Microlink Messages
May 2000 to August 2001

Message #180

Date: Aug 06 2001 05:01:00 EDT
From: Microlink <elviop@slsa.sa.gov.au>
Subject: Microlink server change

Some Microlink subscribers will be aware that the 'Listbot' listserv will soon be ceasing in its current form. Microlink will shortly be migrated to a new server. A message will be sent to Microlink subscribers with updated information as these arrangements have been finalised.

Heather Brown
Microlink List Owner
Manager, Image Services
State Library of SA
Box 419 GPO
Adelaide 5001
South Australia

Ph: 61 8 82077317
Fax: 61 8 82077274


Message #179

Date: Jun 23 2001 00:12:48 EDT
From: "Brown, Heather (SLSA)" <Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au>
Subject: scanning from microfilm

An article in RLG DigiNews vol. 5 no. 3 2001 deals with microfilm scanning as a FAQ.
http://www.rlg.org/preserv/diginews/diginews5-3.html#faq

Heather Brown
Manager, Image Services
State Library of South Australia
Box 419 GPO
Adelaide 5001
South Australia
AUSTRALIA

Ph: (+ 61 8) 82077317
Fax: (+ 61 8) 82077274
Email: Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au


Message #178

Date: Jun 20 2001 16:24:57 EDT
From: Gary Vocks <gvocks@siumed.edu>
Subject: Kodak 750 Microfilm Camera

I have a Kodak 750 rotary microfilmer that's the workhorse of my shop. However, it's getting a bit long in the tooth and my boss has suggested that I investigate replacing it.

I have a single operator filming 650,000+ images per year in one shift. The primary use for this camera is filming paper medical records consisting of a wide variety of paper sizes, weights, and colors. A record may contain anything from 3" x 5" cards up to 11" x 17" paper and either single or double sided pages mixed. Records are anywhere from 2 pages to as many as 200+ pages long and every document is filmed in the exact order that it's filed in the record. We film at 24x reduction on 16mm roll film.

Does anyone have any recommendations as to a possible replacement?

Thanks.

Gary Vocks
SIU School of Medicine
Springfield Illinois USA


Message #177

Date: Jun 07 2001 10:00:21 EDT
From: "McLean, Austin" <austin.mclean@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject: ALA / PARS Micropublishers Discussion Group June 16

ALA / PARS Micropublishers Discussion Group Saturday June 16, 2001 9:00 - 11:00 A.M. WEST, Oxford
MEETING NOTICE

The Micropublishers Discussion Group will be held on Saturday, June 16 from 9:00 - 11:00 a.m. As is customary with this group, the participants will finalize the meeting agenda. Topics discussed at recent meetings include:

  1. Contractual issues between librarians and micropublishers
  2. Review of current microfilming camera technology
  3. Discussion of purchasing trends for new collections
  4. Copyrighting issues related to microfilm
  5. Preservation photocopying
  6. Metadata issues/Cataloging issues (such as putting the preservation information into the holdings/item record)
  7. List of Microfilm Masters - is list complete and up to date?
  8. Discussion of defunct micropublishers and what has happened to their film
  9. Storage of microfilm - How are vendors and libraries storing film
  10. Microfilm reader/printers preferences

We look forward to discussing these and other topics with you. See you in San Francisco.

Jan Merrill-Oldham (Harvard) and Austin McLean (ProQuest/UMI), Co-Chairs


Message #176

Date: May 11 2001 10:22:57 EDT
From: Julie Dees <jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us>
Subject: frame-by-frame inspection

Thank all of you for your helpful responses. Per several individuals' requests, I am summarizing the information I received for the entire list. The vote was split evenly between inspection of the camera negative and inspection of the second-generation negative (or print master or copy negative, depending on the terminology used at the different agencies).

Proponents for inspection of the camera negative argued that errors were caught immediately, without further waste of duplicates, and many cited the NPO Guide to Preservation Microfilming (updated Mellon guide) as their source. They advised the use of light boxes or glassless microfilm readers for the inspection to avoid damage to the preservation copy. Most advocates for first-generation inspection were companies who process and duplicate microfilm, though there were also archive supporters.

Those who advocated the inspection of second-generation negatives cited the need to protect the camera negative from unnecessary handling. Some said their service provider automatically created a copy negative for every camera negative processed, so they lose nothing by inspecting the second-generation negative, rather than the camera negative.

There were a couple of institutions who inspect third-generation, positive prints frame-by-frame. Their argument was that the camera negative and second-generation negative should be handled as little as possible, and positive prints are easier to read and can be placed on a reader without concern over scratches. They said that inspection of the positives would take less time, thereby reducing labor costs and more than making up for the occasional rejected roll(s).

Julie Dees
Archival Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department of Archives and History


Message #175

Date: May 09 2001 04:49:46 EDT
From: Leith Haarhoff <loh@llgc.org.uk>
Subject: Re: frame-by-frame inspection

Julie

The National Library of Wales and its sister institutions in the UK adhere to the NPO Guide to Preservation Microfilming (updated Mellon guide) which states that the master film should be checked frame by frame for errors including missing or duplicated pages and other imperfections. This approach guarantees that mistakes are corrected immediately and are not carried forward to subsequent generations of film. This has at least two advantages over page by page checking the positive duplicate, namely, the original can return to use/storage sooner and there is less waste of material and operator time. If film handling procedures are followed, any damage to the master film will be insignificant as the master has to be checked for a number of other errors in any case.

Leith

Leith Haarhoff
Head: Reprographic Unit
National Library of Wales
Aberystwyth SY23 3BU

loh@llgc.org.uk
tel 01970 632 849
fax 01970 615 709

"My opinion - not necessarily NLW's"

Julie Dees wrote:

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

The Mississippi Department of Archives and History is in the midst of a > debate over which generation(s) of microfilm should receive a frame-by-frame inspection. I have read recommendations for the camera negative (OCLC and NEDCC) or third-generation, positive print (RLG). The > Mississippi Archives has traditionally inspected the second-generation negative frame-by-frame as a compromise between reducing the amount of handling of the camera negative and preventing waste of rolls that have > to be discarded in the event of filming errors. We are rethinking the process and wondered how other filming agencies handle the frame-by-frame inspection process. Other viewpoints would be very helpful.

Many thanks in advance for your assistance,

Julie Dees
Archival Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department of Archives and History

______________________________________________________________________

To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com

Leith Haarhoff
Head: Reprographic Unit
National Library of Wales
Aberystwyth
SY23 3BU
loh@llgc.org.uk
tel 01970 632 849
fax 01970 615 709

"My opinion - not necessarily NLW's"


Message #174

Date: May 09 2001 04:41:09 EDT
From: "Brown, Heather (SLSA)" <Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au>
Subject: Microforms: frame by frame inspection

In response to Julie Dees' query:

The State Library of South Australia currently inspects frame-by-frame from the positive using a standard Gideon reader (which does scratch the film). Apart from the issue of scratching, staff find it easier to quality check from the positive copy (e.g exposure problems are more obvious).

The positive copy is created straight after the master negative has been processed (the master is initially checked for any obvious defects as it is wound over a light box). The second generation printing master is created only after the frame by frame inspection has been satisfactorily completed.

In the end, each organisation would have to weigh up the risks of scratching the master or second generation printing master in a reader against the cost of discarding copies due to errors. The incidence of errors will be a key factor! Robert Mottice has referred to UMI's specially designed glassless roll film carriage which enables film to be checked without scratching. Maybe UMI should seriously think of marketing this.

Heather Brown
Manager, Image Services
State Library of South Australia Box 419 GPO
Adelaide 5001
South Australia
AUSTRALIA

Ph: (+ 61 8) 82077317
Fax: (+ 61 8) 82077274
Email: Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au


Message #173

Date: May 08 2001 10:59:08 EDT
From: Julie Dees <jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us>
Subject: frame-by-frame inspection

The Mississippi Department of Archives and History is in the midst of a debate over which generation(s) of microfilm should receive a frame-by-frame inspection. I have read recommendations for the camera negative (OCLC and NEDCC) or third-generation, positive print (RLG). The Mississippi Archives has traditionally inspected the second-generation negative frame-by-frame as a compromise between reducing the amount of handling of the camera negative and preventing waste of rolls that have to be discarded in the event of filming errors. We are rethinking the process and wondered how other filming agencies handle the frame-by-frame inspection process. Other viewpoints would be very helpful.

Many thanks in advance for your assistance,

Julie Dees
Archival Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department of Archives and History


Message #172

Date: Apr 23 2001 10:12:04 EDT
From: "Irene Schubert" <isch@loc.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Re: mending broken microfilm

Thanks to all who replied so promptly to the query about repairing torn microfilm. Attached is my reply. As I promised, I forwarded all your replies separately to the requestor.

Irene

Irene Schubert, Chief
Preservation Reformatting Division
Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20540-4550

Telephone: (202) 707-5918
FAX: (202) 707-6449


Message #171

Date: Apr 23 2001 08:58:21 EDT
From: "Jones, Virginia" <VJones@ci.newport-news.va.us>
Subject: RE: Repair of service copy microfilm

Andy Fenton wrote:

"AIIM 2001 in New York? This sender is attending and would love to hear of any interesting activities relating to Preservation Microfilming/Digitisation of Microforms..."

See announcement below.

Ginny Jones
(Virginia A. Jones, CRM, MIT/LIT)
Newport News Dept. of Public Utilities
Newport News, VA

vjones@ci.newport-news.va.us

******************************************

AIIM International announces the establishment of a study group with the intent to develop standard practices, guidelines, procedures and test targets that will allow users to specify quality levels and provide measurement tools and procedures for non-traditional methods of image capture and retrieval. We like to call this "Digital Preservation". Digital imaging and digital to film providers today do not have such benchmarks in place for non-optical capture and recovery. The first meeting of this study team will be held on Wednesday, May 2 in New York City at the Jacob Javits Convention Center where the team will begin drafting project proposals and determining what standards are needed. Please plan to attend. For more information, visit the AIIM Standards Web site at http://standards.aiim.org or to register for this meeting, visit http://www.aiim.org/standards/2001stan_sched.cfm.

The Digital Preservation Meeting will be on Wednesday, May 2 from 9 a.m. through noon in Conference room 2D04 at Jacob Javits.

AIIM 2001-005
COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE
Contact: Robert Breslawski Roger Markham
Eastman Kodak Company Eastman Kodak Company
1700 Dewey Avenue P: 716-724-2935
Rochester, NY 14656-1930 E:

Roger.markham@kodak.com <mailto:Roger.markham@kodak.com>
P: 716-477-6771
F: 716-588-6513
E: Robert.breslawski@kodak.com <mailto:Robert.breslawski@kodak.com>

Draft Agenda

Wednesday, May 2, 2001
Javits Conference Center, 2D04

1. Introduction - Roger Markham and Robert Breslawski Intent to develop standard practices, guidelines, procedures and test targets that will allow users to specify quality levels and provide measurement tools and procedures for non-traditional methods of image capture and retrieval. We like to call this "Digital Preservation". Digital imaging and digital to film providers today do not have such benchmarks in place for non-optical capture and recovery.

2. Discussion Topics:

Digital Preservation

Needs:
Standards, recommended practices for quality control, measuring tools, guidelines for preserving document content in digital and analog formats with quality and integrity.

