the work and organization that the instructors put into the class: presentations, binders, photo materials and equipment, everything was so well thought through and organized. Instructor preparation time was very evident and it all just made the class flow so well. 9: Completely; I highly recommend this course to any librarians/curators with significant photographic holdings in the collection in their care.
Number of respondents: 9
PERCENTAGES
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
89% 67% 56% 44%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
0% 11% 33% 44%
N/A: self- N/A: Self- N/A: stayed N/A: lived
employed, re- employed, with friends nearby
tired, or had retired, or or lived at
summers off scholarship home
11% 22% 11% 11%
There were 2 rare book librarians (22%); 1 archivist/manuscript librarian (11%); 1 conservator/preservation librarian (11%); 1 museum employee (11%); 1 retired (11%); 2 curators (22%); and 1 photograph archivist (11%).