The two collections of focus in this entry are the Cecil B. DeMille Photographs Collection, part of the Margaret Herrick Library Digital Collections, and the Federal Writers Project “sub-collection,” which is part of the larger Security Pacific National Bank (SPNB) Collection on the Los Angeles Public Library website.
1. Cecil B. DeMille Photographs Collection - Margaret Herrick Library Digital Collections
Collection Level Record:
The first online photograph collection of focus was the Cecil B. DeMille Photographs Collection from the website of the Margaret Herrick Library Digital Collections (part of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences). There is some confusion about which materials are available online
and content which can only be accessed on site. One page does not mention the
other, so one has to look for the materials that are actually online elsewhere
by clicking the “Search Digital Collections” link on the left-hand side of the
library’s page. Therefore, the initial
confusion was in determining which link to click and how to navigate to the
collection.
It was difficult to conclude which record was the collection
record, as there were different pages. The different pages gave different
information which could be confusing. For example, the catalog record for the
collection states that access is on-site only and has no images of the photographs,
but the separate link to the digitized materials shows the photographs. The
distinction between the two was not made clear. The latter record (second
below) is a “catalog record” entry to the collection- though brief. However, it
is a good introduction to the Library’s minimalist style of cataloging. The
description highlighted the basic and more important information about DeMille
and his work, and more helpfully, provided a link to a more extended scope and
content note with more detailed information about the collection’s content’s
and the director’s biographical information. The description focuses on DeMille’s
more recognizable work that people may be more familiar with, which is a good
editing decision. While the format is eye-appealing, as there is a good balance
of white space and is more image-oriented (highlighting the collection
materials on both sides of the page), the record does bring to mind the
discussion of what information is necessary to include upfront for photograph
records. The need to navigate to different pages to get information may be difficult
for some.
 |
| This is the catalog record for the general collection. |
 |
This is the “catalog record” for the digitized materials
from the collection. 
The collection description links to this detailed page with
scope and content information- and there is also a separate section on
biographical information as well.
Item Level Records:
The organization of the results page for the collection is
probably one of the strengths of the collection. Its spreadsheet-style
organization is easy to navigate, and the most important information is there
for researchers to make decisions about the materials they need to view.
The results page for the collection makes navigating simpler
and provides the basic information.
Two item records were chosen for examination. The records
for the photographs follow the minimalist style set by the collection
description. The item descriptions are brief, but the content that is there is
well-written and easy to understand (especially to those not familiar with film
vocabulary). The records seem to follow the instructions of P: ACM: “Compile
short biographical or scope notes and assign only major access points” – to focus
on what is necessary (p. 188/192). The title fields of the records are well created, as it
does not rely on photograph inscriptions, but rather gives basic information
about the subjects in the photographs and the setting (see title: “Sheilah
Graham and Hedy Lamarr during production of SAMSON AND DELILAH, 1949”). The
title brings to mind the in-class discussion on insufficient or poorly generic
titles and how they could be improved. The library seems to have found a
formula for the titles that works. The item records highlight the title of the
film by putting film titles in all capital letters, which seems odd at first,
but does help distinguish between the names of people and films.
Item level record for “Sheilah Graham and Hedy Lamarr during
production of SAMSON AND DELILAH, 1949.”
Item level record for “Cecil B. DeMille during production of
UNION PACIFIC, 1939.”
The “creator” field is not a fixed field; it appears on some
records, but not all (as with the two chosen records). It seems that the field
is included only when the information is present. The dating of the photographs
is also confusing as well. While the photographs were clearly taken during the
production of the respective films, it is dated with the year when the film was
widely released, not when it was being filmed. With film, this distinction is
important, and as mentioned in a class discussion, the two separate dates provide
different types of information. It would be better if both dates were included.
The citation information of the photographs is okay, but the links do not work
properly. The same problem exists with the links as does with the subject
headings mentioned above- which can prove confusion if a researcher wants to
navigate to the collection description page or the library’s main page.
The records for both the collection and the individual
photographs seem to rely on the strength of the unique images. While that is
fine, it does not hide the errors of the records mentioned above. The library
seems to have adopted a minimalist style of cataloging for its materials, which
has its merits. The few errors seem to be overshadowed by the fact that the
information that is given is well presented and useful.
2. Federal Writers Project “sub-collection”-
Part of Security Pacific National Bank (SPNB) Collection- Los Angeles Public
Library
Collection Level Record:
The second online photograph collection
of focus is the Federal Writers Project Collection, a sub-collection that is
part of the larger Security Pacific National Bank (SPNB) Collection at the Los Angeles Public Library website. The collection contains an estimated 250
photographs. There is no actual collection level information; rather, there is
an overview page which provides a one-two sentence summary about each digital
photograph collection they have (see below). There are no links on the page,
and the directions are never clearly stated. There is no page for the
collection itself. Rather, one is meant to go in the search engine and type in
the name of the collection to bring up the photographs. The navigation needs to
be improved or the directions need to be stated clearly. There should be a
collection level description, as the summary provided was not much of a help.