Examples:
Quality control procedures, test targets, system modeling and procedures, Preservation and Metadata

4. Wrap-up and Follow-up Actions

Betsy A. Fanning
Director, Standards
AIIM International
1100 Wayne Avenue,
Suite 1100, Silver Spring,
MD 20910

301-755-2682 (voice)
301-587-2711 (fax)
703-655-5442 (mobile)
bfanning@aiim.org
The Enterprise Content Management Association http://www.aiim.org


Message #170

Date: Apr 21 2001 04:04:19 EDT
From: "Brown, Heather (SLSA)" <Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au>
Subject: Permission to film agreements

Hello,

My library outsources a large number of newspapers for microfilming, primarily smaller Washington State papers, but also a few foreign and a few "other" current publications. We have maintained this filming project for several decades, and sell---at cost to produce---the occasional microfilm copy to other libraries and users. We are a state institution.

We have never had any sort of agreements with the publishers of the newspapers we film, but rather have relied on the understanding that we are doing this for preservation purposes (N.Baker notwithstanding), that the use is for educational purposes and any copies are sold on a not-for-profit basis. We film according to national standards applicable to microfilming and produce an archival neg., copy neg and positive use copy for our public collection. And in fact, by our participation in the US Newspapers Project, we agreed to continue filming a long list of currently published local papers as long as no commercial film was available.

Given the growing confusion around copyright, etc., I am concerned that we do not have formal agreements in place with the publishers of these papers. The few publishers I've contacted seem unconcerned about our microfilming, as long as they do not have to pay for anything (which they do not).

Do any of you in the non-commercial sector who films or outsources microfilming of currently published serial material have such an agreement? Is it included in the microfilm targets? Can anyone provide me with sample language to use in a permissions statement?

Glenda Pearson
pearson@u.washington.edu
Head, Microform and Newspaper Collections
Suzzallo Library,
University of Washington Seattle,
Washington 98195

The above message has been cross posted, with permission of the author. Please respond direct to Glenda Pearson pearson@u.washington.edu and also send relevant information to Microlink.

I have already sent to Glenda a draft proforma which the State Library of South Australia sends to newspaper proprietors to obtain their permission to microfilm items. The draft was sent to Glenda as a general guide only; it would need to be checked against the copyright requirements of United States law.

The 'Guidelines for Preservation Microfilming in Australia and New Zealand' compiled by the National Library of Australia offers the following advice:

'Regardless of whether the work is being microfilmed for preservation purposes or not, if third-generation service copies are to be offered for sale, permission should be obtained from the copyright holder.' (p.25).

Again this would need to be checked against the U.S. copyright law, but requirements would probably be similar.

Where a copyright owner cannot be located, the National Library of Australia also places notices in the publicly available government gazette where a copyright owner cannot be located.

A sample wording is provided below.

INTENTION TO MICROFILM

The National Library of Australia Canberra ACT 2600 hereby gives notice of intention to microfilm........... which was published between................ Any person claiming to be the copyright-owner of the above mentioned title should contact ................... at.............. at the earliest available opportunity by telephone..........................................., facsimile..........................., in writing.........................

Heather Brown
Manager, Image Services
State Library of South Australia
Box 419 GPO
Adelaide 5001
South Australia
AUSTRALIA

Ph: (+ 61 8) 82077317
Fax: (+ 61 8) 82077274
Email: Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au


Message #169

Date: Apr 20 2001 19:49:21 EDT
From: "Andrew Fenton" <afenton@micrographics.co.nz>
Subject: Repair of service copy microfilm

Two suggestions from down under in New Zealand

1) Use splicing or low toxicity repair tape JUST to obtain a copy of the film to create a "Preservation Duplicate Master"; ensure the torn image has reproduced as best as possible, REMOVE the repair tape (at least from the emulsion side).

2) Use a fiche or film scanner to scan the two halves of the torn image (watch for film-curl!), plus a few images either side (perhaps to a position on the film that is easy to splice); print these to original size on the best quality printer available, join the two torn half-image prints (accurately or clearly as 2 separate bits); REFILM with an explanatory target, the 10+ page sequence and splice them back into the original as REPEAT FRAMES; then CREATE a Preservation Duplicate Master and produce copies for use. If the images were from A3 or smaller originals, or if of sufficient quality, you could output to paper direct form the damaged film using a Reader-Printer rather than a scanner. I am assuming the positive torn copy is sufficiently scratched to warrant reproduction as above. If it was okay you might consider making this your PDM - maybe give it a full processor wash as a precaution.

NOTE - either situation is expensive, option (1) is less so. The obvious concern when producing Preservation Duplicate Masters is the generational degradation in RESOLUTION. If we've lost the first (and I presume there was a second!) generation microforms, as well as the originals then we should be grateful for what we've got left! In either option creating TWO PDM's (4th generation) is probably wise - one to be used for producing subsequent service copies. Conducting a resolution test to ensure ones duplicator is working at it's optimum is necessary.

AIIM 2001 in New York? This sender is attending and would love to hear of any interesting activities relating to Preservation Microfilming/Digitisation of Microforms...

kind regards,

Andy Fenton
Managing Director
NZ Micrographic Services,
4 Oxford Street,
Tawa,
Wellington,
NEW ZEALAND

Phone: (04) 232 9396
Fax: (04) 232 9399
Email: info@micrographics.co.nz
Visit our Website at www.micrographics.co.nz

----- Original Message -----

From: schubert <isch@loc.gov>
To: <Linkmicro@listbot.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 12:09 AM
Subject: Repair of service copy microfilm

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

We have a request for information from another library:

Looking for suggestions on best way to splice and mend OLD newspaper and birth/death microfilm for which negatives and original print are no longer available. Are there any archival supply sources which can offer something better than (desperation measure) transparent tape?

A check on the Conservation OnLine list uncovered this 1997 response:

Simple (I hope) question: How do you repair broken microfilm?
We have discovered reels where the film is broken/torn apart.

Not so very simple. Usually when people speak of broken films, they are referring to "service" or reading copies. By far the preferred method in this case is replacement--locating the camera negative or duplicate negative and having a new print made. Presumably, this new print would be on polyester film base, obviating breakage. When this is not possible, or in cases where the broken film is a camera negative, things get more complicated. Refilming to preservation standards is indicated for any material deemed to be of lasting value, but when we arrive at the worst-case scenario--i.e., the broken film is the only surviving record--some kind of repair or copying of this material is wanted.

There's only one case in which repair is simple and that is when the break has occurred at an existing splice which is well clear of any image material. This relatively simple repair is resplicing. When the tear is across imaged film, you have real problems. A fairly common solution is to repair with transparent tape. This is a bad solution, from a preservation standpoint, as well as from the standpoint of quality of the projected image, yet it is often done. I suppose it is justifiable in cases where the service film is in demand, has a known existing negative and/or originals corresponding to it, and the institution holding the service copy lacks the budget or time to replace it in time to fill the demand. But in the "only-known-copy" scenario, it is unjustifiable unless somebody can tell me of a splicing tape known to be completely safe (the adhesives in transparent tape generally are deleterious to the metal silver image and I've seen many examples of tape *destroying* film.

A recent posting of mine briefly discusses a labor-intensive copying method using a contact printing box. Camera copying, with subsurface illumination of the broken film (also labor intensive), is possible, too. No doubt there are people in one branch or another of photo conservation out there who have other insights and ideas in this regard. It's best to search as exhaustively as possible for replacements before you go mucking around with films. You can easily make a bad situation worse with brittle old films and it's well to remember that physical repair of same followed by continued use is likely to result in yet more breakage.

Charles Stewart,
U.C. Berkeley

Have any of you developed other solutions?

Thank you

Irene

Irene Schubert, Chief
Preservation Reformatting Division
Library of Congress,
Washington, DC 20540

Telephone: (202) 707-5918
FAX: (202) 707-6449
E-mail: isch@loc.gov

Usual disclaimers apply

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com


Message #168

Date: Apr 20 2001 11:35:11 EDT
From: "Frederic J. Grevin" <grevinf@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Repair of service copy microfilm

I'm replying to this posting from the Microfilm Listserv (copy below). I thought it might be interesting to some subscribers of the Records Management listserv.

We have the same problem ourselves with microfilm of real and personal property records. Since this microfilm is often the sole record, it's irreplaceable and extremely valuable. Living in one of the most litigious cities in the world makes us very anxious to find a satisfactory solution.

Our requirements for a satisfactory solution are:

  1. the process must produce the most complete and accurate reproduction of the original microfilm images possible;
  2. the process must be defensible in any applicable legal proceedings;
  3. the content and appearance of the images cannot be manipulated or altered;
  4. the process must be carefully documented.

In the past, the traditional solution was to make a photographic print (NOT in a reader-printer) of each image, and re-microfilm the photographic prints. This works, but is expensive and VERY timeconsuming.

We will shortly try out a new solution. At this point, it's still a concept, and we're working out the details with our scanning Vendor.

This solution consists of scanning the microfilm (partially or in whole), and re-creating first-generation silver-gelatin (G1) microfilm from the scanned images. We expect to scan at a high resolution and density/bit depth (400 dpi with an 8-bit gray scale).

The electronic images produced by the scan will be sent to Image Graphics Inc. (IGI), Shelton, CT, USA, for computer output to microfilm (COM). IGI has the only line of high-resolution, gray-scale COM machines on the market (that I know of, anyway).

In the case of partially-damaged rolls, we'll splice the segment of re-created microfilm to the damaged film. In the process we'll lose some of the original images.

When the entire roll must be replaced (e.g., when a diazo duplicate is the only film in existence), the COM output becomes the new G1 film.

Our main problem so far has been finding a Vendor for the scanning. Because of the value of the film, we are not willing to have it taken off-premises for scanning. Most Vendors feel that bringing the equipment on-site isn't worth their while.

I have a fairly complete description of our proposed process in MS Word 97 file format, and will e-mail it to interested parties.

Best regards.

===== original posting begins below ==========

Date sent: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:09:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: schubert <isch@loc.gov>
To: Linkmicro@listbot.com
Subject: Repair of service copy microfilm

We have a request for information from another library:

Looking for suggestions on best way to splice and mend OLD newspaper and birth/death microfilm for which negatives and original print are > no longer available. Are there any archival supply sources which can offer something better than (desperation measure) transparent tape?

A check on the Conservation OnLine list uncovered this 1997 response:

Simple (I hope) question: How do you repair broken microfilm?
We have discovered reels where the film is broken/torn apart.

Not so very simple. Usually when people speak of broken films, they are referring to "service" or reading copies. By far the preferred method in this case is replacement--locating the camera negative or duplicate negative and having a new print made. Presumably, this new print would be on polyester film base, obviating breakage.

When this is not possible, or in cases where the broken film is a camera negative, things get more complicated. Refilming to preservation standards is indicated for any material deemed to be of lasting value, but when we arrive at the worst-case scenario--i.e., the broken film is the only surviving record--some kind of repair or copying of this material is wanted.

There's only one case in which repair is simple and that is when the break has occurred at an existing splice which is well clear of any image material. This relatively simple repair is resplicing. When the tear is across imaged film, you have real problems. A fairly common solution is to repair with transparent tape. This is a bad solution, from a preservation standpoint, as well as from the standpoint of quality of the projected image, yet it is often done. I suppose it is justifiable in cases where the service film is in demand, has a known existing negative and/or originals corresponding to it, and the institution holding the service copy lacks the budget or time to replace it in time to fill the demand. But in the "only-known-copy" scenario, it is unjustifiable unless somebody can tell me of a splicing tape known to be completely safe (the adhesives in transparent tape generally are deleterious to the metal silver image and I've seen many examples of tape *destroying* film.

A recent posting of mine briefly discusses a labor-intensive copying method using a contact printing box. Camera copying, with subsurface illumination of the broken film (also labor intensive), is possible, too. No doubt there are people in one branch or another of photo conservation out there who have other insights and ideas in this regard. It's best to search as exhaustively as possible for replacements before you go mucking around with films. You can easily make a bad situation worse with brittle old films and it's well to remember that physical repair of same followed by continued use is likely to result in yet more breakage.

Charles Stewart,
U.C. Berkeley

Have any of you developed other solutions?

Thank you

Irene

Irene Schubert, Chief
Preservation Reformatting Division
Library of Congress,
Washington, DC 20540

Telephone: (202) 707-5918
FAX: (202) 707-6449
E-mail: isch@loc.gov

Usual disclaimers apply

===== original posting ends here ==========

Frederic J. Grevin,
Technology Coordinator
The City of New York,
Department of Finance

GREVINF@FINANCE.NYC.GOV
GREVINF@EARTHLINK.NET

31 Chambers Street (room 201)
New York NY 10007
USA

phone: (212) 788-8519
fax: (212) 788-8521

The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the policy of the City of New York


Message #167

Date: Apr 20 2001 08:07:26 EDT
From: schubert <isch@loc.gov>
Subject: Repair of service copy microfilm

We have a request for information from another library:

Looking for suggestions on best way to splice and mend OLD newspaper and birth/death microfilm for which negatives and original print are no longer available. Are there any archival supply sources which can offer something better than (desperation measure) transparent tape?

A check on the Conservation OnLine list uncovered this 1997 response:

Simple (I hope) question: How do you repair broken microfilm?
We have discovered reels where the film is broken/torn apart.

Not so very simple. Usually when people speak of broken films, they are referring to "service" or reading copies. By far the preferred method in this case is replacement--locating the camera negative or duplicate negative and having a new print made. Presumably, this new print would be on polyester film base, obviating breakage.

When this is not possible, or in cases where the broken film is a camera negative, things get more complicated. Refilming to preservation standards is indicated for any material deemed to be of lasting value, but when we arrive at the worst-case scenario--i.e., the broken film is the only surviving record--some kind of repair or copying of this material is wanted.

There's only one case in which repair is simple and that is when the break has occurred at an existing splice which is well clear of any image material. This relatively simple repair is resplicing. When the tear is across imaged film, you have real problems. A fairly common solution is to repair with transparent tape. This is a bad solution, from a preservation standpoint, as well as from the standpoint of quality of the projected image, yet it is often done. I suppose it is justifiable in cases where the service film is in demand, has a known existing negative and/or originals corresponding to it, and the institution holding the service copy lacks the budget or time to replace it in time to fill the demand. But in the "only-known-copy" scenario, it is unjustifiable unless somebody can tell me of a splicing tape known to be completely safe (the adhesives in transparent tape generally are deleterious to the metal silver image and I've seen many examples of tape *destroying* film.

A recent posting of mine briefly discusses a labor-intensive copying method using a contact printing box. Camera copying, with subsurface illumination of the broken film (also labor intensive), is possible, too. No doubt there are people in one branch or another of photo conservation out there who have other insights and ideas in this regard. It's best to search as exhaustively as possible for replacements before you go mucking around with films. You can easily make a bad situation worse with brittle old films and it's well to remember that physical repair of same followed by continued use is likely to result in yet more breakage.

Charles Stewart,
U.C. Berkeley

Have any of you developed other solutions? Thank you

Irene

Irene Schubert, Chief
Preservation Reformatting Division
Library of Congress,
Washington, DC 20540

Telephone: (202) 707-5918
FAX: (202) 707-6449
E-mail: isch@loc.gov

Usual disclaimers apply


Message #166

Date: Apr 19 2001 11:39:44 EDT
From: Julie Dees <jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us>
Subject: pink master microfilm

We have had a long-standing "problem" of camera negatives processed with direct duplicating film turning pink. I believe the antihalation backing for the direct duplicating film is red; is there a direct correllation between the two, or are we seeing some kind of pH reaction between the films? Is there a way to prevent the color change of the camera negatives, aside from processing the two types of film separately, or should we let it pass?

Many thanks in advance,

Julie Dees
Archival Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department of Archives and History


Message #165

Date: Apr 10 2001 16:57:48 EDT
From: Gary Vocks <gvocks@siumed.edu>
Subject: Digital Microfilm

Our medical records department has a large microfilm project that they're attempting to outsource. The head of the department just called me and asked about "digital microfilm". After I said, "Huh!?" she said that one of the bidders mentioned "digital microfilm" and she wanted to know if I knew what they meant by that. I'm having one of my usual "brain dead" moments. Can anyone out there help me?

Gary Vocks


Message #164

Date: Mar 23 2001 13:22:38 EST
From: Julie Dees <jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us>
Subject: binocular microscopes

Please accept my apology for cross-posting.

The Mississippi Department of Archives and History may be able to purchase a binocular microscope for microfilm inspection. We want to be able to view images at magnifications of at least 50X, and we would prefer to use a cool light source. Does anyone have a brand or source they would recommend?

Many thanks in advance for your assistance,

Julie Dees
Archival Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department of Archives and History


Message #163

Date: Mar 16 2001 02:39:50 EST
From: "Brown, Heather (SLSA)" <Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au>
Subject: Water spots

Thanks to all who replied with practical suggestions regarding water spots and Photo-Flo.

Firstly I should highlight that Kodak Australia staff have been very supportive with their assistance and have made a number of excellent suggestions which we are currently trialling.

From the other responses it seems that Photo-Flo has been used by a number of organisations in the final rinse for years . One organisation has installed 'squeegees' - a special polyprop type compound made in France on another type of processor . And yes, all the jibes about Adelaide's hard water are, unfortunately, true.

Heather Brown
Manager, Image Services
State Library of South Australia
Box 419 GPO
Adelaide 5001
South Australia

Ph: 08 82077317
Fax: 08 82077274
Email: Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au


Message #162

Date: Feb 26 2001 01:36:24 EST
From: "Brown, Heather (SLSA)" <Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au>
Subject: Water spots and rinse agents

The Image Services section of the State Library of South Australia occasionally experiences problems with small water spots appearing on its master microfilms. The Prostar processor has been checked for optimum 'roller squeeze' and as Adelaide, South Australia is renowned for its supply of 'hard' water, we are also checking out the use of rinse agents. The RLG 'Guide to defects on first generation camera negatives' (complied by none other than Bob Mottice) refers to 'photo-flo rinse'. Has anyone had experience in using rinse agents to overcome this problem? If yes, what has been the effect? Are there implications for rinse agent chemicals on the master films?

Heather Brown
Manager, Image Services
State Library of South Australia
Box 419 GPO
Adelaide 5001
South Australia

Ph: 08 82077317
Fax: 08 82077274
Email: Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au


Message #161

Date: Feb 06 2001 08:42:15 EST
From: "Walter Cybulski" <CYBULSKW@mail.nlm.nih.gov>
Subject: Informal survey / film readers

If anyone out there has experience with any of the following readers (good or bad), please contact me OFF-LIST (my e-mail address is listed below). I am only interested in hearing from people who actually use the readers, not manufacturers or sales representatives. Application is 35mm silver gelatin microfilm (print master) frame by frame inspection in a lab setting. I am looking for input with regard to the following areas:

Some of the models I have received literature about are:

  1. Zeutschel Omnia
  2. Super Carrel-M
  3. Indus Source Document Reader Model 4601-11
  4. Gideon 900
  5. Gideon 1000 Library Researcher
  6. RF35 Motorized Microfilm Reader
  7. Indus Universal Front Projection Reader Model 4601-A3 U
  8. Eye Com VMV-RF-35 Reader

If you use one of these, or any other microfilm reader that is currently being manufactured and sold, and you are satisfied/dissatisfied with its performance, please let me know.

Many thanks.

Walter Cybulski
Head, Quality Assurance Unit
Preservation & Collection Management Section
National Library of Medicine
Bldg. 38, Room B1-E21
8600 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20894

301-496-2690
<walter_cybulski@nlm.nih.gov> underscore between first_last names


Message #160

Date: Jan 24 2001 16:33:16 EST
From: schubert <isch@loc.gov>
Subject: Request for proposals

The Library of Congress is soliciting offers for preparation of materials for microfilming and microfilming of those prepared materials. Vendors may find the requirments in RFP S-LC01022 on the Library's Contracts & Logistics Website: http://lcweb.loc.gov/contracts/request.html. Offers are due on February 22, 2001.

Irene Schubert, Chief
Preservation Reformatting Division
Library of Congress,
Washington, DC 20540

Telephone: (202) 707-5918
FAX: (202) 707-6449
E-mail: isch@loc.gov

Usual disclaimers apply


Message #159

Date: Dec 12 2000 15:42:02 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject: RE: microforms: density variations

Dear "At a loss",

You are the "victim" of the high contrast nature of direct duplicating film. Depending upon which type of direct duplicating film you are using (2468 or 2470) the contrast (technically referred to as gamma) expands the density range of the first generation camera negative. Therefore, if you have a range of 0.25 on your camera negative, you could easily have a range of 0.50 on the second generation. This is exactly why you should monitor only the clear areas of your second generation negative and NOT the dark areas. You will be forever chasing your tail if you try to make sense out of the dark areas on a second generation negative. The clear area density of a second generation master should fall between 0.15 and 0.20 for best tonal reproduction.

Also be aware that Kodak's 2470 has lower gamma (contrast) than 2468 and that the 2470 has a warm sepia tone which absorbs blue light. This blue light absorption causes the master to "appear" darker to the film onto which you're printing. The 2468 is neutral in tone and has a lower printing density than the 2470.

In other words...given the same clear area visual density on both products, the two will behave differently when printing these masters onto third generation film stock) silver or vesicular.

Regards,

Robert Mottice

From: Julie Dees[SMTP:jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us]
Reply To: microforms@lists.uoregon.edu
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 2:56 PM
To: Microlink Discussion List; Microforms Discussion List
Subject: microforms: density variations

Please accept my apology for cross-posting.

My question for the week:

We have noticed lately that the density of our copy negatives is varying greatly from our masters' readings. The density readings are fairly consistent throughout the master rolls (between 0.9 and 1.2). They are also fairly consistent throughout the copy negative rolls, but the light images are becoming lighter and the dark images are becoming darker (between 0.6 and 1.5). We have not seen a loss of focus in the copy negatives, so it seems that we are still achieving good contact between the master and the copy negative rolls as they run through the duplicator. Is this a typical shift in density, and if not, what might be causing it? Our processor operator and I are at a loss.

Many thanks for any and all assistance,

Julie Dees
Archival Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department of Archives and History


Message #158

Date: Dec 12 2000 14:57:13 EST
From: Julie Dees <jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us>
Subject: density variations

Please accept my apology for cross-posting.

My question for the week:

We have noticed lately that the density of our copy negatives is varying greatly from our masters' readings. The density readings are fairly consistent throughout the master rolls (between 0.9 and 1.2). They are also fairly consistent throughout the copy negative rolls, but the light images are becoming lighter and the dark images are becoming darker (between 0.6 and 1.5). We have not seen a loss of focus in the copy negatives, so it seems that we are still achieving good contact between the master and the copy negative rolls as they run through the duplicator. Is this a typical shift in density, and if not, what might be causing it? Our processor operator and I are at a loss.

Many thanks for any and all assistance,

Julie Dees
Archival Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department of Archives and History


Message #157

Date: Dec 07 2000 18:29:02 EST
From: "Frederic J. Grevin" <grevinf@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: digitising microfilm / msg. 147/148

In reply to your posting:

Mr. Grevin couldn't know that there is a new system for digitising microfiche available, developed and produced by a german company. I didn't know, but it's always interesting to hear about new developments. At AIIM 2000, there were several fascinating exhibits from European vendors, such as a paper document scanner that could generate zoned color and black-and-white images simultaneously.

I intend to visit DRS' exhibit at AIIM 2001 (Herr Brueck, please let me know where you are --- AIIM is just too large!).

Best regards.

Fred

Frederic J. Grevin, Technology Coordinator
The City of New York, Department of Finance
GREVINF@DOFLAN.CI.NYC.NY.US
GREVINF@EARTHLINK.NET

31 Chambers Street (room 201)
New York NY 10007 USA
phone: (212) 788-8519
fax: (212) 788-8521

The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the policy of the City of New York


Message #156

Date: Dec 06 2000 07:48:18 EST
From: Andr=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?= Brueck <brueck@drs-online.de>
Subject: digitising microfilm / msg. 147/148

In reply to an answer from Frederic J. Grevin

Mr. Grevin couldn't know that there is a new system for digitising microfiche available, developed and produced by a german company. the first difference in order to common systems (like wicks & wilson, mekel and sunrise) is that the "digitizer" uses a ccd-fullframe chip instead of a ccd-line. the advantage: because each digitization of a document on a microfiche is a self-contained process, the "digitizer" can identifies the density of each document. the result: better digital copies the second difference is that the "digitizer" uses a feeder for about 200 microfiches or microjackets. the "digitizer" is able to work 23.5h/day without an operator.

The third difference is that the "digitizer" produces only greyscale-files, so you got the full information of the documents (if you have really bad ones) or you can decide to reduce them to bitonal images after the digitisation. The throughput is about 1,5-2sec/doc at every reduction (up to 48x). The "digitizer" was developed concerning the specifications of a large company in germany with an archive about 1,5 million microfiches (24x,40x,48x) containing alltogether about 70 million documents. It is still planed to show the "digitizer" during the AIIM-Show 2001 in new york. For further information, please contact: info@drs-online.de

best regards

Andr? Brueck
DRS Germany

fon: +49 (0)203 306 3456
fax: +49 (0)203 306 2349

please contact me for further information


Message #155

Date: Dec 05 2000 12:12:07 EST
From: "Walker, Alison" <Alison.Walker@bl.uk>
Subject: FW: NPO Guide to Preservation microfilming

The NPO Guide to Preservation Microfilming ( ISBN 0 7123 4701 1) has now been published. Edited by the NPO Working Group on Preservation Microfilming, it succeeds the Mellon Microfilming Manual published by the > National Preservation Office in 1992 . The revised Guide provides practical assistance to library and archive professionals involved in the > creation, storage and use of microfilm for preservation, including filming as a first step to digitisation. It also functions as a benchmark > by which funding bodies can assess applications.

Copies of the Guide can be ordered from the National Preservation Office, British Library, 96 Euston Road, London NW1 2DB, or by email npo@bl.uk. The price is ?15.


Message #154

Date: Nov 30 2000 12:44:57 EST
From: Julie Dees <jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us>
Subject: archival processors

Thanks for the helpful responses I received off-list regarding archival processors. Essentially, it has been confirmed that Allen is restructuring their business and the only other deep-tank processors are available from Houston Fearless or manufacturers willing to convert cinematic/photograhic processors to handle microfilm.

Would anyone be willing or able to give me a first-hand testimonial on Houston Fearless microfilm processors? Our Department has had no experience with the brand, and we need more information before we commit serious financial resources to an unknown product. I want to consider all of our options very carefully.

Many thanks for all assistance, as always,

Julie Dees
Archival Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department of Archives and History


Message #153

Date: Nov 29 2000 15:31:06 EST
From: Julie Dees <jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us>
Subject: deep-tank microfilm processors

My apologies for cross-posting again?

Thanks for the helpful responses about 35mm planetary cameras. My next question: are there only two companies still manufacturing deep-tank microfilm processors (Allen and Houston Fearless)? Our Department processes many 35mm and 16mm rolls filmed by the Department and other state agencies per day, so we need a larger processor than the tabletop versions offered by Kodak and Agfa, and I want to be sure that we have considered all of our options before working out our budget for next year (all of our equipment seems to be dying at the same time).

Many thanks again for any and all assistance,

Julie Dees
Archival Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department of Archives and History


Message #152

Date: Nov 29 2000 09:52:41 EST
From: Julie Dees <jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us>
Subject: 35mm planetary cameras

I apologize for cross-posting.

The Mississippi Department of Archives and History may have to purchase a basic 35mm planetary camera to replace our ailing MRD2 in the near future, and the only options I have discovered lately are refurbished MRD2s and high-end cameras like the Zeutschels. Are there other options available? Is there such a thing as a new, basic, 35mm planetary camera these days, or are we basically left with a choice between old, used cameras for which we may have trouble finding parts, and new, high-end cameras requiring serious financial commitments?

Many thanks in advance for any hints,

Julie Dees
Archival Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department of Archives and History


Message #151

Date: Nov 27 2000 09:59:15 EST
From: "Jane Cullinane" <JCullinane@csl.ctstateu.edu>
Subject: Position available

Please pass this advertisement to any interested persons. We are still accepting applications.

CONNECTICUT STATE LIBRARY

PROJECT LIBRARIAN

The Connecticut State Library is now accepting applications for a durational project librarian position that is available for immediate filling. Assigned to the Connecticut Newspaper Project, this full-time position is funded through April, 2002 via a grant from The National Endowment for the Humanities.

Duties include: Overseeing the operation of the Connecticut Newspaper Project (CNP) microfilming phase including supervising staff, coordinating newspaper loans and returns, performing technical inspection of microfilm and performing cataloging activities. Training will be provided.

Required: M.L.S. degree from an American Library Association accredited program; ability to work harmoniously with others; ability to lift heavy volumes and possession of a valid driver's license required. Preferred: Knowledge of OCLC, preservation techniques and union listing; familiarity with newspaper and/or serials collections. Starting Salary: $44,896 with fringe benefits.

Anticipated hire date: as soon as possible.

Applications: A position description with full duties and complete qualifications, and State of Connecticut Application Form PLD-1 are available upon request or you may visit the Connecticut State Library website at www.cslib.org/jobs.htm. Initial close date is November 13, 2000; this position will remain open until filled. If you would like to apply for this unique employment opportunity to join a skilled team of dedicated professionals, please submit letter of application with resume and State of CT PLD-1 application to David Peck, Human Resources/Affirmative Action Program Manager, Connecticut State Library, 231 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106. Qualified women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, veterans and older persons are strongly encouraged to apply.

The Connecticut State Library is an EEO/AA employer.

HR/AAO

ProjLBNCNP

10/16/00


Message #150

Date: Nov 23 2000 05:49:11 EST
From: aghowell@ozemail.com.au
Subject: Early newspapers online

David Adams' enquiry on the digitising of newspapers on microfilm is an area where I have a long-standing interest. Subscribers to linkmicro will probably know about the Australian Cooperative Digitisation Project (http://www.nla.gov.au/ferg/). Not only can you view a number of early Australian newspapers from this site but also follow links to papers and articles about the techniques used to digitise them.

For some background, the article titled 'Film scanning of newspaper collections' in RLG DigiNews that may be of interest. It's at http://www.rlg.org/preserv/diginews/diginews2.html#filmscanning.

In turn, this was a summary of 'Preservation digitising of newspapers' published in International Preservation News 16: pp. 24-28 and available from Internet: URL http://www.ifla.org/VI/4/news/16-98.htm#10. My (author's updated) version is also available from Internet: URL http://www.ozemail.com.au/~aghowell/papers/pdn.htm. Regrettably, this is getting a bit 'long in the tooth' and needs updating particularly as some of the links have died. But it may suggest some areas to investigate.

I urge David to publish what the NLNZ decides to do on microlink and elsewhere. I'd be particularly interested in keeping in touch.

Regards

Alan G Howell
7 Bath Place
PORT MELBOURNE 3027 Australia

Telephone: +61 (03) 9646 7446
Mobile: 041 834 9601
Facsimile: +61 (03) 9646 7646
Email: aghowell@ozemail.com.au


Message #149

Date: Nov 22 2000 19:00:34 EST
From: "David Adams" <David.Adams@natlib.govt.nz>
Subject: Early newspapers online

We are commencing a project to digitise some early newspapers from microfilm and present these on the Internet I would like to see some examples of digitised early newspapers online. So far I have seen examples of periodicals, serials and manuscripts but very few examples of early newspapers. I am particularly interested to see what file formats are being used and 'viewers' that are required at the desktop and how the user accesses these collections online. The example I have seen so far is: http://www.newspaperarchive.com/ which uses a "Lizradtech - DjVu" viewer.

Thanks

David Adams
Team Leader Copying Services
National Library of New Zealand

+64 4 4743151

Visit "Timeframes" New Zealands leading source of heritage images http://timeframes.natlib.govt.nz/

www.natlib.govt.nz


Message #148

Date: Nov 17 2000 17:30:12 EST
From: "Frederic J. Grevin" <grevinf@earthlink.net>
Subject: Digitising microfilm

In reply to a posting to the Micrographics Listserv on your behalf:

Does anyone know of any systems for digitizing microfilm and microfiche? Jeremy Hunsinger

yes, Jeremy, there are two types of microfilm digitising systems ("scanners"). Which to choose depends on your needs.

One category of scanners systems is intended to digitise a very large number of film images in as short a time as possible. Wicks & Wilson, SunRise Imaging, and Meckel Engineering/HoustonFearless 76 scanners are in this category. Typically, these scanners are bought by commercial conversion service bureaus. They are fairly complex to program and to connect, as well as rather expensive (US $50,000 to US $150,000). But in the context of massive conversions, they are very cost-effective.

The other category of scanner systems is intended to digitise a relatively small number of images, in a situation where time is somewhat less important. Within this category are three subcategories.

The first sub-category is what you might call "computer mimics". The scanner is enclosed in a case that greatly resembles a tower computer, and it is entirely controlled by software. Fuji's "M-Drive" and Kodak's "Digital Science Intelligent Microimage Scanner". They are relatively fast and offer a good deal of control, BUT they only scan 16mm microfilm in cartridges. They cost typically about US $20,000.

The second sub-category consists of machines that resemble, or are derived from, microforms reader-printers. In the United States, Canon and Minolta are the main vendors. These machines have the advantages that they accept many different types of microforms, and users who are not very computer-literate or computer-comfortable find them easier to use (their controls are usually keypads, buttons, slides, etc.). But they are relatively slow, compared to the preceding devices. These machines cost about US $16,000.

The third sub-category, which to my knowledge includes only one vendor (ScreenScan), consists of a device that you, or a Vendor, add on to an existing microform reader or reader-printer. ScreenScan devices (there are several versions) cost between US $6,000 and US $15,000, depending on which version and what equipment you are buying.

Again, all of these devices have their strengths and weaknesses, and which one best meets your requirements is for you to decide.

Best regards.

{HYPERLINK "/US/en/business/integratedimaging/ims.shtml"}

Fred (Frederic J. Grevin, Technology Coordinator)
The City of New York, Department of Finance
GREVINF@DOFLAN.CN.CI.NYC.NY.US
GREVINF@EARTHLINK.NET

31 Chambers Street (room 201)
New York NY 10007 USA
phone: (212) 788-8519
fax: (212) 788-8521

The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the policy of the City of New York


Message #147

Date: Nov 13 2000 19:51:58 EST
From: "Brown, Heather (SLSA)" <Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au>
Subject: Digitising microfilm

The following query is posted on behalf of Jeremy Hunsinger [mailto:jhuns@vt.edu] with permission.

Heather Brown
Manager, Image Services
State Library of South Australia
Box 419 GPO Adelaide 5001 South Australia

Ph: 61 8 82077317 Fax: 61 8 82077274
Email: Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au

Does anyone know of any systems for digitizing microfilm and microfiche ? Jeremy Hunsinger http://www.cddc.vt.edu

Instructor of Political Science Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Webmaster/Manager CDDC http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/cyber

526 Major Williams Hall 0130 http://www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy --my homepage Virginia Tech (yes i need to update it)

Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540)-231-761


Message #146

Date: Nov 13 2000 16:31:02 EST
From: "John F. Dean" <jfd5@cornell.edu>
Subject: microfilm and Nicholson Baker

Dear Colleagues,

Mr Baker's piece in the New Yorker (July 24th, 2000) is certainly provocative, but it contains some factual errors. For example, newsprint in a bound volume actually deteriorates faster than single leaves because of acid migration, and all scientific evidence---and even simple observation--- demonstrates the fallacy that newspaper lasts indefinitely. Baker's view is also somewhat self-serving. He may well prefer to use the original newspapers, but he misses the point when he castigates libraries for microfilming and discarding them. Libraries are charged with the responsibility to collect, preserve, and make accessible, not for the short-term---which seems to be all that concerns Mr Baker---but for as long as we possibly can. By creating a good film, we can ensure that access is distributed by making copies of the film for other libraries. We are well aware that microfilm is an awkward medium to use, but for the time being at least, it is the best guarantee we have that the textual content of deteriorating material will survive.

An important point made by Mr Baker however, is that much of the microfilm he says he reviewed was poorly produced and difficult to read. Of course, Baker is correct in that a lot of poor quality film has been produced over the years and this is regrettable, especially when the original material has been discarded. In recent years, the strict application of standards, especially for grant-funded projects, has for the most part remedied these deficiencies. Some of us have been working for many years to promote the application of international standards, especially in developing nations. Microfilm is still the only trustworthy preservation reformatting medium for large groups of materials. Cornell University's position is that for preservation purposes, microfilm is the safest medium, and although the Department of Preservation and Conservation has pioneered the use of digital imaging technology, we believe that to secure the best preservation and best access we must utilize hybrid projects that apply both technologies. I am grateful to Mr Baker for drawing attention to the issues and stimulating discussion, even though his position seems antithetical to what research libraries are about. Perhaps in order to serve Mr Baker's objectives to preserve original newspapers and our own to create space in our libraries, we should send our original newspapers to Mr Baker after we have microfilmed them.

John F. Dean
Director
Department of Preservation and Conservation
215 Olin Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853

Telephone: (607)255-9687
Fax: (607)254-7493


Message #145

Date: Nov 13 2000 13:01:58 EST
From: "David Adams" <David.Adams@natlib.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Save the front page Sydney Morning Herald 11/09/00

For further background to this.

Nicholson Baker wrote a comprehensive article in the "New Yorker" July 2000 about his plight to save newspapers. What was of note were the 'private newspaper banks' that purchase old newspapers to pull to pieces to sell pages.

David Adams
Team Leader Copying Services
National Library of New Zealand

+64 4 4743151

Visit "Timeframes" New Zealands leading source of heritage images http://timeframes.natlib.govt.nz/

"L Varendorff" <lvarendorff@bigpond.com> 11/13/00 03:33

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have detailed below a listing on the USA Records Management Listserv the following newspaper article form the Sydney Morning Herald.

Does this mean the end to microfilming of newspapers?? :-)

Regards,

Laurie

Sydney Morning Herald 11/09/00

Save the front page

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0011/09/text/features10.html

When the British Library decided to dump a historic archive of American newspapers, the best-selling novelist Nicholson Baker was so horrified he decided to buy it. He is now engaged in a one-man campaign to rescue "the raw store of history' that microfilm and the internet promise to destroy.

Susanna Herbert reports from New Hampshire (The Daily Telegraph, London)

Nicholson Baker's favourite copy of the weekly San Francesco Argonaut stands out from the other newspapers he has saved because it is grey and grubby. He loves it - and love is not too strong a word - for its looks. " Why do you think this is here?" he demands. "And why is it this strange colour?"

Age? I venture. The passage of time? "No!" he says, a tall, bearded, bespectacled prophet deciphering a sacred text. "It's smoke damage. Earthquake damage. This one must have been at the top of the stack in the Argonaut offices on the day of the great San Francisco quake and fire. Just look at the date - April 14 1906. It all fits. The others are clean, they don't have the damage but, this . . . ah, it's incredible. Its own history. That's why you need to keep originals."

Mr Daniel Lawrance [Laurie] Varendorff, ARMA

Consultant/Trainer/Tutor/Presenter: Information and Records Management Tutor: Edith Cowan University - Subject: Public RecordKeeping

The Varendorff Consultancy ABN: 77 836 801 165

GST: 77 836 801 165

27 Ronneby Rd

Lesmurdie

Western Australia 6076 AUSTRALIA

President: Western Australian Branch, Records Management Association of Australia "RMAA"

Federal Director: Records Management Association of Australia "RMAA" Chair: Technology and Industry Standards Committee - RMAA, WA Branch Chair: WA State Records Bill 1999 Committee - RMAA, WA Branch

PHONE : +61 8 9291 6925
FAX : +61 8 9291 9141
MOBILE : +61 0417 094 147
EMAIL : Laurie.Varendorff@Bigpond.com

********************************

I M P O R T A N T I N F O R M A T I O N

This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information and are intended only for the use of the individual/s to whom they are addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or authorised agent, you are hereby notified that you may not use the information and that any dissemination, distribution, copying or disclose to anyone of the communication is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify Mr Laurie Varendorff immediately on + 61 8 9291 6925 or by sending a copy to Laurie.Varendorff@Bigpond.com and destroy the original and all copies held in either electronic or physical format and delete the message from your e-mail inbox. No changes to this communication or its content or attachments are authorised. The unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail, or any information it contains, is prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offence. Whilst we have virus scanning devices on our computers we do not represent that this communication (including any files attached) is free from computer viruses or other faults or defects. We will not be held liable to you or to any other person for loss and damage (including direct, consequential or economic loss or damage) however caused and whether by negligence or otherwise which may result directly or indirectly from the receipt or use of this communication or any files attached to this communication. It is the responsibility of the person opening any files attached to this communication to scan those files for computer viruses. ****************************

To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com


Message #144

Date: Nov 13 2000 06:26:00 EST
From: "Walter Cybulski" <CYBULSKW@mail.nlm.nih.gov>
Subject: RE: Save the front page Sydney Morning Herald 11/09/00

Susanna Herbert's comment that "microfilm and the internet... promise to destroy the raw store of history" is erroneous, misleading and, in my opinion, a stupid and irresponsible one for an alleged "journalist" to be making. There have been a few comments like this in the wake of the Baker article and there will undoubtedly be more. When the cheap smoke from the ten cent cap pistols of sensationlists like Herbert has cleared, wisdom will prevail. There is no end in sight for the need to create high quality microfilm of deteriorating research materials printed on cheap paper.

Walter Cybulski

"Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com> 11/13/00 07:44AM

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

Microfilm is very high in contrast (it doesn't have to be). It is difficult to retrieve. It requires special storage conditions. Many viewers or readers are poorly designed, built and maintained. And, to top it all off, a great deal of the world's microfilm was poorly produced.

With all these negative aspects, it is still the only truly archival storage medium. It is human-readable with an inexpensive handheld magnifier and skylight. It can be scanned, digitized and OCR'd. For these reasons, we don't think that it is "going away" for a very long time.

Producing, retrieving and viewing microfilm doesn't have to be a bad experience.

Robert Mottice
Bell & Howell/UMI

From: L Varendorff[SMTP:lvarendorff@bigpond.com]
Reply To: lvarendorff@bigpond.com
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 9:33 PM

To: MICROLINK LISTSERV

Subject: Save the front page Sydney Morning Herald 11/09/00

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have detailed below a listing on the USA Records Management Listserv the following newspaper article form the Sydney Morning Herald. Does this mean the end to microfilming of newspapers?? :-)

Regards,

Laurie

******************************************

Sydney Morning Herald 11/09/00

Save the front page

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0011/09/text/features10.html

When the British Library decided to dump a historic archive of American newspapers, the best-selling novelist Nicholson Baker was so horrified he decided to buy it. He is now engaged in a one-man campaign to rescue "the raw store of history' that microfilm and the internet promise to destroy. Susanna Herbert reports from New Hampshire (The Daily Telegraph, London)

Nicholson Baker's favourite copy of the weekly San Francesco Argonaut stands out from the other newspapers he has saved because it is grey and grubby. He loves it - and love is not too strong a word - for its looks. " Why do you think this is here?" he demands. "And why is it this strange colour?" Age? I venture. The passage of time? "No!" he says, a tall, bearded, bespectacled prophet deciphering a sacred text. "It's smoke damage. Earthquake damage. This one must have been at the top of the stack in the Argonaut offices on the day of the great San Francisco quake and fire. Just look at the date - April 14 1906. It all fits. The others are clean, they don't have the damage but, this . . . ah, it's incredible. Its own history. That's why you need to keep originals."

******************************************

Mr Daniel Lawrance [Laurie] Varendorff, ARMA

Consultant/Trainer/Tutor/Presenter: Information and Records Management

Tutor: Edith Cowan University - Subject: Public RecordKeeping

The Varendorff Consultancy
ABN: 77 836 801 165
GST: 77 836 801 165
27 Ronneby Rd
Lesmurdie
Western Australia 6076
AUSTRALIA

President: Western Australian Branch, Records Management Association of Australia "RMAA"

Federal Director: Records Management Association of Australia "RMAA"

Chair: Technology and Industry Standards Committee - RMAA, WA Branch

Chair: WA State Records Bill 1999 Committee - RMAA, WA Branch

PHONE : +61 8 9291 6925
FAX : +61 8 9291 9141
MOBILE : +61 0417 094 147
EMAIL : Laurie.Varendorff@Bigpond.com

********************************

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information and are intended only for the use of the individual/s to whom they are addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or authorised agent, you are hereby notified that you may not use the information and that any dissemination, distribution, copying or disclose to anyone of the communication is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify Mr Laurie Varendorff immediately on + 61 8 9291 6925 or by sending a copy to Laurie.Varendorff@Bigpond.com and destroy the original and all copies held in either electronic or physical format and delete the message from your e-mail inbox. No changes to this communication or its content or attachments are authorised. The unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail, or any information it contains, is prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offence. Whilst we have virus scanning devices on our computers we do not represent that this communication (including any files attached) is free from computer viruses or other faults or defects. We will not be held liable to you or to any other person for loss and damage (including direct, consequential or economic loss or damage) however caused and whether by negligence or otherwise which may result directly or indirectly from the receipt or use of this communication or any files attached to this communication. It is the responsibility of the person opening any files attached to this communication to scan those files for computer viruses.

