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
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
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
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:
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
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
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"
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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)
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:
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
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
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
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
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 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)
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
Date: Sep 28 2000 09:12:28 EDT
From:
"Mottice, Robert"
<robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
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
Date: Sep 27 2000 21:17:10 EDT
From: Korhonen Lauri
<Lauri.Korhonen@dcilgps.qld.gov.au>
Subject: Spacing
between microfilm image area.
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.
Date: Sep 27 2000 09:44:23 EDT
From: "Mottice, Robert"
<robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject:
RE: Southeast Asian Consortium for Access and Preservation
Heather,
Thank you for the summary of the Chiang Mai conference. I still regret not being able to present my paper at the conference due to a snow storm in Chicago!
I am pleased to see mention of adherence to standards and regional storage facilities. However, I don't believe I saw third party, unbiased microfilm inspections mentioned in the summary. I feel strongly that a high percentage of the microfilm being produced worldwide is substandard from a density, resolution and light balance standpoint. In many instances, there is only one opportunity to capture deteriorating documents and it is not being carried out correctly. Simply stating that one adheres to technical standards doesn't assure that it is happening. Many microfilm related standards are so broad in scope that they include everything from the high speed filming of bank checks to the filming of century old brittle books.
Regards,
Robert Mottice
From: Brown, Heather
(SLSA)[SMTP:Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au]
Sent: Monday,
September 25, 2000 12:20 AM
To:
'Linkmicro@listbot.com'
Subject: Southeast Asian
Consortium for Access and Preservation
Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
The following information is posted to MICROLINK with the permission of Professor Rujaya Abhakorn, Chair of the SEACAP Implementing Committee, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
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
Southeast Asian Consortium for Access and Preservation is Formed at the International Meeting on Microform Preservation and Conservation Practices in Southeast Asia: Assessing Current Needs and Evaluating Past Projects On February 21-24, 2000, the Chiang Mai University Library convened an International Meeting on Microform Preservation and Conservation Practices in Southeast Asia, with the support of the Japan Foundation Asia Center and the Ford Foundation. The meeting, which was a cooperative initiative of the SPAFA Library, Chiang Mai University Library and the Southeast Asia Microform Project of the Center for Research Libraries, Chicago, brought together 68 participants from 16 countries to discuss the broad range of factors influencing preservation planning and implementation in the region. The objective of the meeting was to examine preservation needs and practices in Southeast Asia and to evaluate the effectiveness of past regional and international cooperative projects. Discussion touched on all aspects of preservation management, including needs assessment and collections surveys, scholarly priorities, funding opportunities, conservation and micrographics technologies, and bibliographic access. The meeting represented various interested professional groups, including historians and philologists, book and archives conservators, micrographics consultants, librarians and archives administrators. The meeting also brought together a number of regional government officials with responsibility for cultural preservation and a broad coalition of the major institutions and regional organizations with preservation mandates. Delegates included representatives from national libraries, national archives, research libraries, universities, professional associations, grant-making foundations, inter-governmental organizations, and library and archives consortia. The meeting organizing committee was particular concerned with addressing ways in which organizations such as IFLA-PAC, the Southeast Asian Branch of the ICA and UNESCO could be more effectively > brought into cooperative relationships within the region.
The short presentations which formed the basis for discussion over the first three days addressed such topics as: implementing effective preservation management on a national level and the role of national commissions on preservation; regional cooperative preservation management and cooperative funding; attaining self-sufficiency as a preservation fiscal model; providing effective management and technical training; meeting international microfilm preservation standards; providing bibliographic access locally and internationally through registers of microform masters; conservation practices for original texts and film negatives. The meeting also sought to address some of the more sensitive issues which have impeded preservation activities in the past, such issues > as: forming political support and consensus nationally and institutionally; interpretation of local copyright and other proprietary rights governing preservation reformatting and scholarly distribution; the > sensitivities of national collection managers towards international cooperation as a project model, and towards the notion of centralized regional storage facilities for microform masters.
On its final day the meeting participants agreed to establish the Southeast Asian Consortium for Access and Preservation, with the following > mission statement, objectives, and action agenda. It was agreed to name this document the "Chiang Mai Declaration." The country delegates elected a provisional governing committee representing all the countries of the region; an interim Implementing Committee was voted into office to oversee > the establishment of the Consortium and the implementation of its initial agenda. Prof. Rujaya Abhakorn in the Department of History, Chiang Mai University, chairs this committee.
Mission Statement
We resolve to:
* Reaffirm the critical need for action to preserve and provide access > to the published and documentary heritage of the Southeast Asian region
* Reaffirm that microform remains the primary reformatting medium for long-term preservation of the contents of library and archival materials, providing that international standards for production and storage are adhered to. Emerging new technologies such as digitization may be useful adjuncts for access and image-capturing, but must not be seen as substitutes for preservation on microfilm.
* Recommend that each country in the region have at least one center of excellence or model program in microform reformatting that conforms to international standards for production, storage and access
* Emphasize that reformatting of materials does not in any way reduce the institution's responsibility to preserve the original artifact where this is appropriate
* Recommend the formulation and adoption of national preservation and conservation policies for each country in the region.
Objectives
The meeting resolved to establish the Southeast Asian Consortium for Access and Preservation, or SEACAP, to encourage, develop, facilitate and support collaboration among libraries, archives, and other concerned institutions and individuals in order to preserve and provide access to the published and documentary heritage of the region.
SEACAP will undertake to serve local communities and scholars worldwide in > providing access to materials relating to Southeast Asian studies, and enhance preservation activities in the region by carrying out the following tasks:
* To serve as a clearinghouse for sharing and exchanging information (in printed and electronic formats) on all aspects of preservation-related > activities-for example, sharing information preservation projects or on potential funding sources for carrying out such projects
* To update and maintain bibliographic tools, such as the Masterlist of Southeast Asian Microforms database
* To provide and coordinate training opportunities (including new and existing programs at institutions within and beyond the region) in order to increase benefit and reduce duplication
* To publish and disseminate training materials and the results of new > research
* To promote research agendas relating to preservation issues
* To advise and consult on preservation issues and strategies
* To identify funding sources and to assist with the preparation and negotiation of proposals
* To promote the objectives of SEACAP to governments, international organizations, and foundations
* To coordinate activities with other networks and consortia, such as ICA (SARBICA), IFLA, SEAM, and SEAPAVA
* To promote public awareness of the need to protect and preserve a threatened heritage
* To promote understanding of international and local copyright laws and to develop protocols and suggestions for emphasizing the rights of fair use
Action Agenda
Short-term
* Create a SEACAP temporary implementing committee comprised of representatives drawn from a cross-section of professions and institutions, and from a range of nations in the region, to carry plan and carry implement the immediate short-term resolutions of the meeting
* Establish a SEACAP website
* Establish listserv discussion group(s)
* Publish and disseminate the Proceedings of this meeting Medium-term
* Form technical working groups
* Compile and make available a database for a revised Masterlist of Southeast Asian Microforms (Winarti Partaningrat, ed. Published on behalf of SARBICA by Singapore University Press, c1978) by adding data on film type and condition
* Begin emergency rescue of damaged microfilms in the region (some funds already available for Indonesia)
* Assess the scope of the need for remastering of acetate films to polyester and initiate a plan to begin that work
* Conduct research on the suitability of storage of microfilms in hermetically sealed vacuum pouches
* Explore the cost-effectiveness of digitizing as a means of input to microform
* Produce guides to various collections
Long-term
* Gather and share information on the best practices for filming special materials such as palm leaf, parabaik, indigenous paper and bindings, etc.
* Conduct research into (a) the physical characteristics of local writing materials; and (b) appropriate indigenous preservation materials and techniques, including safe and effective insect repellents, etc.
* Plan and hold future similar conferences (on the basis of implementation of some of the above-outlined short- and medium-term goals) >
For Further information please contact the Chair of the SEACAP Implementing Committee, Prof. Rujaya Abhakorn. Email: rujaya@cmu.chiangmai.ac.th
To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com
Date: Sep 26 2000 09:04:31 EDT
From: "Mottice, Robert"
<robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject: RE: Silverlock alternative
Cathy,
To my knowledge, the Illinois State Archives was one of the first laboratories in the country to "sulfurize" silver microfilm. Can't remember the lab directors name but I believe they were using Kodak Brown Toner. If you haven't already, you should contact Jim Reilly at the Image Permanence Institute (716) 475-5199.