The collection summary should have more
information.
Item Level Records:
At first glance at the results page, it
seems as if there is information missing or that there was an error made with
the search somehow. Also, the outdated appearance looked odd as well. The text
was on either side of the results page, with no categories or labels listed.
One had to discern the meaning, and constantly look left and right in order to
read the information properly. Also, the results page provided a first look at
the fact that the “creator” field was not regulated: for some, the creator is
the “Federal Writers Project” in others it is the photographer, or there is no
creator listed at all (see below).
The results page leaves a lot to be desired.
Two item catalog records were chosen
for examination and analysis. Each photograph has a catalog record, which makes
it easier to view individual images. The records show that one has to visually
dig through the content presented in order to find the useful information.
There is missing information, errors, etc. Also, the appearance of the page and
the layout of the information make it difficult for the reader to read. The
title fields of the records are basic (see “Entrance to Zoo Park” below) and
could use more detail. Also, at the end of every title is the annoying term “graphic”
in brackets. It is rather unnecessary, and does call to mind the rather
inadequate records shown in class, but if such a distinction is to be used- the
term “image” may prove more appropriate, as someone may mistake the term “graphic”
to mean an opinion on the content in the image.
Catalog record for “Entrance to Zoo Park.”
Each record has a link, as above, to a larger image.
However, the link for this image does not work (for this image and others), and
the user is director to an “Error found page.” In the title field of “Entrance
to Zoo Park,” the photographer is listed in the title field, though it does not
belong there, even from a library perspective (since there is no name on the “title
page” it should not be mentioned). The generic note field highlights the fact
that there are multiple ways to write “writers” (writers, writer’s, writers’)
and there does not seem to be a chosen format. The collection description
follows uses one version, but the records use another. The lack of
standardization within the library’s own catalog may prove confusing.
The summary and historical notes fields do provide some
useful information, but seems to have limits of 1-2 sentences. However, given
that the photographs were part of the Federal Writers Project, one of Roosevelt’s
New Deal programs, there is the expectation that there would be more
information included. For example, when was the flood that destroyed the zoo?
There is no mention of noted animals, which may have provided an interesting
insight. Biographical information about the photographer would also be useful,
again, given the source of the photographs (if he was from the area or
elsewhere). The subject headings are useful, as attempts are made to include
headings of the places. However, the subject headings do not have references to
the time period, which is important to note. Also the heading “lost
architecture,” makes it sound as if the zoo were misplaced, instead of damaged
and/or destroyed. While there are instances of good information, the record
seems to be in a “first draft” stage of completion and has a lot of potential.
Catalog record for “Los
Angeles Philharmonic performs at Columbia Square.”
The second item level catalog record is one for “Los Angeles
Philharmonic performs at Columbia Square.” The title is an improvement from the
first example (and from many other generic ones found throughout the results
listings). The “[graphic]” labeling persists. Thankfully, the link to the image
works. This record has information and fields that are not included in the
first example. The first would be the lack of a creator field altogether. The
record also includes reproduction/copyright information, though not all the
records have this statement. One problem with the record is that the historical
note and summary of the photograph focus on the building rather than the even
that is taking place. If the caption focuses on the event and people, so too
should the description. One piece of information to include is who conducted
the orchestra and if there is record of what pieces they played. The record
does not follow the rule that “catalog records also strive to tell researchers ‘who,
what, where, why, when,’ and occasionally ‘how’” as stated in the P :ACM text (p. 190).
The subject headings focus on institutions rather than
people, though it is nice that the radio station has its subject heading
listed. In the section entitled “other entries” the architect’s name is
mentioned, but his role is not specified (one has to read the summary again).
However, the listing does not seem necessary, given what the photograph is
depicting (an orchestral concert).
The library’s records have some good information, but there
is the potential for the records to bet better. It would have been interesting
had the records mentioned if the photographs were used in any specific
publication, given that they were taken for a guide book series. The existing
information in the records is good, but it is largely a matter of adding more
information, improving the standardization, and changing the layout and
appearance of the catalog.
In closing, by studying the records of the Cecile DeMille
photographs Collection and the Federal Writers Project, some similarities are
noted. Both have a degree of lack of standardization in terms of what fields
they have or do not have. Also, on some level, the records of both collections
require more and/or improved information. The subject headings need to improve,
as well as the technical issues when linking the subject heading or any heading
to another area of the website. Both libraries could benefit from greater
understanding of content standards. However, it easy to see that funding makes
a difference, especially in the aesthetics of the records and website and the
ease of navigation throughout the research process. A useful lesson is that appearances
can be deceiving, as both institutions’ records show that if one searches (whether
through the record itself or through the site) it is possible to pull out good
amounts of useful information.
Sources:
Ritzenthaler, Mary Lynn and Diane Vogt-O’Connor. Photographs: Archival Care and Management.
(Society of American Archivists, 2006).
Shatford Layne, S. "Some Issues in the
Indexing of Images." Journal of the American Society for Information
Science 45, no. 8 (1994): 583-8.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment