THE CLEANING OF DAGUERREOTYPES: COMPARISON OF CLEANING METHODS
M. Susan Barger, S.V. Krishnaswamy, & R. Messier
James L.Enyeart, “Reviving a Daguerreotype.” Photographic Journal (1970) 110:333–344
A.Swan, “Conservation Treatments for Photographs.” Image (Summer 1978) 21:24–31.
A.Swan, C.E.Fiori, and K.F.J.Heinrich “Daguerreotypes: A Study of the Plates and the Process.” Scanning Electron Microscopy (1979) 1:411–423.
A.Swan, “The Preservation of Daguerreotypes.” In AIC Preprints (1981). Washington, DC: The American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, pp. 164–172.
S.Rempel, “Recent Investigations on the Cleaning of Daguerreotypes.” In AIC Preprints (1980). Washington, DC: The American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, pp. 99–105.
M. SusanBarger, S.V.Krishnaswamy, and R.Messier, “The Cleaning of Daguerreotypes: I. Sputter Cleaning, a New Technique.” In AIC Preprints (1982). Washington, DC: The American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, pp. 9–20.
V.Daniels, “Plasma Reduction of Silver Tarnish on Daguerreotypes.” Studies in Conservation (1981) 26:45–49.
These are postulated chemical reactions. In each, (s) indicates a solid species and (g) indicates a gaseous species.
S.D.Humphrey, American Handbook of the Daguerreotype (1858). New York: S.D. Humphrey, pp. 2–51.
The extreme highlight area of a daguerreotype (in this case, Step 1) has ∼200,000 image particles/mm2 that range in size from ∼0.1–0.8 μm. The number of image particles decreases and their spacing increases as the apparent density of the daguerreotype increases (or as it begins to appear darker when viewed as a positive). Image particle size usually does not exceed 1 μm in diameter, except in the extreme shadow area of the daguerreotype. The extreme shadow (here, step S) has characteristic particles referred to as “shadow particle agglomerates.” A shadow area usually has >100 shadow particle agglomerates/mm2 that may have diameters approaching 50 μm.
J.M.Eder, History of Photography (1945). New York: Columbia University Press, 4th Ed., p. 254.
RobertTaft, Photography and the American Scene (1938). New York: Dover Publications, Inc., pp. 451–452.
E.W.White, H.A.McKinstry, and G.G.JohnsonJr., “Computer Processing of SEM Images.” Scanning Electron Microscopy/1968. Proceedings of the Symposium on the SEM: The Instrument and Its Applications (1968). Chicago: IIT Research Institute.
E.W.White, K.Mayberry, and G.G.JohnsonJr., “Computer Analysis of Multichannel SEM and X-Ray Images from Fine Particles.” Journal of Pattern Recognition (1972) 4:173–193.
Total reflectance (diffuse + specular) as collected in an integrating sphere and measured by a spectrophotometer will deviate from 100% according to both the characteristic absorption of the material being measured, as well as the microstructural state of the material. In the case of a daguerreotype, diffuse reflectance increases as image particle spacing decreases and as the number of image particles increases. An increase in diffuse reflectance is always accompanied by some loss of reflectivity due to light absorption. A detailed discussion of the relationship of daguerreotype microstructure and optical properties can be found in: M.S. Barger, R. Messier, and W.B. White, “A Physical Model for the Daguerreotype.” Photographic Science and Engineering (1982) 26(6) (in press).
M. SusanBargerThe Daguerreotype: Image Structure, Optical Properties, and a Scientific Interpretation of Daguerreotypy. Doctoral Dissertation (1982). The Pennsylvania State University.
T.J.Collings and F.J.Young, “Improvements in Some Tests and Techniques in Photographic Conservation.” Studies in Conservation (1976) 21:83–84.
M. SusanBarger, Bibliography of Photographic Processes in Use Before 1880. Their Materials, Processing, and Conservation (1980). Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology, pp. 113–114.