Regards,
Robert Mottice
From: Cathleen
Mook[SMTP:cathy@smathersnt2.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
Date: Sep 25 2000 11:52:09 EDT
From: "Sam Rowe" <slrowe@mail.shsw.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Silverlock alternative
Cathy, you might get a copy of "Use of Kodak Brown Toner to Extend the Life of Microfilm" pub # A-1671 from your Kodak rep for starters. We use Brown Toner with an Allen F-20 processor.
Testing is referenced in ANSI/NAPM IT9.15-1993.
Sam Rowe
State Historical Society of Wisconsin - microfilm lab
Date: Sep 25 2000 10:00:17 EDT
From:
Cathleen Mook <cathy@mail.uflib.ufl.edu>
Subject: Silverlock alternative
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:
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)
Date: Sep 25 2000 00:23:44 EDT
From: "Brown, Heather (SLSA)"
<Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au>
Subject: Southeast
Asian Consortium for Access and Preservation
The following information is posted to MICROLINK with the permission of Professor Rujaya Abhakorn, Chair of the SEACAP Implementing Committee, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
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
**********************************************************************
Southeast Asian Consortium for Access and Preservation is Formed at the International Meeting on Microform Preservation and Conservation Practices in Southeast Asia: Assessing Current Needs and Evaluating Past Projects
On February 21-24, 2000, the Chiang Mai University Library convened an International Meeting on Microform Preservation and Conservation Practices in Southeast Asia, with the support of the Japan Foundation Asia Center and the Ford Foundation. The meeting, which was a cooperative initiative of the SPAFA Library, Chiang Mai University Library and the Southeast Asia Microform Project of the Center for Research Libraries, Chicago, brought together 68 participants from 16 countries to discuss the broad range of factors influencing preservation planning and implementation in the region. The objective of the meeting was to examine preservation needs and practices in Southeast Asia and to evaluate the effectiveness of past regional and international cooperative projects. Discussion touched on all aspects of preservation management, including needs assessment and collections surveys, scholarly priorities, funding opportunities, conservation and micrographics technologies, and bibliographic access. The meeting represented various interested professional groups, including historians and philologists, book and archives conservators, micrographics consultants, librarians and archives administrators. The meeting also brought together a number of regional government officials with responsibility for cultural preservation and a broad coalition of the major institutions and regional organizations with preservation mandates. Delegates included representatives from national libraries, national archives, research libraries, universities, professional associations, grant-making foundations, inter-governmental organizations, and library and archives consortia. The meeting organizing committee was particular concerned with addressing ways in which organizations such as IFLA-PAC, the Southeast Asian Branch of the ICA and UNESCO could be more effectively brought into cooperative relationships within the region.
The short presentations which formed the basis for discussion over the first three days addressed such topics as: implementing effective preservation management on a national level and the role of national commissions on preservation; regional cooperative preservation management and cooperative funding; attaining self-sufficiency as a preservation fiscal model; providing effective management and technical training; meeting international microfilm preservation standards; providing bibliographic access locally and internationally through registers of microform masters; conservation practices for original texts and film negatives. The meeting also sought to address some of the more sensitive issues which have impeded preservation activities in the past, such issues as: forming political support and consensus nationally and institutionally; interpretation of local copyright and other proprietary rights governing preservation reformatting and scholarly distribution; the sensitivities of national collection managers towards international cooperation as a project model, and towards the notion of centralized regional storage facilities for microform masters.
On its final day the meeting participants agreed to establish the Southeast Asian Consortium for Access and Preservation, with the following mission statement, objectives, and action agenda. It was agreed to name this document the "Chiang Mai Declaration." The country delegates elected a provisional governing committee representing all the countries of the region; an interim Implementing Committee was voted into office to oversee the establishment of the Consortium and the implementation of its initial agenda. Prof. Rujaya Abhakorn in the Department of History, Chiang Mai University, chairs this committee.
Mission Statement
We resolve to:
Reaffirm the critical need for action to preserve and provide access to the published and documentary heritage of the Southeast Asian region
Reaffirm that microform remains the primary reformatting medium for long-term preservation of the contents of library and archival materials, providing that international standards for production and storage are adhered to. Emerging new technologies such as digitization may be useful adjuncts for access and image-capturing, but must not be seen as substitutes for preservation on microfilm.
Recommend that each country in the region have at least one center of excellence or model program in microform reformatting that conforms to international standards for production, storage and access
Emphasize that reformatting of materials does not in any way reduce the institution's responsibility to preserve the original artifact where this is appropriate
Recommend the formulation and adoption of national preservation and conservation policies for each country in the region.
Objectives
The meeting resolved to establish the Southeast Asian Consortium for Access and Preservation, or SEACAP, to encourage, develop, facilitate and support collaboration among libraries, archives, and other concerned institutions and individuals in order to preserve and provide access to the published and documentary heritage of the region.
SEACAP will undertake to serve local communities and scholars worldwide in providing access to materials relating to Southeast Asian studies, and enhance preservation activities in the region by carrying out the following tasks:
To serve as a clearinghouse for sharing and exchanging information (in printed and electronic formats) on all aspects of preservation-related activities for example, sharing information preservation projects or on potential funding sources for carrying out such projects
To update and maintain bibliographic tools, such as the Masterlist of Southeast Asian Microforms database
To provide and coordinate training opportunities (including new and existing programs at institutions within and beyond the region) in order to increase benefit and reduce duplication
To publish and disseminate training materials and the results of new research
To promote research agendas relating to preservation issues
To advise and consult on preservation issues and strategies
To identify funding sources and to assist with the preparation and negotiation of proposals
To promote the objectives of SEACAP to governments, international organizations, and foundations
To coordinate activities with other networks and consortia, such as ICA (SARBICA), IFLA, SEAM, and SEAPAVA
To promote public awareness of the need to protect and preserve a threatened heritage
To promote understanding of international and local copyright laws and to develop protocols and suggestions for emphasizing the rights of fair use
Action Agenda
Short-term
Create a SEACAP temporary implementing committee comprised of representatives drawn from a cross-section of professions and institutions, and from a range of nations in the region, to carry plan and carry implement the immediate short-term resolutions of the meeting
Establish a SEACAP website
Establish listserv discussion group(s)
Publish and disseminate the Proceedings of this meeting
Medium-term
Form technical working groups
Compile and make available a database for a revised Masterlist of Southeast Asian Microforms (Winarti Partaningrat, ed. Published on behalf of SARBICA by Singapore University Press, c1978) by adding data on film type and condition
Begin emergency rescue of damaged microfilms in the region (some funds already available for Indonesia)
Assess the scope of the need for remastering of acetate films to polyester and initiate a plan to begin that work
Conduct research on the suitability of storage of microfilms in hermetically sealed vacuum pouches
Explore the cost-effectiveness of digitizing as a means of input to microform
Produce guides to various collections
Long-term
Gather and share information on the best practices for filming special materials such as palm leaf, parabaik, indigenous paper and bindings, etc.
Conduct research into (a) the physical characteristics of local writing materials; and (b) appropriate indigenous preservation materials and techniques, including safe and effective insect repellents, etc.
Plan and hold future similar conferences (on the basis of implementation of some of the above-outlined short- and medium-term goals)
For Further information please contact the Chair of the SEACAP Implementing Committee, Prof. Rujaya Abhakorn. Email: rujaya@cmu.chiangmai.ac.th
Date: Aug 17 2000 18:23:50 EDT
From: Paul Montgomery
<apintl@pressenter.com>
Subject: 35mm unperforated
Film as ART!
Listserv subscribers:
I'm attaching this as a creative use of a medium we're all very familiar with (even though List Moms frown on attachments). He weaves film, addheres it to canvas and does abstract murals on it. Get hold of Mark via
email if you want to pursue one for your lobby! mcotton@gte.net
Paul
Paul,
Attached is a scan of a portion of a weaving/painting I did using 16mm microfilm. Far out, huh?