To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com


Message #143

Date: Nov 13 2000 07:46:27 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject: RE: Save the front page Sydney Morning Herald 11/09/00

Microfilm is very high in contrast (it doesn't have to be). It is difficult to retrieve. It requires special storage conditions. Many viewers or readers are poorly designed, built and maintained. And, to top it all off, a great deal of the world's microfilm was poorly produced.

With all these negative aspects, it is still the only truly archival storage medium. It is human-readable with an inexpensive handheld magnifier and skylight. It can be scanned, digitized and OCR'd. For these reasons, we don't think that it is "going away" for a very long time.

Producing, retrieving and viewing microfilm doesn't have to be a bad experience.

Robert Mottice

Bell & Howell/UMI

From: L Varendorff[SMTP:lvarendorff@bigpond.com]
Reply To: lvarendorff@bigpond.com
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 9:33 PM
To: MICROLINK LISTSERV
Subject: Save the front page Sydney Morning Herald 11/09/00

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have detailed below a listing on the USA Records Management Listserv the following newspaper article form the Sydney Morning Herald.

Does this mean the end to microfilming of newspapers?? :-)

Regards,

Laurie

******************************************

Sydney Morning Herald 11/09/00

Save the front page

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0011/09/text/features10.html

When the British Library decided to dump a historic archive of American newspapers, the best-selling novelist Nicholson Baker was so horrified he decided to buy it. He is now engaged in a one-man campaign to rescue "the raw store of history' that microfilm and the internet promise to destroy.

Susanna Herbert reports from New Hampshire (The Daily Telegraph, London)

Nicholson Baker's favourite copy of the weekly San Francesco Argonaut stands out from the other newspapers he has saved because it is grey and grubby. He loves it - and love is not too strong a word - for its looks. " Why do you think this is here?" he demands. "And why is it this strange colour?" Age? I venture. The passage of time? "No!" he says, a tall, bearded, bespectacled prophet deciphering a sacred text. "It's smoke damage. Earthquake damage. This one must have been at the top of the stack in the Argonaut offices on the day of the great San Francisco quake and fire. Just look at the date - April 14 1906. It all fits. The others are clean, they don't have the damage but, this . . . ah, it's incredible. Its own history. That's why you need to keep originals."

******************************************

Mr Daniel Lawrance [Laurie] Varendorff, ARMA

Consultant/Trainer/Tutor/Presenter: Information and Records Management

Tutor: Edith Cowan University - Subject: Public RecordKeeping

The Varendorff Consultancy

ABN: 77 836 801 165

GST: 77 836 801 165

27 Ronneby Rd
Lesmurdie
Western Australia 6076
AUSTRALIA

President: Western Australian Branch, Records Management Association of Australia "RMAA" Federal Director: Records Management Association of Australia "RMAA" Chair: Technology and Industry Standards Committee - RMAA, WA Branch Chair: WA State Records Bill 1999 Committee - RMAA, WA Branch

PHONE : +61 8 9291 6925
FAX : +61 8 9291 9141
MOBILE : +61 0417 094 147
EMAIL : Laurie.Varendorff@Bigpond.com

********************************

I M P O R T A N T I N F O R M A T I O N

This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information and are intended only for the use of the individual/s to whom they are addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or authorised agent, you are hereby notified that you may not use the information and that any dissemination, distribution, copying or disclose to anyone of the communication is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify Mr Laurie Varendorff immediately on + 61 8 9291 6925 or by sending a copy to Laurie.Varendorff@Bigpond.com and destroy the original and all copies held in either electronic or physical format and delete the message from your e-mail inbox. No changes to this communication or its content or attachments are authorised. The unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail, or any information it contains, is prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offence. Whilst we have virus scanning devices on our computers we do not represent that this communication (including any files attached) is free from computer viruses or other faults or defects. We will not be held liable to you or to any other person for loss and damage (including direct, consequential or economic loss or damage) however caused and whether by negligence or otherwise which may result directly or indirectly from the receipt or use of this communication or any files attached to this communication. It is the responsibility of the person opening any files attached to this communication to scan those files for computer viruses.

To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com


Message #142

Date: Nov 12 2000 21:34:38 EST
From: "L Varendorff" <lvarendorff@bigpond.com>
Subject: Save the front page Sydney Morning Herald 11/09/00

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have detailed below a listing on the USA Records Management Listserv the following newspaper article form the Sydney Morning Herald.

Does this mean the end to microfilming of newspapers?? :-)

Regards,

Laurie

******************************************

Sydney Morning Herald 11/09/00

Save the front page

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0011/09/text/features10.html

When the British Library decided to dump a historic archive of American newspapers, the best-selling novelist Nicholson Baker was so horrified he decided to buy it. He is now engaged in a one-man campaign to rescue "the

raw

store of history' that microfilm and the internet promise to destroy.

Susanna Herbert reports from New Hampshire (The Daily Telegraph, London)

Nicholson Baker's favourite copy of the weekly San Francesco Argonaut stands out from the other newspapers he has saved because it is grey and grubby. He loves it - and love is not too strong a word - for its looks. " Why do you think this is here?" he demands. "And why is it this strange colour?"

Age? I venture. The passage of time? "No!" he says, a tall, bearded, bespectacled prophet deciphering a sacred text. "It's smoke damage.

Earthquake damage. This one must have been at the top of the stack in the Argonaut offices on the day of the great San Francisco quake and fire. Just look at the date - April 14 1906. It all fits. The others are clean, they

don't have the damage but, this . . . ah, it's incredible. Its own history. That's why you need to keep originals."

******************************************

Mr Daniel Lawrance [Laurie] Varendorff, ARMA

Consultant/Trainer/Tutor/Presenter: Information and Records Management Tutor: Edith Cowan University - Subject: Public RecordKeeping

The Varendorff Consultancy ABN: 77 836 801 165

GST: 77 836 801 165

27 Ronneby Rd

Lesmurdie

Western Australia 6076 AUSTRALIA

President: Western Australian Branch, Records Management Association of Australia "RMAA"

Federal Director: Records Management Association of Australia "RMAA" Chair: Technology and Industry Standards Committee - RMAA, WA Branch Chair: WA State Records Bill 1999 Committee - RMAA, WA Branch

PHONE : +61 8 9291 6925
FAX : +61 8 9291 9141
MOBILE : +61 0417 094 147
EMAIL : Laurie.Varendorff@Bigpond.com

********************************

I M P O R T A N T I N F O R M A T I O N

This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information and are intended only for the use of the individual/s to whom they are addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or authorised agent, you are hereby notified that you may not use the information and that any dissemination, distribution, copying or disclose to anyone of the communication is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify Mr Laurie Varendorff immediately on + 61 8 9291 6925 or by sending a copy to Laurie.Varendorff@Bigpond.com and destroy the original and all copies held in either electronic or physical format and delete the message from your e-mail inbox. No changes to this communication or its content or attachments are authorised. The unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail, or any information it contains, is prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offence. Whilst we have virus scanning devices on our computers we do not represent that this communication (including any files attached) is free from computer viruses or other faults or defects. We will not be held liable to you or to any other person for loss and damage (including direct, consequential or economic loss or damage) however caused and whether by negligence or otherwise which may result directly or indirectly from the receipt or use of this communication or any files attached to this communication. It is the responsibility of the person opening any files attached to this communication to scan those files for computer viruses.


Message #141

Date: Oct 18 2000 01:03:25 EDT
From: "L Varendorff" <lvarendorff@bigpond.com>
Subject: NEW SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP AT AIIM Film-based Imaging Association .

Ladies and Gentlemen:

You may care to visit the new sub group at AIIM at http://www.aiim.org/fbi/FBIA.CFM The new group is know as Film-based Imaging Association (FbIA) and worth a look.

Regards,

Laurie
Mr Daniel Lawrance [Laurie] Varendorff, ARMA
Consultant/Trainer/Tutor/Presenter: Information and Records Management Tutor: Edith Cowan University - Subject: Public RecordKeeping

The Varendorff Consultancy ABN: 77 836 801 165

GST: 77 836 801 165

27 Ronneby Rd
Lesmurdie
Western Australia 6076 AUSTRALIA

President: Western Australian Branch, Records Management Association of Australia "RMAA"

Federal Director: Records Management Association of Australia "RMAA" Chair: Technology and Industry Standards Committee - RMAA, WA Branch Chair: WA State Records Bill 1999 Committee - RMAA, WA Branch

PHONE : 61 8 9291 6925
FAX : 61 8 9291 9141
MOBILE : 0417 094 147
EMAIL : Laurie.Varendorff@Bigpond.com

********************************

I M P O R T A N T I N F O R M A T I O N

This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information and are intended only for the use of the individual/s to whom they are addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or authorised agent, you are hereby notified that you may not use the information and that any dissemination, distribution, copying or disclose to anyone of the communication is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify Mr Laurie Varendorff immediately on + 61 8 9291 6925 or by sending a copy to Laurie.Varendorff@Bigpond.com and destroy the original and all copies held in either electronic or physical format and delete the message from your e-mail inbox. No changes to this communication or its content or attachments are authorised. The unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail, or any information it contains, is prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offence. Whilst we have virus scanning devices on our computers we do not represent that this communication (including any files attached) is free from computer viruses or other faults or defects. We will not be held liable to you or to any other person for loss and damage (including direct, consequential or economic loss or damage) however caused and whether by negligence or otherwise which may result directly or indirectly from the receipt or use of this communication or any files attached to this communication. It is the responsibility of the person opening any files attached to this communication to scan those files for computer viruses.


Message #140

Date: Oct 06 2000 07:43:32 EDT
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject: RE: storing microfilm with paper

Dorothy,

I suggest you contact James Reilly at the Image Permanence Institute in Rochester, New York at 716-475-5199. He should be able to address your concerns.

Regards,

Robert Mottice

From: Blunt, Dorothy[SMTP:DBlunt@mail.dos.state.fl.us]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 8:29 AM
To: 'Linkmicro@listbot.com'
Subject: storing microfilm with paper

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

Greetings -

I'm trying to track down all the reasons why it is a bad idea to store microfilm (all and any types) in the same storage area as paper documents > (permanent/archival).

Thanks!

Dolly Blunt
Preservation Officer
Florida State Archives (USA)

> To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com


Message #139

Date: Oct 05 2000 10:41:43 EDT
From: Hugh Smith <firelock@early.com>
Subject: Re: storing microfilm with paper

A primary reason for separating paper documents from microfilm is the fact that microfilm requires a much stricter environmental control. We typically build vaults for microfilm and we utilize an environmental system which can deliver 30% Relative Humidity along with 68? F at constant state. We utilize HEPA filters to remove dust and air-born particles which can include bacteria and mold which can cause contamination of the media. This type of environment in the vault chamber virtually eliminates redox blemishes.

