Monday, May 2, 2016

Technology Proposal: Scanner Hardware and Software



Technology Proposal: Scanner Hardware and Software
Bonnie Lord
MLIS 7996
Introduction
While all libraries may have needs to scan images from time to time, there are occasions when having access to quality images may be of upmost importance to library patrons.  The range of subjects that may need quality images for research purposes spans from the arts to the sciences.  Some scanners may not produce quality images, but planar and overhead scanners have been improving throughout the years to allow for high-res and color images.
While investing in a quality scanner and the programs to be used by patrons and staff for image enhancement or photo editing may be costly, it may also prove to be invaluable to the library.  Especially with the rise of digitalized collections, having the technology located onsite may improve a library’s collection of online images; it can also provide access to rare and fragile collections that patrons may otherwise not see.
Literature Review                                               
Materials and Programs:
The literature on the subject of imaging software and hardware in libraries suggests that scanners (Alpi, 2016) and DSLR cameras (Zhou, 2016) should be made available.  The disadvantage of using cameras as opposed to scanners is that a studio range for shooting images with the least amount of outside interference would also be necessary, especially for oversized objects or images (Zhou, 2016).  This could put a strain on a library that may not have space to dedicate for digitalizing content.
There are two types of scanners to be considered for the library: planar and overhead.  Planar scanners are inexpensive and can be small enough to fit on a desk.  However, the images must be scanned face-down which could have a negative impact on books.  Overhead scanners are more expensive but take the image from above which allows for books to be imaged face-up (Driscolli, 2006).
Programs such as Adobe Acrobat can be used to OCR text content of scanned images.    ProPhoto RGB and Adobe RGB are two other programs suggested by Zhou (2016) for correcting color inconsistencies and “color banding” in images that occur due to lighting differences or posterization.
Libraries with Self-Service Scanners:
While the library staff can find plenty of uses for scanners on their own, many libraries have also made scanners available for library users.  LibGuides can be made to help students familiarize themselves with the technology.  An example of an academic library with scanners for self-service is the MIT library.  MIT (MIT Libraries, n.d.) created a LibGuide that covered the following subjects for scanner use:
·         Locations of scanners;
·         Capabilities of scanners; and
·         Limitations of scanners.
According to the LibGuide, any scanning projects or other digitalization projects which may be too complicated for a student or individual can be completed by the library staff for a fee.
Public libraries may also have self-service scanners available.  An example of a public library that has already implemented self-service scanners is the New York Public Library.  Despite being “self-service”, library materials have to be approved by the staff before being scanned.  This helps protect any materials that may be fragile from becoming damaged.  The library also supplies CDROMS and USB Drives for a fee for scanned material to be saved by the individual (The New York Public Library, 2016).
Application
Usefulness to patrons:
In particular, the sciences may have need for access to color images.  “Scientific disciplines are keenly aware of the importance of color images in their work” (Alpi, 2016).  Past that, Alpi (2016) points out that any ILL requests may be improved for the patron.  Many articles may have color images, especially for subjects such as anatomy, biology, or art history, and having scanners that can produce high-quality, color images can improve the quality of research.
Furthermore, some patrons may not having scanning or imaging devices at home – or the computers to transfer the images to.  Creating access to the required technology and programs at the library may entice some individuals to visit the library more frequently in order to use these devices.
Usefulness to library staff:
Not only is it helpful for the library users to have access to quality scanned images through ILL, it is also useful for the library staff to be able to meet these needs. 
Furthermore, having an onsite scanner with compatible programs for enhancing images allows library’s to meet another goal: digital preservation.  In some cases this can be outsourced.  For many library’s, this may be sufficient.  However, Zhou (2016) voices the concern of fragile materials that may need to be scanned for digital preservation.  With fragile materials, trained library staff may be more comfortable scanning it onsite as opposed to outsourcing it to a company or individuals who have not been trained to handle delicate materials.  Zhou (2016) also argues that while scanners, especially overhead scanners, can be useful for the library, having a DSLR camera available would be beneficial for archives or libraries who have a higher number of images as opposed to documents to digitally preserve.
Challenges and Issues
Challenges and issues that arise out of introducing scanning technology and image enhancement or editing programs into libraries include budgeting for technology, training library staff, and in some cases space requirements.
In particular, overhead scanners appear to be costly, especially when compared to the planar alternative.  However, with a high volume of documents, books, and images to be digitalized, the overhead scanner does provide better options for fragile materials.  Programs may also drive the budget up.  Some, such as Adobe Acrobat which allows for OCRing text, have multiple and can be used by library staff and patrons alike.  Others, such as ProPhoto RGB, are very specific programs and have limited use.
The next concern for these technologies is training library staff, and possibly even patrons in certain circumstances, to use both the hardware and the software.  While patrons may not require training for the programs if they are not working on complicated imaging projects, the staff should be proficient in using the hardware and software in order to help patrons if it becomes necessary. 
Conclusion                 
In my own experience, having the technology to scan quality images can save both time and effort.  At a law library I worked at in the past, an attorney requested a specific journal article about shoulder dystocia.  There were images he specifically needed, along with the content of the article.  Using OCR functions on Adobe Acrobat, I was able to supply a readable article for his research and trial exhibit.  However, the images, no matter how I tried scanning them, came out blurred and useless.  In the end, after many attempts, I had to get permission to scan the images and enhance them using GIMP, a free photo editing program.  The attorney was happy with the end results, but it took longer to help him than it would have if I had a quality image scanner and programs available ahead of time.  Luckily, there was time to fix the images for him; other times, there was no time to enhance images.
As technology becomes more and more accessible, the need for libraries to supply technology or the means to use it becomes more prevalent.  Photocopiers have become commonplace in most libraries.  Scanners are becoming commonplace, but frequently they are not scanners equipped to deal with more than basic documents.  Investing in a quality overhead scanner could help the library save time with large digitalization projects, and having planar scanners available could help patrons with their own projects.  Software to enhance images could further a librarian’s efforts in digitalizing as well, creating images of materials that can be viewed in great detail online or through a database.




 References
Alpi, K., Brown Jr., J. , Neel, J. , Grindem, C., Under, K., & Harper, J. (2016). Scanning technology selection impacts acceptability and usefulness of image-rich content. Journal Of The Medical Library Association, 104(1), 15-23.
Driscoll, L. (2006). Technology for access services. Journal of Access Services, 4(1/2), 141.
MIT Libraries. (n.d.). Scanners - Scan, Copy, & Print - LibGuides at MIT Libraries. Retrieved April 30, 2016, from http://libguides.mit.edu/copying
The New York Public Library. (2016). Copying and Printing Prices. Retrieved May 01, 2016, from http://www.nypl.org/node/179517
Zhou, Y. (2016). Fulfill your digital preservation goals with a budget studio. Information Technology & Libraries, 35(1), 26-50.

No comments:

Post a Comment