Thanks for all your help, Mark Cotton
Attachments:
microweave.JPG
Date: Jul 26 2000 11:22:47 EDT
From: Julie Bullock <jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us>
Subject: microfilm camera curtain
Please accept my apology for cross-posting:
The Mississippi Department of Archives and History is about to set up a new microfilm camera in an old camera room. The camera curtain was last used approximately fifteen years ago, has been bunched up against a wall ever since, and now smells strongly of vinegar and does not quite reach around the curtain tracks. I have two questions: 1) is the curtain potentially hazardous to our microfilm (do we need to remove it from the premises immediately)? and 2) where is a good place to purchase a replacement curtain? I do not trust my skills as a seamstress to do the job myself, though that may be our best option. Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Julie Bullock
Archival Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department
of Archives and History
Date: Jul 24 2000 04:09:37 EDT
From: "Brown, Heather (SLSA)"
<Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au>
Subject: Microfilm
and colours
The following query and response is cross posted with permission of both authors.
Heather Brown
QUERY
From: "Pierre Richard" <16320@ican.net>
Subject: Microfilm and colors
Date:
Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:49:09 -0400
What are the problematic colors when dealing with microfilm? I have this customer who would like to microfilm his documents but they (most) are on white paper with green printing and shading. The inside of boxes are filled with black typewritten answers. Then some of the form have signatures in all kind of colors and some annotations in blue, black, red and pencil.
Where can I find information concerning the impact of different colors in microfilming ?
TIA
Pierre Richard 16320@ican.net
RESPONSE
From: "Mottice, Robert"
<robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Date:
Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:53:23 -0400
Dear Pierre,
Technically speaking, camera film stocks are panchromatic; that is sensitive to all colors. BUT, they are not very sensitive to the color red therefore the film "sees" reds as very dark grays. The worst color combination for filming is red text on a black background or vice versa. Another difficult combination is yellow text on a white background or vice versa.
All other colors are somewhere in between and require either more or less exposure to achieve optimum image contrast. The best way to determine how to handle your specific color scheme is to perform an exposure series ranging from underexposed to grossly overexposed in two volt increments.
Be certain to label each frame as to what exposure was used.
After processing the exposure series, continue on and follow your intended duplication procedures which conform to your normal practice.
Lowering the contrast by any of several methods will improve your ability to capture various colors.
The best system is to reverse process the camera master to achieve a positive appearing image and then duplicate onto Kodak Direct Duplicating Film, Type 2470.
Anytime you switch image polarity from negative to positive or vice versa, you lose a tremendous amount of "gray" information. By doing as suggested in the previous paragraph, you lose very little.
I am not aware of a color chart which indicates the troublesome color schemes. Trial and error is the best way of determining what to do.
Hope this helps!
Robert Mottice
Date: Jul 18 2000 17:06:35 EDT
From: "John Friend"
<jafriend@mail.shsw.wisc.edu>
Subject: Micrographics
Conference
The State Historical Society of Wisconsin has the honor of hosting this year's Midwest states Micrographics Conference. It will be held September 13-15, 2000 in Madison Wisconsin. While intended primarily for state government micrographics users, it is not restricted to government attendees or the Midwest.
This conference sticks to the micrographics basics. The emphasis remains on film-based imaging's role in total and hybrid information systems. We strive to limit our speakers to topics of a generic/non-commercial nature while still presenting subjects of current interest. The hosting state arranges for the meeting facilities and pays for facility related expenses. Speakers are volunteers paying their own way. So there are no registration fees!
For a registration packet and conference agenda or for more information call or email:
Sam Rowe 608-264-6523 slrowe@mail.shsw.wisc.edu
or
John Friend 608-264-6517 jafriend@mail.shsw.wisc.edu
John A. Friend
Microfilm Lab Supervisor
State Historical Society of Wisconsin
Date: Jul 14 2000 11:08:11 EDT
From: Maria Esteva
<mesteva@fundantorchas.retina.ar>
Subject: (No
Subject)
Please, take note of my temporary electronic address simonesteva@hotmail.com Mar?a Esteva
Date: Jun 23 2000 23:36:52 EDT
From: "Andrew Fenton" <afenton@micrographics.co.nz>
Subject: Fw: Microfilm Emulsion Consistency - Draft
I wrote on the 21st June a message to this micrographics forum titled "Microfilm Emulsion Consistency".
Kodak have stated that there was indeed an emulsion change (enhancement) for a brief period back in 1998 of batches 354 to 365. The batch I have been having trouble with is 369 (expiry 12/2000) which means this change is not related to my specific issues.
Kodak are concerned that people within our Micrographics Forum will perceive my questions as suggesting Kodak?s product quality is inferior - they stress any concerns about their products should be addressed to their local office. I want to stress that my question (Problem 2 in my email) was raised after extensive in-house testing, research on the Kodak website and five days after contacting Kodak agents with the same questions.
I accept I could have given Kodak a little longer to respond but my desire was to get my "processing/duplicating system" right and so turned to you all ? a collective "micrographics user-group" of experts to see if you could help. I still don?t have an answer for my "Problem 2" but acknowledge Kodak?s concerns when questions like mine are raised over a world-wide Internet forum. For that I apologise to Kodak.
Kind regards
Andy Fenton
Managing Director
NZ Micrographic Services,
4 Oxford Street,
Tawa, Wellington
Phone: (04) 232 9396
Fax: (04) 232 9399
Email:
afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Visit our Website at
www.micrographics.co.nz
Date: Jun 21 2000 11:51:04 EDT
From: "Mottice, Robert"
<robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject: RE: Microfilm Emulsion Consistency
Don't have time to address the Agfa problems right now but can speak to the Kodak Direct Duplicating film type 2470. Several years ago, Kodak, in an attempt to make their direct duplicating film look less brown and more neutral (like the comparable Agfa product), changed the product. As a result of having a colder tone, the product had significantly less density to blue light. This is referred to as printing density rather than visual density.
Another effect of having less printing density was a decrease in contrast or gamma. It fell so low that we switched our entire operation over to the type 2468 product from 2470. We could no longer use the 2470 because the contrast was too low.
The new version of 2468 falls close to what 2470 was before the change.
You may want to switch to 2468 for your poor quality newspapers. Would love to visit your operation in NZ and assist in solving your sensitometric and tone reproduction problems...they are my forte.
Regards,
Robert Mottice
From: Andrew Fenton[SMTP:afenton@micrographics.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 7:29 PM
To: MicroLink-Mgraphics Forum
Subject:
Microfilm Emulsion Consistency
Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
We have been encountering consistency problems of late with three types of film stock and wondered if anyone could offer any enlightenment.
Problem 1 Agfa Archival Camera Film 35 & 16mm - Codes 3T8NC and 3T8MA.
Quite simply, with my ability to process in 1000ft lengths I can have several films going through my medium to deep tank processor at once and find that across different batches I am getting variations in density by as much as 0.15 units. Certainly, two films with the same batch/emulsion number come off essentially identical - within .04 units as a norm.
Problem 2 Kodak Direct Duplicate (2470 Intermediate) film - Cat. No. 825 8345.
I have been using this product for at least four years and found its lower contrast and consistency far and away the best in the market for older newspapers. However, of late I have been getting some variations in my results and indeed, discussions with a respected colleague in Australia have revealed that there was an emulsion change announced without any great fanfare by Kodak and certainly not announced on the film stock itself. My efforts to density match to my master are resulting in an inability to render fine/weak text on the third generation (Agfa) working copies. I accept that filming practices could have enhanced some of this but in general it's an area that was well within my control to handle at the intermediate stage over the past few years.
I am led to believe Kodak did mention the emulsion change for 2470 on their website but a reasonably exhaustive search has revealed nothing. Furthermore, Kodak's agents in New Zealand flatly deny that they would be marketing 2470 with an emulsion change that wasn't identified by some form of product release brochure or a video etc. The end result is that I am having to cut my density down from a targeted master of 1.2 to 1.3 to a resultant dup neg of .9 to 1.0 just to get respectable positives. There is > also a lack of "toning fidelity" in the resultant third generation (Agfa) > positives, which is uncharacteristic for films produced from 2470 intermediates.
Problem 3 Agfa Copex Pos
Similar to problem 1, I am getting a cross-batch problem. If I process two > different batches of tests in the same processor run then I can get density differences across the batches of again 0.15.