We also provide a 2% make-up air requirement to remove off gassing from the microfilm of dichromates. These dichromates are known carcinogens and should be removed from a typically closed vault chamber.

Paper often brings in bacteria and molds into the vault environment but few are concerned about the environmental control for paper. Vaults and storage rooms tend to lower their standards to the least valuable media stored within. By mixing paper and microfilm it is doubtful that a true environmentally friendly environment for the microfilm would be created.

While there may be exceptions to the rule, 15 years of real world vaulting experience with microfilm, and 25 years of dealing with securing vital records and media that management tends to take the low road whenever possible.

To create the right kind of environment you will need to utilize a Cargocaire Dessicant Dehumidifier which can be supplied by your local mechanical contractor. If they are unfamiliar with this equipment, I can provide more details. It is important to avoid cycling the media with temperature and humidity changes. Those who tend to store at lower temperatures to avoid dealing with the humidity end up cycling the temperature each and every time they reference the media and bring it out

of the vault.

Paper has none of these concerns so it is inefficient to combine the two in one environment unless you will control it to the microfilm level.

FIRELOCK Fireproof Modular Vaults
Hugh Smith at (610) 756-4440
Kutztown, Pennsylvania

See our Web Site at WWW.FIRELOCK.COM

From: "Blunt, Dorothy" <DBlunt@mail.dos.state.fl.us> > Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:29:26 -0400

To: "'Linkmicro@listbot.com'" <Linkmicro@listbot.com> > Subject: storing microfilm with paper

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

Greetings -

I'm trying to track down all the reasons why it is a bad idea to store microfilm (all and any types) in the same storage area as paper documents (permanent/archival).

Thanks!

Dolly Blunt
Preservation Officer
Florida State Archives (USA)

To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com


Message #138

Date: Oct 05 2000 10:17:24 EDT
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Area_de_Investigacion_y_Documentacion_Historica_Parque_de_?=
Subject: digitization microfilm 16mm

Mr. Mottice:

We have fingerprints registrations in a 16mm master negative microfilms, with a reduction ratio of 41x, and made without archivistic quality. We want to digitize them, but our scanner (Kodak RFS 3570 Plus Film Scanner) its settle since 35 mm film size. How can we digitize them with high resolution at the detail?

Thank for your atention,

Regards,

Valeria Principe
Area de Investigacion y Documentacion Historica Parque de ESpa?a
Rosario-Argentina


Message #137

Date: Oct 05 2000 08:29:09 EDT
From: "Blunt, Dorothy" <DBlunt@mail.dos.state.fl.us>
Subject: storing microfilm with paper

Greetings -

I'm trying to track down all the reasons why it is a bad idea to store microfilm (all and any types) in the same storage area as paper documents (permanent/archival).

Thanks!

Dolly Blunt
Preservation Officer
Florida State Archives (USA)


Message #136

Date: Oct 03 2000 13:51:56 EDT
From: "Howard,Carmen" <howardc@oclc.org>
Subject: RE: Silverlock alternative

Dear Cathy and all,

When the Image Permanence Institute (IPI) stopped making Silverlock back in 1997, Preservation Resources undertook the task of manufacturing the polysulfide solution using IPI's formula because we had made a commitment to the preservation community to provide this important service. Preservation Resources is a not-for-profit company (a division of Online Computer Library Center, Inc. - OCLC) that specializes in preservation reformatting.

Since 1998, we have built the necessary infrastructure to create the solution and produce it and have been sending samples to IPI for certification. Preservation Resources offers polysulfide treatment to our microfilming clients, but also will treat existing reels with the solution.

ANSI does have some related standards. One standard of use may be ANSI/ISO 12206-1995 (also known as ANSI/NAPM IT9.15-1997) - "Methods for the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Chemical Conversion of Silver Images Against Oxidation". IPI's final report was called "Sulfiding Protection for Silver Images: Final Report to the Office of Preservation, National Endowment for the Humanities" and was published in 1991.

Preservation Resources has also put a lot of information about polysulfide treatment up on our website. There is specifically a polysulfide Q&A up at (http://www.oclc.org/oclc/presres/q_and_a.htm).

I hope that this is helpful information. If anyone has any further questions, please feel free to contact me directly.

Sincerely,

Carmen Howard
Manager, Preservation Services
Preservation Resources 9 S. Commerce Way Bethlehem, PA 18017 USA

1-800-773-7222 1-610-758-8700 (voice) 1-610-758-9700 (fax)
www.oclc.org/oclc/presres

-----Original Message-----

From: Cathleen Mook [mailto:cathy@mail.uflib.ufl.edu] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 9:57 AM
To: 'linkmicro@listbot.com'
Subject: Silverlock alternative

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

Good morning,

My name is Cathy Mook. I chair the University of Florida's Preservation Department and I am currently working on a microfilming RFP [request for proposal]. Since I am relatively new to the technicalities of microfilming, I have a few questions about Silverlock (tm) and polysulfide treatments in general which I am hoping that others on this list can help me answer. Having searched the list archives, I was surprised to find that this group has not touched on this topic previously.

Anyway, here are my questions:

  1. Since IPI discontinued formulating Silverlock (tm) in 1997, what have various microfilming service bureaus who offer polysulfide treatments as an option been using instead? Have they been using some 'alternative formulations' or have they stopped offering the treatment?
  2. What kinds of tests, if any, can be performed on these 'alternative formulations' to ensure that the film is being treated how it would be if Silverlock (tm) was being used?
  3. Is there an ANSI or AIIM standard that I can reference regarding polysulfide treatments?
  4. Did IPI generate a final report about Silverlock (tm) that I can read to learn more about the process, how it works, its specifics, etc.?
  5. In your experience are many libraries/archives/museums requesting that polysulfide treatments be performed on their film? Only some? Or very few? More simply put, what percentage of institutions which regularly use microfilm as a reformatting option for their brittle paper collections use Silverlock (tm) on their master and printing negatives?

Also, I will gratefully take any and all information about how other libraries/archives/museums are dealing with the polysulfide treatment question in their RFP's.

Thanks,

Cathy

Cathleen L. Mook
Head, Preservation Department
Smathers Library
University of Florida

Box 117007
Gainesville, Fl 32611

cathy@mail.uflib.ufl.edu
352-392-6962 (voice)
352-392-6597 (fax)

To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com


Message #135

Date: Oct 01 2000 19:10:03 EDT
From: Korhonen Lauri <Lauri.Korhonen@dcilgps.qld.gov.au>
Subject: RE: Spacing between microfilm image area.

Hi again,

Thank you for your prompt responses on the spacing issue, it seems that yes the spacing has been adjusted in some instances for whatever reasons and in some instances propably should be left at approx 5mm due to the possibility of future digitization of the films?. I personally have not had the need to adjust the spacing on our 35mm Zeutschel or Schaut cameras, the original question at hand came from another microfilm agency. Thanks again for the information.

Regards

Lauri

-----Original Message-----

From: Mottice, Robert [mailto:robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com] Sent: Thursday, 28 September 2000 3:10 PM
To: 'Linkmicro@listbot.com'; 'Korhonen Lauri'

Subject: RE: Spacing between microfilm image area.

Just checked a recent breakdown of New York Times newspaper on 35mm microfilm and the spacing is approximately 1.7mm. At one time, it was even narrower than that. We closed the gap that much strictly to minimize film cost when making thousands of third generation copies.

Because the old Recordak cameras (MRD's) are too variable to permit such close tolerances, we modified all our cameras with after-market precision advance mechanisms. We also added solid-state voltage controllers, quartz lamps with barn doors and digital voltage readouts

Regards,

Robert Mottice

From: Korhonen Lauri[SMTP:Lauri.Korhonen@dcilgps.qld.gov.au]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 9:15 PM
To: 'Linkmicro@listbot.com'
Subject: Spacing between microfilm image area.

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

Hi All,

My name is Lauri Korhonen from the Queensland State Archives, my question is in regard to the minimum allowable spacing between the image frames on 35mm microfilm. I have checked some standads and in them they only discuss the > relevant spacing between multiple documents within the image area. As most microfilm cameras come from the manufacturer with a preset spacing of approx 4mm depending on the make of the camera, has anybody reduced the spacing to fit more images on a roll of microfilm and if you have to what distance did you reduce it to. If anybody has any documented information on the minimum allowable spacing between image frames the information would be greatly appreciated.

Regards

Lauri Korhonen

Lauri.Korhonen@dcilgps.qld.gov.au

This e-mail, together with any attachments, is intended for the named recipent(s) only. If you have received this message in error, you are asked to inform the sender as quickly as possible and delete this message and any copies of this message from your computer system network. Any form of disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this e-mail message is prohibited. Unless stated otherwise, this e-mail represents only the views of the sender and not the views of the Queensland Department of Communication Information, Local Government, Planning & Sport.

To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com


Message #134

Date: Sep 29 2000 16:08:40 EDT
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com> Subject: RE: Spacing between microfilm image area.

Since I have had several "off list" responses and inquiries regarding camera modifications, I will respond "on list". My apologies Mr. Lindner for misspelling your name. Many repair parts for Recordak cameras are no longer available. Also there aren't many camera repair technicians in the work force. (UMI is fortunate to have two excellent repair technicians on staff.) If you're lucky enough to locate genuine Recordak parts, they are extremely expensive. They also seem to ration them out a few at a time.

We (UMI) modified many of our cameras (in-house) in the early 70's with our own version of a precision advance unit to create precisely spaced images for stripping up microfiche masters. We discontinued the strip-up method in 1976 and went to a two-step, optical reduction system built for us by our parent organization (Xerox). When we resumed microfilming the New York Times in 1983, we used these precision units to achieve extremely tight, precision spacing on popular newspaper titles to save distribution film costs.

The Bell & Howell Company in Wooster, Ohio had most of their cameras modified by an engineering firm owned and operated by a Mr. Bill Fisher in Denver, Colorado. He installed his version of a precision advance unit and added a light-tight 1000 foot capacity canister.

To summarize, yes, it is mechanically possible to close up the space between images to almost nothing but it is expensive. And yes, as the old camera parts (pawls, gears, shafts etc) wear, the spacing becomes more variable.

In order to keep images from overlapping, etc. the gate or masks need to be opened further and further.

Without purchasing one of the high-resolution, state-of-the-art German or Japanese planetary cameras, we have to be contented with "patched-together" obsolete cameras which provided marginal (but usually adequate) resolution. Many major micropublishers have tried unsuccessfully over the years to adapt computer designed lenses to the old Recordak cameras. We finally found a Zeiss lens that gave us great resolution at 1:36 but it was difficult to mechanically adapt.

Remind me someday to address reversal processing for achieving spectacular halftones, one exposure level filming and "no brainer" inspections.

But for now, I must sign off, go home and pick my bumper crop of Concord grapes!

Robert Mottice

From: Lindner, Bruno ISTA:EX [SMTP:Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 11:59 AM
To: 'Linkmicro@listbot.com'
Subject: RE: Spacing between microfilm image area.

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

What kind of camera do you have? If it's an MRD-2, then the film spacing cannot be adjusted. The masking however can be (the length of the film that is exposed during each exposure).