Naturally, with all of these three problems one has to question the processor and duplicator operation itself but I can assure you that we have done pretty exhaustive tests including temperature consistency within tanks, speed checks, our usual hydrometer litmus paper tests, tank-level tests, silver content tests, water flow and water quality and temperature. > For problems 2 and 3 we have even done speed checks on the duplicator for consistency.
Notwithstanding the fact that these variations could be inhouse, my questions to you are as follows:
1. Has anyone encountered any density variations to the extent detailed above for the two Agfa products? (Agfa) Bayer New Zealand is still looking into it for me.
2. Does anyone have any knowledge of the Kodak 2470 emulsion change which I also understand affected Diazo users quite severely (I believe it > has been changed back to the previous emulsion now)? If it is documented somewhere I would love a reference to that.
Any advice will be gratefully received.
Kind regards
Andy Fenton
Managing Director
NZ Micrographic Services,
4
Oxford Street,
Tawa, Wellington
Phone: (04) 232 9396
Fax: (04) 232 9399
Email:
afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Visit our Website at
www.micrographics.co.nz
CAUTION: This e-mail message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or data is prohibited. All content is to be treated as confidential unless otherwise specified, and is not to be forwarded to third parties without the prior permission of the author. To do so may breach the New Zealand Privacy Act > 1993. If you have received this e-mail message in error please delete it and notify me. Thank you.
To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com
Date: Jun 20 2000 19:28:11 EDT
From: "Andrew Fenton" <afenton@micrographics.co.nz>
Subject: Microfilm Emulsion Consistency
We have been encountering consistency problems of late with three types of film stock and wondered if anyone could offer any enlightenment.
Problem 1 Agfa Archival Camera Film 35 & 16mm ? Codes 3T8NC and 3T8MA.
Quite simply, with my ability to process in 1000ft lengths I can have several films going through my medium to deep tank processor at once and find that across different batches I am getting variations in density by as much as 0.15 units. Certainly, two films with the same batch/emulsion number come off essentially identical ? within .04 units as a norm.
Problem 2 Kodak Direct Duplicate (2470 Intermediate) film ? Cat. No. 825 8345.
I have been using this product for at least four years and found its lower contrast and consistency far and away the best in the market for older newspapers. However, of late I have been getting some variations in my results and indeed, discussions with a respected colleague in Australia have revealed that there was an emulsion change announced without any great fanfare by Kodak and certainly not announced on the film stock itself.
My efforts to density match to my master are resulting in an inability to render fine/weak text on the third generation (Agfa) working copies. I accept that filming practices could have enhanced some of this but in general it?s an area that was well within my control to handle at the intermediate stage over the past few years.
I am led to believe Kodak did mention the emulsion change for 2470 on their website but a reasonably exhaustive search has revealed nothing. Furthermore, Kodak?s agents in New Zealand flatly deny that they would be marketing 2470 with an emulsion change that wasn?t identified by some form of product release brochure or a video etc. The end result is that I am having to cut my density down from a targeted master of 1.2 to 1.3 to a resultant dup neg of .9 to 1.0 just to get respectable positives. There is also a lack of "toning fidelity" in the resultant third generation (Agfa) positives, which is uncharacteristic for films produced from 2470 intermediates.
Problem 3 Agfa Copex Pos
Similar to problem 1, I am getting a cross-batch problem. If I process two different batches of tests in the same processor run then I can get density differences across the batches of again 0.15.
Naturally, with all of these three problems one has to question the processor and duplicator operation itself but I can assure you that we have done pretty exhaustive tests including temperature consistency within tanks, speed checks, our usual hydrometer litmus paper tests, tank-level tests, silver content tests, water flow and water quality and temperature. For problems 2 and 3 we have even done speed checks on the duplicator for consistency.
Notwithstanding the fact that these variations could be inhouse, my questions to you are as follows:
Has anyone encountered any density variations to the extent detailed above for the two Agfa products? (Agfa) Bayer New Zealand is still looking into it for me.
Does anyone have any knowledge of the Kodak 2470 emulsion change which I also understand affected Diazo users quite severely (I believe it has been changed back to the previous emulsion now)? If it is documented somewhere I would love a reference to that. Any advice will be gratefully received.
Kind regards
Andy Fenton
Managing Director
NZ Micrographic Services,
4
Oxford Street,
Tawa, Wellington
Phone: (04) 232 9396
Fax: (04) 232 9399
Email:
afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Visit our Website at www.micrographics.co.nz
Date: Jun 20 2000 11:36:04 EDT
From: "Jones, Virginia"
<VJones@ci.newport-news.va.us>
Subject: Film-based
Imaging Association
The following was just announced by AIIM International. The link for an application is still just for AIIM membership, but the site does have some info about the FbI group.
Ginny Jones
(Virginia A. Jones, CRM, MIT/LIT)
Newport News Waterworks
Newport News, VA
vjones@ci.newport-news.va.us
**********
Film-Based Imaging Association
AIIM is pleased to announce the formation of a new subsidiary to specifically focus on the needs and requirements of our film-based imaging members. This new group - the Film-Based Imaging Association -- will operate with its own management team and Board, its own dues structure, and will be supported by AIIM. The purpose of the FbI Association will be to act as a permanent advocate for the needs and concerns of companies providing film-based solutions and products and will replace the current film-based special interest group that has operated as a volunteer organization for the past three years. For further details, contact FbIA liaison Russ Burkel of Analogue Imaging LLC at (262) 966-7511 or << mailto:rburkel@juno.com. >> For an FbIA application form, click to<< http://www.aiim.org/fbi/FBI.html. >>
Date: Jun 19 2000 09:55:19 EDT
From: "Mottice, Robert"
<robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject: RE: microfilm Kodak imagelink
All Kodak Imagelink camera films are "archival" regardless of the thickness however I would strongly recommend that you use the 4 mil (0.004 inch) rather than the 2 mil (not micron) product. Preservation Microfilming Guidelines specify only 4 or 5 mil thickness. Handling the extremely thin material can be difficult and the film is more easily damaged.
Regards,
Robert Mottice
----------
From: Area de Investigacion y Documentacion Historica
Parque de Espa?a[SMTP:areadochis@infovia.com.ar]
Sent:
Friday, June 09, 2000 1:24 PM
To:
Linkmicro@listbot.com
Subject: microfilm Kodak
imagelink
Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
Dear colleagues:
Does anybody know if the Image Link HQ Kodak microfilm reels of 66 meters long (200 feet) and 2 microns of thickness have archival quality?
Cordially,
Norma Lanciotti
Area de Investigacion y Documentacion Historica Parque de Espa?a
To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com
Date: Jun 19 2000 09:40:12 EDT
From: "Mottice, Robert"
<robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject: RE: microfilm Kodak imagelink
All items used in conjuction with silver microfilm storage should pass the Photographic Activities Test. To my knowledge, the only place offering such testing in the Image Permanence Institute in Rochester New York.
I believe Kodak's black box and black reel are made of polypropylene. I also believe that categorically, polypropylene is suitable for microfilm storage.
Regards,
Robert Mottice
----------
From: L Varendorff[SMTP:lvarendorff@bigpond.com]
Reply To: lvarendorff@bigpond.com
Sent:
Saturday, June 10, 2000 1:21 AM
To: Area de Investigacion
y Documentacion Historica Parque de Espa?a; Linkmicro@listbot.com
Subject: RE: microfilm Kodak imagelink
Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
Norma,
I believe that you should get a response from Kodak International on this and ask for supporting documentation e.g. "the chemical component of the reel and tests carried out re longevity and emissions from the material over time". This information will provide you with the data to decide if the reel would be suitable for the long term archiving of film.
Yours Sincerely,
Laurie Varendorff
Mr Daniel Lawrance [Laurie] Varendorff,
ARMA
Consultant/Trainer/Tutor/Presenter: Information and Records Management
President,
Western Australian Branch and Federal Director,
Records
Management Association of Australia.
The Varendorff Consultancy
ABN: 77 836 801 165
27 Ronneby
Rd
Lesmurdie
Western Australia 6076
AUSTRALIA
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 authorized 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 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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Area de Investigacion y Documentacion Historica
Parque de Espa?a [mailto:areadochis@infovia.com.ar]
Sent:
Saturday, June 10, 2000 1:24 AM
To: Linkmicro@listbot.com
Subject: microfilm Kodak imagelink
Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
Dear colleagues:
Does anybody know if the Image Link HQ Kodak microfilm reels of 66 meters long (200 feet) and 2 microns of thickness have archival quality?
Cordially,
Norma Lanciotti
Area de Investigacion y Documentacion Historica Parque de Espa?a
To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com
Date: Jun 10 2000 01:28:57 EDT
From: "L Varendorff" <lvarendorff@bigpond.com>
Subject: RE: microfilm Kodak imagelink
Norma,
I believe that you should get a response from Kodak International on this and ask for supporting documentation e.g. "the chemical component of the reel and tests carried out re longevity and emissions from the material over time". This information will provide you with the data to decide if the reel would be suitable for the long term archiving of film.
Yours Sincerely,
Laurie Varendorff
Mr Daniel Lawrance [Laurie] Varendorff, ARMA Consultant/Trainer/Tutor/Presenter: Information and Records Management President, Western Australian Branch and Federal Director, Records Management Association of Australia.
The Varendorff Consultancy
ABN: 77 836 801 165
27 Ronneby Rd
Lesmurdie
Western Australia 6076
AUSTRALIA
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 authorized 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 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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Area de Investigacion y Documentacion Historica
Parque de Espa?a [mailto:areadochis@infovia.com.ar]
Sent:
Saturday, June 10, 2000 1:24 AM
To:
Linkmicro@listbot.com
Subject: microfilm Kodak
imagelink
Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
Dear colleagues:
Does anybody know if the Image Link HQ Kodak microfilm reels of 66 meters long (200 feet) and 2 microns of thickness have archival quality?
Cordially,
Norma Lanciotti
Area de Investigacion y Documentacion Historica Parque de Espa?a
To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com
Date: Jun 09 2000 13:21:20 EDT
From:
"=?iso-8859-1?Q?Area_de_Investigacion_y_Documentacion_Historica_Parque_de_?=
Subject: microfilm Kodak imagelink
Dear colleagues:
Does anybody know if the Image Link HQ Kodak microfilm reels of 66 meters long (200 feet) and 2 microns of thickness have archival quality?
Cordially,
Norma Lanciotti
Area de Investigacion y Documentacion Historica Parque de Espa?a
Date: Jun 07 2000 14:27:24 EDT
From: Paul Montgomery <apintl@pressenter.com>
Subject: Hard-to-get parts
We're following up on two 6/6 Archive listserv digest requests for hard-to-get old equipment parts . Save our email address and we'll also 'try' for you!
Paul
Paul Montgomery EIN 41-1436456
577 Locust Street
Prescott, WI
54021
A&P International Phone: 715-262-5788
Fax: 715-262-3823
http://www.pressenter.com/~apintl
Date: May 31 2000 01:50:44 EDT
From:
"=?iso-8859-1?Q?Area_de_Investigacion_y_Documentacion_Historica_Parque_de_?=
Subject: RV: question
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Area de Investigacion y Documentacion Historica Parque de Espa?a <areadochis@infovia.com.ar>
Para: software@cyber.kodak.com <software@cyber.kodak.com>
Fecha: Lunes 29 de Mayo de 2000 14:08
Asunto: RV: question
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Area de Investigacion y Documentacion Historica Parque de Espa?a ><areadochis@infovia.com.ar>
Para: software@cyber.kodak.com <software@cyber.kodak.com>
Fecha: Lunes 22 de Mayo de 2000 11:00
Asunto: question
Dear sirs:
We're working at the Digitization of the XIXth Century Press Project.
The collections were microfilmed, so we will to scan them.
We're using the RFS 3570 Plus Film Scanner since April,2000. (The microfilm scanners are so expensive for a public institution like this)
We have a question: the frame size is 35x30.5 mm (Kodak Imagelink HQ Microfilm) but the REAL size is 44x32 mm. So, we must use the 46 mm option.
Are a MULTIFRAME FILM HOLDER and a MULTIFRAME HOLDER ADAPTER available for 46 mm?
Is possible to personalize the film size at the list box?
Thank You.
Cordial regards.
Valeria Principe
Area de Investigacion y Documenacion Historica
Parque de Espa?a
2000 Rosario.
Argentina
Av. del Huerto 1198 3 piso
Te.54 0341 4473568
Fax 54 0341 4260941
areadochis@infovia.com.ar
Date: May 27 2000 15:16:41 EDT
From: "L Varendorff" <lvarendorff@bigpond.com>
Subject: FW: portable 16mm microfilm camera
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In response to Roberts posting of the 23rd May.
I wish to advise that I am not FOR or AGAINST any format of micrographic material. I am for open and informed debate about micrographics in all formats and their appropriate use in the appropriate application and environment.
Robert has listed eleven reasons why not to use microfiche.
1. Major reason is the fact that the images are too small and in microphotography, bigger is truly better. The thicker lines contained in larger images can better tolerate overexposure, poor resolution, improper camera light balance and camera vibration. With high reduction ratios, all technical aspects need to be in near perfect control.
2. Since there are many ways of fabricating microfiche (optical reformatting, step and repeat, strip up, jackets with sleeves, jackets with adhesive) and since title information is sometimes taped on, there is plenty of opportunity for first generation films to come in contact with improper chemicals from adhesives and inks.
* 2.8 Microfiche - a transparent flat rectangular sheet of photographic film having a number of micro-images arranged in horizontal rows and vertical columns. 'Microfiche' is used for either singular or plural.
3. Masters are normally stored in envelopes or sleeves and these may of questionable quality. Also, the glue used to assemble them may absorb moisture from the air and cause the glue to soften and migrate through the paper and onto emulsion surface and stick.
* The AS 1998-1977 does not cover storage but there is a standard for all types of microfilm storage and the above item could easily have the words envelopes & sleeves replaced with boxes, cardboard or plastic or metal for roll film. The argument does not hold water.
4. There exist a multitude of file drawer dividers...some of which (Golden Guides in particular) cause microblemishes.
* The same applies for roll film. Inappropriate materials for storage or indexing apply to all micrographic formats not only microfiche.
5. Stripped-up masters can occasionally be "scrunched" while being inserted into a tight file drawer.
* Roll film can be damaged in a microfilm reader or reader printer or other device where the glass flaps do not open correctly or are damaged. Do we ban roll film due to this and other damage producing environments where roll film is used.
6. Manually stripped-up masters may have overlapping rows which throw images out-of-focus.
* This is not MICROFICHE, SEE 2.8 ABOVE but a stripped-up master. If the master was prepared correctly and as a sound microfilm practice you only use duplicates for general use the problem can be eliminated. A QUALITY CONTROL issue.
7. Microfiche masters are far more likely to be fingerprinted or dropped onto the floor during handling/duplicating.
9. When filming errors occur on step-and-repeat produced fiche, brittle documents must be overly handled to make corrections causing possible further damage.
* WHY? The same could be said of roll film. An error in a roll of film requires refilming and splicing or some extra handling of the documents.
10. Resolution test targets for testing contact fiche duplicators are not readily available and not well made.
Description and Use in Photographic Documentary Reproduction. This is similar to the NBS Microcopy Resolution Test Patches. Information concerning their supply may be obtained from the Standards Association of Australia.
11. Many microfiche duplicators are notorious for uneven illumination and uneven contact pressure.
* WHY? If you have appropriate equipment and appropriate servicing of that equipment then this would not be the be the case. There is poor quality Roll Duplicators out there with poor service also. It could happen in either format.
12. THERE ARE PROBABLY MORE VALID REASONS WHY MICROFICHE SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR PRESERVATION BUT NONE COME TO MIND.
* I DO NOT SEE ANY VALID REASONS NOT TO USE MICROFICHE BASED ON THESE ELEVEN POINTS.
I do not contend that there are no situations where there may be advantages in the use of roll film over microfiche. Just as I do not contend that there are no situations where there may be advantages in the use of microfiche over roll film. It is just that the above arguments are not valid from my experience and knowledge.