Given that a full roll of full size exposures can have at most 650 exposures, adjusting the spacing will at most add 20 exposures to a full roll. Adjusting the actual length of the frame (The masking) will do a lot more to add to your exposure count. Also by increasing your reduction, the required length of film will be reduced as well. Our policy however is to film a document at the lowest reduction possible in order to fill the frame with the actual document. We have reached this decision because we have decided that the increased size of the image is more important to our researchers than the amount of exposures on an individual roll of microfilm. Given the price of film (inexpensive) and the presumed value of the document (expensive and of high nonmonetary value) it is advisable to microfilm the document at the lowest overall reduction possible and as a result, at the best quality possible.

I am assuming you are asking the question in an attempt to reach maximum cost benifit for each roll of microfilm. Squeezing out a few extra exposures for each roll of microfilm is (I would argue) not a very cost effective way to employ staff time. I know that some 16 mm cameras allow adjustment of inter frame spacing. I have not adjusted this at all since documents that are spaced close together are difficult to scan for filming mistakes. They are also more difficult for our clients to view. With 35 mm cameras, most of the space savings can be had by adjusting the mask (the length of the exposed film). The closer the exposure comes to the edge of the document, the more exposures you will be able to take on each roll of film. In this case, the > cost benifit ratio needs to be looked at. The closer the document is to the edge of the exposure, the more you run the risk of skewing the document off the edge of the exposure.

So How much time are you willing to allow your camera operators to take to ensure that the document is perfectly square and of sufficient size so that the document does not spill over the preset exposure? (Books are notorious for requiring wider frames to microfilm the pages in the middle.)

How much time should they spend adjusting the mask between each exposure? How much extra time should they spend scanning each roll to ensure that all the documents fit into the exposed frame? In the next five years, How much cost benifit is there in adding an extra 30 exposures to each roll of microfilm you produce. Remember that each project you film will have a final roll which may not be completely full. That particular roll will probably eat up any cost benefit that you may wish to achieve.

A side note.

On occasion we put out some filming projects out for contract. The bidding comes back based on a certain cost per frame. Our criteria for judging the quality of the work is based on density, resolution, illumination, sequencing, and completeness of the information (was the document completely filmed?) We then pay the contractor at the rate of number of exposures multiplied by the agreed upon price per exposure. The number of rolls produced is not even part of the equation. (Unless of course each roll were only half full)

Bruno Lindner
Microfilm Operator
BC Archives
Information, Science and Technology Agency

Phone: 250-356-7368
Email: Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca

-----Original Message-----

From: Korhonen Lauri [mailto:Lauri.Korhonen@dcilgps.qld.gov.au]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:15 PM
To: 'Linkmicro@listbot.com'
Subject: Spacing between microfilm image area.

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

Hi All,

My name is Lauri Korhonen from the Queensland State Archives, my question is in regard to the minimum allowable spacing between the image frames on 35mm microfilm. I have checked some standads and in them they only discuss the relevant spacing between multiple documents within the image area. As most microfilm cameras come from the manufacturer with a preset spacing of approx 4mm depending on the make of the camera, has anybody reduced the spacing to fit more images on a roll of microfilm and if you have to what distance did you reduce it to. If anybody has any documented information on the minimum allowable spacing between image frames the information would be greatly appreciated.

Regards

Lauri Korhonen

Lauri.Korhonen@dcilgps.qld.gov.au

This e-mail, together with any attachments, is intended for the named recipent(s) only. If you have received this message in error, you are asked to inform the sender as quickly as possible and delete this message and any copies of this message from your computer system network. Any form of disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this e-mail message is prohibited. Unless stated otherwise, this e-mail represents only the views of the sender and not the views of the Queensland Department of Communication Information, Local Government, Planning & Sport.

To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com


Message #133

Date: Sep 28 2000 13:02:50 EDT
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject: RE: Spacing between microfilm image area.

Mr. Linder,

I think we have every type of old Recordak camera made...at last count we had over a hundred Recordak camera heads. Most have been and all are capable of being retrofitted with precision advance units. The gate systems to which you so often refer are actually removed.

You have made several incorrect assumptions about how and why we photograph the way we do and I don't feel the need to belabor all of them here.

However to defend my photographic competency, I feel compelled to reply to a few.

We use a reduction ratio of 1:20 for most of our newspapers and routinely achieve 16 to 17 single newspaper pages per foot in the 1B format. We use 4 mil polyester based film to achieve nearly 2,400 pages per reel. From second generation intermediate printing masters (2N), we produce between two and three thousand positive user copies. A savings of just one millimeter between pages times 2,400 per reel times several thousand reels over the lifetime of the product amounts to a very significant amount of film.

Overlapping or skewed images are never a problem with careful camera operators and precision advance units.

If Bell & Howell (UMI) were in the business of preservation microfilming and not commercial microfilming, we would be "filling-the-frame" by using the lowest possible reduction ratio. In fact that is exactly what I teach in my workshops...bigger is better. In fact, all our thousands of periodical titles have been photographed at 1:12 since 1976.

Regards,

Robert Mottice

From: Lindner, Bruno ISTA:EX[SMTP:Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 11:59 AM
To: 'Linkmicro@listbot.com'
Subject: RE: Spacing between microfilm image area.

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

What kind of camera do you have?

If it's an MRD-2, then the film spacing cannot be adjusted. The masking however can be (the length of the film that is exposed during each exposure). Given that a full roll of full size exposures can have at most 650 exposures, adjusting the spacing will at most add 20 exposures to a full roll. Adjusting the actual length of the frame (The masking) will do a lot more to add to your exposure count. Also by increasing your reduction, the required length of film will be reduced as well. Our policy however is to film a document at the lowest reduction possible in order to fill the frame with the actual document. We have reached this decision because we have decided that the increased size of the image is more important to our researchers than the amount of exposures on an individual roll of microfilm. Given the price of film (inexpensive) and the presumed value of the document (expensive and of high nonmonetary value) it is advisable to microfilm the > document at the lowest overall reduction possible and as a result, at the > best quality possible. I am assuming you are asking the question in an attempt to reach maximum cost benefit for each roll of microfilm. Squeezing out a few extra exposures for each roll of microfilm is (I would argue) not a very costeffective way to employ staff time. I know that some 16 mm cameras allow adjustment of inter frame spacing. I have not adjusted this at all since documents that are spaced close together are difficult to scan for filming mistakes. They are also more difficult for our clients to view.

With 35 mm cameras, most of the space savings can be had by adjusting the > mask (the length of the exposed film). The closer the exposure comes to the edge of the document, the more exposures you will be able to take on each roll of film. In this case, the > cost benifit ratio needs to be looked at. The closer the document is to the edge of the exposure, the more you run the risk of skewing the document off the edge of the exposure.

So

How much time are you willing to allow your camera operators to take to ensure that the document is perfectly square and of sufficient size so that the document does not spill over the preset exposure? (Books are notorious > for requiring wider frames to microfilm the pages in the middle.)

How much time should they spend adjusting the mask between each exposure? How much extra time should they spend scanning each roll to ensure that all the documents fit into the exposed frame? In the next five years, How much cost benefit is there in adding an extra 30 exposures to each roll of microfilm you produce. Remember that each project you film will have a final roll which may not be completely full. That particular roll will probably eat up any cost benifit that you may wish to > achieve.

A side note.

On occasion we put out some filming projects out for contract. The bidding comes back based on a certain cost per frame. Our criteria for judging the quality of the work is based on density, resolution, illumination, sequencing, and completeness of the information (was the document completely filmed?)

We then pay the contractor at the rate of number of exposures multiplied by the agreed upon price per exposure. The number of rolls produced is not even part of the equation. (Unless of course each roll were only half full)

Bruno Lindner
Microfilm Operator
BC Archives
Information, Science and Technology Agency

Phone: 250-356-7368
Email: Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca

-----Original Message-----

From: Korhonen Lauri [mailto:Lauri.Korhonen@dcilgps.qld.gov.au]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:15 PM
To: 'Linkmicro@listbot.com'
Subject: Spacing between microfilm image area.

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

Hi All,

My name is Lauri Korhonen from the Queensland State Archives, my question is in regard to the minimum allowable spacing between the image frames on 35mm microfilm. I have checked some standads and in them they only discuss the > relevant spacing between multiple documents within the image area. As most microfilm cameras come from the manufacturer with a preset spacing of approx 4mm depending on the make of the camera, has anybody reduced the spacing to fit more images on a roll of microfilm and if you have to what distance did you reduce it to. If anybody has any documented information on the minimum allowable spacing between image frames the information would be greatly appreciated.

Regards

Lauri Korhonen

Lauri.Korhonen@dcilgps.qld.gov.au

This e-mail, together with any attachments, is intended for the named recipent(s) only. If you have received this message in error, you are asked to inform the sender as quickly as possible and delete this message and any copies of this message from your computer system network. Any form of disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this e-mail message is prohibited. Unless stated otherwise, this e-mail represents only the views of the sender and not the views of the Queensland Department of Communication Information, Local Government, Planning & Sport.

To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com


Message #132

Date: Sep 28 2000 12:00:39 EDT
From: "Lindner, Bruno ISTA:EX" <Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca>
Subject: RE: Spacing between microfilm image area.

What kind of camera do you have?

If it's an MRD-2, then the film spacing cannot be adjusted. The masking however can be (the length of the film that is exposed during each exposure). Given that a full roll of full size exposures can have at most 650 exposures, adjusting the spacing will at most add 20 exposures to a full roll. Adjusting the actual length of the frame (The masking) will do a lot more to add to your exposure count. Also by increasing your reduction, the required length of film will be reduced as well. Our policy however is to film a document at the lowest reduction possible in order to fill the frame with the actual document. We have reached this decision because we have decided that the increased size of the image is more important to our researchers than the amount of exposures on an individual roll of microfilm.

Given the price of film (inexpensive) and the presumed value of the document (expensive and of high nonmonetary value) it is advisable to microfilm the document at the lowest overall reduction possible and as a result, at the best quality possible. I am assuming you are asking the question in an attempt to reach maximum cost benifit for each roll of microfilm. Squeezing out a few extra exposures for each roll of microfilm is (I would argue) not a very costeffective way to employ staff time. I know that some 16 mm cameras allow adjustment of inter frame spacing. I have not adjusted this at all since documents that are spaced close together are difficult to scan for filming mistakes. They are also more difficult for our clients to view. With 35 mm cameras, most of the space savings can be had by adjusting the mask (the length of the exposed film). The closer the exposure comes to the edge of the document, the more exposures you will be able to take on each roll of film. In this case, the cost benifit ratio needs to be looked at. The closer the document is to the edge of the exposure, the more you run the risk of skewing the document off the edge of the exposure.

So

How much time are you willing to allow your camera operators to take to ensure that the document is perfectly square and of sufficient size so that the document does not spill over the preset exposure? (Books are notorious for requiring wider frames to microfilm the pages in the middle.)

How much time should they spend adjusting the mask between each exposure? How much extra time should they spend scanning each roll to ensure that all the documents fit into the exposed frame?

In the next five years, How much cost benifit is there in adding an extra 30 exposures to each roll of microfilm you produce. Remember that each project you film will have a final roll which may not be completely full. That particular roll will probably eat up any c