As they say: There are horses for courses and the same applies for Micrographics. Each format has it advantages and disadvantages in particular situations. It is not the case that one format is good and one is bad that is not the real life situation.
Regards, Laurie
Mr Daniel Lawrance [ Laurie ] Varendorff,
ARMA
Consultant/Trainer/Tutor/Presenter: Information and Records Management
President,
Western Australian Branch and Federal Director,
Records
Management Association of Australia.
The Varendorff Consultancy ABN: 77 836 801 165
27 Ronneby Rd
Lesmurdie
Western Australia 6076 AUSTRALIA
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 authorized 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 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.
Date: May 23 2000 09:49:05 EDT
From: "Mottice, Robert"
<robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject:
RE: Deteriorating Cellulose Acetate Collections
The two world-renowned experts on cellulose acetate deterioration are James Reilly from the Image Permanence Institute at RIT in Rochester,New York and Tulsi Ram from Eastman Kodak Company, also in Rochester.
Robert Mottice
----------
From: The Microfilm Shop[SMTP:info@microfilm.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2000 7:09 AM
To: Linkmicro@listbot.com
Subject:
Deteriorating Cellulose Acetate Collections
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
I know that Paul Kafun from Houston Fearless has been doing a lot of work with some American libraries on deteriorating films. He might be able to help with some advice, he even had a collection of articles written on the > subject that are on the web. His e-mail is paul@houstonfearless.com
Paul Negus
The Microfilm Shop
To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com
Make this message hidden.
Show Extended Headers
Date: May 23 2000 08:21:06 EDT
From: "Mottice, Robert"
<robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject:
RE: portable 16mm microfilm camera
Yes, the space saving aspect of high reduction microfiche is very attractive and, if properly done, can be quite serviceable however it isn't the best format for preserving information for future generations.
Major reason is the fact that the images are too small and in microphotography, bigger is truly better. The thicker lines contained in larger images can better tolerate overexposure, poor resolution, improper camera light balance and camera vibration. With high reduction ratios, all technical aspects need to be in near perfect control.
Since there are many ways of fabricating microfiche (optical reformatting, step and repeat, strip up, jackets with sleeves, jackets with adhesive) and since title information is sometimes taped on, there is plenty of opportunity for first generation films to come in contact with improper chemicals from adhesives and inks.
Masters are normally stored in envelopes or sleeves and these may of questionable quality. Also, the glue used to assemble them may absorb moisture from the air and cause the glue to soften and migrate through the paper and onto emulsion surface and stick.
There exist a multitude of file drawer dividers...some of which (Golden Guides in particular) cause microblemishes.
Stripped-up masters can occasionally be "scruntched" while being inserted into a tight file drawer.
Manually stripped-up masters may have overlapping rows which throw images out-of-focus.
Microfiche masters are far more likely to be fingerprinted or dropped onto the floor during handling/duplicating.
Silver images on loosely stored fiche are more exposed to air borne pollutants than those on rollfilm.
When filming errors occur on step-and-repeat produced fiche, brittle documents must be overly handled to make corrections causing possible further damage.
Resolution test targets for testing contact fiche duplicators are not readily available and not well made.
Many microfiche duplicators are notorious for uneven illumination and uneven contact pressure.
THERE ARE PROBABLY MORE VALID REASONS WHY MICROFICHE SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR PRESERVATION BUT NONE COME TO MIND.
Regards,
Robert Mottice
----------
From: Marty, Allan[SMTP:Allan.Marty@legis.state.wi.us]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 8:58 AM
To: 'lvarendorff@bigpond.com'; Mottice, Robert;
Linkmicro@listbot.com; 'Pacific Manuscripts Bureau'
Subject: RE: portable 16mm microfilm camera
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
We have used microfiche for years in our microfilming of preservation documents and have had no trouble. The space saving compared to 35 or even 16mm is significant. It also makes finding your specific image easier, since there are only 325 images on a fiche compared to thousands on a reel. I have no complaints about microfiche in any way, except that the vendors in this area aren't doing source document filming anymore.
-----Original Message-----
From: L Varendorff [mailto:lvarendorff@bigpond.com]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 12:12 AM
To:
Mottice, Robert; Linkmicro@listbot.com; 'Pacific Manuscripts
Bureau'
Subject: RE: portable 16mm microfilm camera
Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
Robert,
Can you advise what technical reason you are referring to with your comment -- there are many other technical reasons--?
There are microfiche cameras which can film up to A0 in size ad give six or more frames per fiche. Or at the other end there are standards for the filming of A4/A3 documentation onto microfiche.
The last time I was aware of an upgrade or the Library Standards for the filming of Newspapers around 10 to 15 years back they were outdated before > they were released.
Regards, Laurie
Mr Daniel Lawrance [ Laurie ] Varendorff,
ARMA
Consultant/Trainer/Tutor/Presenter: Information and Records Management
President,
Western Australian Branch and Federal Director,
Records
Management Association of Australia.
The Varendorff Consultancy
ABN: 77 836 801 165
27 Ronneby
Rd
Lesmurdie
Western Australia 6076
AUSTRALIA
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 authorized 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 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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mottice, Robert
[mailto:robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com] >
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 10:24 PM
To:
Linkmicro@listbot.com; 'Pacific Manuscripts Bureau'
Subject: RE: portable 16mm microfilm camera
Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
While your reasons for having to create microfiche are entirely valid please be aware of the fact that microfiche is not generally acknowledged as an acceptable format within the preservation microfilming community. The primary reason is the higher reduction ratios used however there are many > other technical reasons.
Good luck and regards,
Robert Mottice
----------
From: Pacific Manuscripts
Bureau[SMTP:pambu@coombs.anu.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 10,
2000 8:39 PM
To: Linkmicro@listbot.com
Subject: portable 16mm microfilm camera
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
Dear Listmembers,
The Pacific Manuscripts Bureau is preparing for a project in Nukuhiva, Marquesas Islands, making preservation microfilm copies of the archives of the Catholic Diocese of Taiohae. The Bishop, Mgr Chevalier, has insisted, with reason, that the Bureau provide microfiche copies of the documents to the Diocese, not microfilm, as there is no equipment to read microfilm in Nukuhiva. However microfiche can only be produced from 16mm film and the Bureau only has 35mm microfilming equipment. The Hirakawa 16mm camera head is interchangeable with the Bureau's Hirakawa 35mm portable microfilming baseboard and mounting arm, but the cost of a new HK16 camera is prohibitive for a one-off project (AU$5,670/ JPY358,000).
Does any reader know of a Hirakawa 16mm camera head which the Bureau may > > borrow or hire? Tony Wheeler from Pascoes says that the Hirakawa portable microfilm cameras were sometimes marketed under the brand name "Canon" or "Gordon" (Allan E. Gordon).
Regards,
Ewan Maidment
PMB Executive Officer
Pacific Manuscripts Bureau
Research
School of Pacific and Asian Studies
Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200
Australia
Tel: (612) 6249 2521
Fax: (612) 6249 0198
URL:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pambu/
To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com
Date: May 19 2000 16:54:21 EDT
From: Barbara Berger Eden <beb1@cornell.edu>
Subject: New Imaging Publication Now Available
***** Please excuse any cross-posting *****
A well-regarded publication for digital imaging projects and programs is now available: "Moving Theory into Practice: Digital Imaging for Libraries and Archives," Anne R. Kenney and Oya Y. Rieger, editors and principal authors (Mountain View, CA: Research Libraries Group, 2000). 189 pp., illus. ISBN 0-9700225-0-6
Addressed to funders, managers, librarians, archivists, curators, system analysts, programmers, administrators, faculty, and other scholars, this new publication from RLG is a self-help reference for virtually any institution that choose to reformat cultural resources to digital image form.
"Moving Theory into Practice" focuses on an interdependent circle of considerations associated with digital imaging programs in cultural institutions -- from selection to access to preservation -- with a heavy emphasis on the intersection of institutional objectives and practical digital applications.
The book is designed to provide timely guidance in a complex and changing arena, bringing to bear the contributions of more than 40 experts. Integrated with the book's nine chapters, some thirty sidebars highlight major issues, point out pertinent research trends, and identify relevant emerging technologies and techniques.
"Beyond its many virtues -- well-researched, well-written, well-presented, relevant -- is a simple principle: present the best technical knowledge currently around, but know that technical knowledge is not enough. This book says that digitisation is all about decisions. ...It stimulates us to recognise the decisions we have to make, while helping us to think them through."" (Colin Webb, National Library of Australia)
"This work is an honest, clear, well-written, and realistic appraisal of all aspects of the digitization process.... It is informed, hardheaded, and certain to become the key resource for anyone planning digitization and digital library projects in this decade." (Marilyn Deegan, University of Oxford)
"...Authoritative and informative essays with practical advice and case histories from dozens of digital imaging projects world wide. This book is a 'must read' for any librarian or archivist tackling a digital imaging project." (Roy Tennant, University of California, Berkeley)
More information and an online order form can be found at: (from North American and other world sites): http://www.rlg.org/preserv/mtip2000.html.
(from UK Janet sites): http://www.rlg.ac.uk/preserv/mtip2000.html
(from most European sites): http://www.ohio.rlg.org/preserv/mtip2000.html
Date: May 15 2000 03:55:20 EDT
From: John.Fletcher@mail.bl.uk (John Fletcher)
Subject: Re[2]: portable 16mm microfilm camera
Ewan,
This may not help but at the British Library we only produce 35mm, if we are asked for fiche copies we simply have the film reformatted by a bureau who produce a fiche master copy for us at reasonable cost. From that we run off as many duplicates as we need.
Best regards
John fletcher British library
Subject: RE: portable 16mm microfilm camera
Author: "Mottice; Robert"
<robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com> at Internet
Date: 11/05/2000 10:23
Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
While your reasons for having to create microfiche are entirely valid please be aware of the fact that microfiche is not generally acknowledged as an acceptable format within the preservation microfilming community. The primary reason is the higher reduction ratios used however there are many other technical reasons.
Good luck and regards,
Robert Mottice
From: Pacific Manuscripts
Bureau[SMTP:pambu@coombs.anu.edu.au]
Sent: Wednesday, May
10, 2000 8:39 PM
To: Linkmicro@listbot.com
Subject: portable 16mm microfilm camera
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
Dear Listmembers,
The Pacific Manuscripts Bureau is preparing for a project in Nukuhiva, Marquesas Islands, making preservation microfilm copies of the archives of the Catholic Diocese of Taiohae. The Bishop, Mgr Chevalier, has insisted, with reason, that the Bureau provide microfiche copies of the documents to the Diocese, not microfilm, as there is no equipment to read microfilm in Nukuhiva.
However microfiche can only be produced from 16mm film and the Bureau only has 35mm microfilming equipment. The Hirakawa 16mm camera head is interchangeable with the Bureau's Hirakawa 35mm portable microfilming baseboard and mounting arm, but the cost of a new HK16 camera is prohibitive for a one-off project (AU$5,670/ JPY358,000).
Does any reader know of a Hirakawa 16mm camera head which the Bureau may borrow or hire? Tony Wheeler from Pascoes says that the Hirakawa portable microfilm cameras were sometimes marketed under the brand name "Canon" or "Gordon" (Allan E. Gordon).
Regards,
Ewan Maidment
PMB Executive Officer
Pacific Manuscripts
Bureau
Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies
Australian National
University
Canberra ACT 0200
Australia
Tel: (612) 6249 2521
Fax: (612) 6249 0198
URL:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pambu/
To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com
Date: May 13 2000 07:05:32 EDT
From:
The Microfilm Shop <info@microfilm.com>
Subject:
Deteriorating Cellulose Acetate Collections
I know that Paul Kafun from Houston Fearless has been doing a lot of work with some American libraries on deteriorating films. He might be able to help with some advice, he even had a collection of articles written on the subject that are on the web. His e-mail is paul@houstonfearless.com
Paul Negus
The Microfilm Shop
Date: May 12 2000 08:59:19 EDT
From: "Marty, Allan" <Allan.Marty@legis.state.wi.us>
Subject: RE: portable 16mm microfilm camera
We have used microfiche for years in our microfilming of preservation documents and have had no trouble. The space saving compared to 35 or even 16mm is significant. It also makes finding your specific image easier, since there are only 325 images on a fiche compared to thousands on a reel. I have no complaints about microfiche in any way, except that the vendors in this area aren't doing source document filming anymore.
-----Original Message-----
From: L Varendorff [mailto:lvarendorff@bigpond.com]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 12:12 AM
To: Mottice, Robert; Linkmicro@listbot.com; 'Pacific
Manuscripts Bureau' Subject: RE: portable 16mm microfilm camera
Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
Robert,
Can you advise what technical reason you are referring to with your comment -- there are many other technical reasons--?
There are microfiche cameras which can film up to A0 in size ad give six or more frames per fiche. Or at the other end there are standards for the filming of A4/A3 documentation onto microfiche.
The last time I was aware of an upgrade or the Library Standards for the filming of Newspapers around 10 to 15 years back they were outdated before they were released.
Regards, Laurie
Mr Daniel Lawrance [ Laurie ] Varendorff,
ARMA
Consultant/Trainer/Tutor/Presenter:
Information and Records Management
President,
Western Australian Branch and Federal Director,
Records
Management Association of Australia.
The Varendorff Consultancy
ABN: 77 836 801 165
27 Ronneby Rd
Lesmurdie
Western Australia 6076 AUSTRALIA
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 authorized 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 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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mottice, Robert
[mailto:robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com]
Sent:
Thursday, May 11, 2000 10:24 PM
To: Linkmicro@listbot.com;
'Pacific Manuscripts Bureau'
Subject: RE: portable 16mm
microfilm camera
Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
While your reasons for having to create microfiche are entirely valid please be aware of the fact that microfiche is not generally acknowledged as an acceptable format within the preservation microfilming community. The primary reason is the higher reduction ratios used however there are many other technical reasons.
Good luck and regards,
Robert Mottice
----------
From: Pacific Manuscripts
Bureau[SMTP:pambu@coombs.anu.edu.au]
Sent: Wednesday, May
10, 2000 8:39 PM
To: Linkmicro@listbot.com
Subject: portable 16mm microfilm camera
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
Dear Listmembers,
The Pacific Manuscripts Bureau is preparing for a project in Nukuhiva, Marquesas Islands, making preservation microfilm copies of the archives of > the Catholic Diocese of Taiohae.
The Bishop, Mgr Chevalier, has insisted, with reason, that the Bureau provide microfiche copies of the documents to the Diocese, not microfilm, > as there is no equipment to read microfilm in Nukuhiva.
However microfiche can only be produced from 16mm film and the Bureau only has 35mm microfilming equipment. The Hirakawa 16mm camera head is interchangeable with the Bureau's Hirakawa 35mm portable microfilming baseboard and mounting arm, but the cost of a new HK16 camera is prohibitive for a one-off project (AU$5,670/ JPY358,000).
Does any reader know of a Hirakawa 16mm camera head which the Bureau may borrow or hire? Tony Wheeler from Pascoes says that the Hirakawa portable microfilm cameras were sometimes marketed under the brand name "Canon" or > "Gordon" (Allan E. Gordon).
Regards,
Ewan Maidment
PMB Executive Officer
Pacific Manuscripts
Bureau
Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies
Australian National
University
Canberra ACT 0200
Australia
Tel: (612) 6249 2521
Fax: (612) 6249 0198
URL:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pambu/
To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com
Date: May 12 2000 01:15:09 EDT
From: "L Varendorff" <lvarendorff@bigpond.com>
Subject: RE: portable 16mm microfilm camera
Robert,
Can you advise what technical reason you are referring to with your comment -- there are many other technical reasons--?
There are microfiche cameras which can film up to A0 in size ad give six or more frames per fiche. Or at the other end there are standards for the filming of A4/A3 documentation onto microfiche.
The last time I was aware of an upgrade or the Library Standards for the filming of Newspapers around 10 to 15 years back they were outdated before they were released.
Regards, Laurie
Mr Daniel Lawrance [ Laurie ] Varendorff,
ARMA
Consultant/Trainer/Tutor/Presenter:
Information and Records Management
President,
Western Australian Branch and Federal Director,
Records
Management Association of Australia.
The Varendorff Consultancy
ABN: 77 836 801 165
27 Ronneby Rd
Lesmurdie
Western Australia 6076
AUSTRALIA
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 authorized 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 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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mottice, Robert
[mailto:robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com]
Sent:
Thursday, May 11, 2000 10:24 PM
To: Linkmicro@listbot.com;
'Pacific Manuscripts Bureau'
Subject: RE: portable 16mm
microfilm camera
Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
While your reasons for having to create microfiche are entirely valid please be aware of the fact that microfiche is not generally acknowledged as an acceptable format within the preservation microfilming community. The primary reason is the higher reduction ratios used however there are many other technical reasons.
Good luck and regards,
Robert Mottice
----------
From: Pacific Manuscripts
Bureau[SMTP:pambu@coombs.anu.edu.au]
Sent: Wednesday, May
10, 2000 8:39 PM
To: Linkmicro@listbot.com
Subject: portable 16mm microfilm camera
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
Dear Listmembers,
The Pacific Manuscripts Bureau is preparing for a project in Nukuhiva, Marquesas Islands, making preservation microfilm copies of the archives of the Catholic Diocese of Taiohae.
The Bishop, Mgr Chevalier, has insisted, with reason, that the Bureau provide microfiche copies of the documents to the Diocese, not microfilm, > as there is no equipment to read microfilm in Nukuhiva.
However microfiche can only be produced from 16mm film and the Bureau only has 35mm microfilming equipment. The Hirakawa 16mm camera head is interchangeable with the Bureau's Hirakawa 35mm portable microfilming baseboard and mounting arm, but the cost of a new HK16 camera is prohibitive for a one-off project (AU$5,670/ JPY358,000).
Does any reader know of a Hirakawa 16mm camera head which the Bureau may borrow or hire? Tony Wheeler from Pascoes says that the Hirakawa portable > microfilm cameras were sometimes marketed under the brand name "Canon" or > "Gordon" (Allan E. Gordon).
Regards,
Ewan Maidment
PMB Executive Officer
Pacific Manuscripts
Bureau
Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies
Australian National
University
Canberra ACT 0200
Australia
Tel: (612) 6249 2521
Fax: (612) 6249 0198
URL:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pambu/
To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com
Date: May 11 2000 17:36:43 EDT
From: "Geisen, Jan" <Jan.Geisen@Co.Ramsey.MN.US>
Subject: RE: portable 16mm microfilm camera
What about giving him duplicate film loaded in 35mm jackets? If his problem is not having a 35mm roll reader/printer he can use these in a fiche reader. He would however have to get a lens with the correct magnification to match your reduction ration.
Jan Geisen
----------
From: Pacific Manuscripts
Bureau[SMTP:pambu@coombs.anu.edu.au]
Sent: Wednesday, May
10, 2000 8:39 PM
To: Linkmicro@listbot.com
Subject: portable 16mm microfilm camera
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink
Dear Listmembers,
The Pacific Manuscripts Bureau is preparing for a project in Nukuhiva, Marquesas Islands, making preservation microfilm copies of the archives of the Catholic Diocese of Taiohae.
The Bishop, Mgr Chevalier, has insisted, with reason, that the Bureau provide microfiche copies of the documents to the Diocese, not microfilm, as there is no equipment to read microfilm in Nukuhiva.
However microfiche can only be produced from 16mm film and the Bureau only has 35mm microfilming equipment. The Hirakawa 16mm camera head is interchangeable with the Bureau's Hirakawa 35mm portable microfilming baseboard and mounting arm, but the cost of a new HK16 camera is prohibitive for a one-off project (AU$5,670/ JPY358,000).
Does any reader know of a Hirakawa 16mm camera head which the Bureau may borrow or hire? Tony Wheeler from Pascoes says that the Hirakawa portable microfilm cameras were sometimes marketed under the brand name "Canon" or "Gordon" (Allan E. Gordon).
Regards,
Ewan Maidment
PMB Executive Officer
Pacific Manuscripts
Bureau
Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies
Australian National
University
Canberra ACT 0200
Australia
Tel: (612) 6249 2521
Fax: (612) 6249 0198
URL:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pambu/
To unsubscribe, write to Linkmicro-unsubscribe@listbot.com
Date: May 11 2000 17:21:37 EDT
From: Becky Ryder <rjryde01@pop.uky.edu>
Subject: Search continued, position modified
This message is being cross-posted to several lists. Please excuse the repetition.
The University of Kentucky has extended its search for a Preservation Reformatting Librarian. The qualifications for the position have been modified. The review of applications will be begin June 2.
University of Kentucky Libraries Lexington, KY 40506 www.uky.edu/Libraries May 10, 2000
POSITION: Preservation Reformatting Librarian
AVAILABLE: Review of applications to begin June 2, 2000
RESPONSIBILITIES: Reporting to the Preservation Librarian, the Preservation Reformatting Librarian provides leadership for the Reprographics Unit, which includes 5.5 FTE staff and 2.0 FTE students. The Preservation Reformatting Librarian oversees the preservation microfilming of 175 current Kentucky newspapers for the UK Libraries and other customers. Additionally, the Preservation Reformatting Librarian oversees the filming of historic newspapers and materials from Special Collections and Archives.
In collaboration with the Preservation Librarian, the Preservation Reformatting Librarian manages the NEH-funded cooperative microfilming projects and will initiate an in-house brittle book reformatting program. The Preservation Reformatting Librarian monitors budgets, provides outreach to colleagues and customers, develops markets, and updates the Reprographics web pages. The Preservation Reformatting Librarian will further the Preservation Program?s goals to develop partnerships with the UK Libraries? and the state?s digital initiatives. An additional program goal includes expanding the reformatting services, updating equipment, and improving the department?s space utilization.
QUALIFICATIONS (REQUIRED) ALA-accredited MLS. Knowledge of preservation microfilming and digitization standards, technical procedures, and best practices. Supervisory experience. Excellent written, oral and interpersonal communication skills. Demonstrated ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with colleagues, faculty, staff and the public. Evidence of ability to meet requirements for promotion and tenure and commitment to ongoing professional service and activity.
QUALIFICATIONS (PREFERRED) Library experience. Experience with preservation microfilming for library collections. Experience with the management of microfilm and/or digital operations. Experience using microfilm and digital equipment. Project management experience. Experience with managing grant-funded projects. Problem solving skills. Space planning skills and experience. Knowledge of library cataloging and metadata standards/procedures. Experience with vendor negotiations, budget management and marketing services.
WORK ENVIRONMENT: The University of Kentucky Libraries system includes the central William T. Young Library; Medical Center Library; Law Library; Special Collections and Archives; Art Library; Architecture Library; Music Library; Agricultural Information Center; Education Library; and six Science and Engineering Libraries. Combined holdings total 2.7 million volumes. Young Library, opened in April 1998, houses 1.2 million volumes emphasizing the social sciences, humanities and life sciences.
The University of Kentucky library system functions in a team-based environment, with a staff of 65 librarians and 121 support staff. It serves a student body of 24,000. The library is a member of ARL, SOLINET, ASERL, EDUCAUSE, the Center for Research Libraries, and is a regional depository for federal documents.
The Preservation Department serves the entire UK Libraries system. It comprises three units: Binding, Conservation and Reprographics. The Reprographics Unit opened in the 1950?s to serve as the major newspaper filming agent for the state. From 1983 to 1991, the Unit served as the center for the Kentucky Newspaper Project. Since 1992, it has participated in the SOLINET/ASERL Cooperative Preservation Microfilming Project. Today, the Reprographics Unit films 175 current Kentucky newspapers as well as books, manuscripts, scrapbooks, and other formats for all UK Libraries and non-UK customers. In the next decade the Reprographics Unit aims to broaden its services to include digital technology.
SALARY: $31,000 minimum. Commensurate with experience and qualifications.
BENEFITS: Tenure track, faculty rank, 12-month appointment, 22 days annual vacation leave. TIAA/CREF, Fidelity and Twentieth Century Annuity plans. TO APPLY: Send letter of application, resume and names of three professional references to the address listed below:
Ann Howell
Administrative Assistant for Personnel University of Kentucky Libraries
1-85 William T. Young Library Lexington, KY 40506-0456
FAX (859) 257-8379
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER