Do You Practice Safe Microfilming?
Introduction
Newspapers form an invaluable part of our documentary heritage. They record the major issues of the day along with the fads and fallacies, the eccentricities and foibles which add colour and life to an historical perspective of the development of our nation. The need to ensure their preservation is one which has been occupying the library community for a number of years as along with their intrinsic value as documentary heritage is the inescapable fact that they are also among the most endangered of library materials. Printed on poor quality newsprint, their life expectancy is low and early intervention is required to ensure that they are not reduced to such a state of brittleness that it would be impossible to attempt to read their contents without destroying them. In developing the National Newspaper Plan (NPLAN), the Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL) recognised that the enormity of the task of ensuring the preservation of all Australian newspapers will be dependent upon a collaborative approach if it is to succeed. The National Library of Australia (NLA) considered how best it could actively contribute to the aims and objectives of the NPLAN and developed two courses of action. One was the development of a co-operative microfilming policy which takes a broader approach to preservation microfilming than just newspapers but identifies newspapers as a separate category in recognition of their high priority. The selection of issues more than thirty years old as the first criterion was an attempt to target the oldest, and therefore most vulnerable, Australian newspapers to ensure their long term preservation. It also assumes that given the volume of newspapers which have either not been microfilmed at all, or else not filmed to appropriate standards which will ensure their long term preservation, it will be necessary to find some method of establishing priorities for filming. The second activity the NLA undertook as a result of the NPLAN was to form a working group to investigate procedures for repatriation of the paper format of newspapers held by the NLA which under NPLAN become the responsibility of the state library of origin. It was the awareness of the need to ensure not just the existence of microfilm but that the microfilm is of sufficient quality to guarantee the preservation of the information, which led the working group to undertake a small survey of regional and rural newspapers identified as being held by the Library in both paper format and microfilm. The survey was conducted by two student conservators over a period of one week under the supervision of the Manager of the Preservation Reformatting Unit. The survey technique used was a modified version of the ANSI/AIIM MS45-1990 standard, Recommended practice for inspection of stored silver-gelatin microforms for evidence of deterioration. It should also be emphasised that only service copies were surveyed, not first generation masters *.
Survey of the Australian Newspaper Microfilm Collection at the NLA
The survey was designed with the following aims:
- to examine the quality (including completeness) of film produced by various microfilming bureaux
- to obtain information about the condition of the microfilm
- to determine whether the current method of storage needs to be amended or improved
- to obtain some indication of what proportion of the microfilm service copies currently needs replacement or may need replacement in the future
- to obtain some indication of whether the collection is likely to contain any unstable microfilm which could contaminate the rest of the collection
- to obtain some indication of the ratio of film types contained in the collection and how they compare with one another for stability and durability over an extended period of time.
The sample was selected from a listing of Australian newspaper titles held in the National Library's newspaper collection. Only microfilm which was duplicated by hardcopy holdings was surveyed. Titles published in New South Wales were excluded from this survey as staff felt they had better knowledge of the overall condition of film from that state and given the restricted time for the survey it was decided to exclude them. The majority of the reels surveyed had been acquired in the last 15 years. A total of 15 titles (53 reels) were surveyed and within each title every tenth reel was surveyed.
The following methodology was used:
- a form was completed for each reel of microfilm surveyed
- the title, call number, reel number, filming date, accession date, microfilming bureau, film base, emulsion type, and polarity were noted on the form
- each reel was removed from its box. Both box and reel were checked for odours indicating "vinegar syndrome" of acetate film
- the reel, box and restrainer type were noted
- a small sample of each of the films was removed and placed in a labelled plastic bag for film base and emulsion type testing
- the frequency of the newspaper title was noted
- one month of consecutive issues on each reel was then checked frame by frame on a microfilm reader for completeness and filming defects. If microfilm reels were found to be incomplete, the missing segments were compared against the hardcopy
- the film was also inspected for signs of deterioration. If necessary, the film was viewed under illuminated x2 magnification. The extent of deterioration of the microfilm was then graded according to the severity classification schedule.
Results
Quality of the Film (Including Completeness)
Of the 53 reels surveyed, 4 were known to be incomplete. Only newspaper issues identified as being incomplete during the frame by frame microfilm check were rechecked against the hardcopy originals. It was sometimes difficult to determine the completeness of the film as pages were not always numbered. Information from Newspapers in Australian Libraries and the masthead were used to assist in this. In all cases of incomplete filming, the microfilming bureaux concerned failed to indicate that the film was incomplete. The target sheets included at the beginning of each reel indicated that the contents were complete. In all cases, individual pages or segments of individual issues were missing. The survey also revealed that even if the contents of the microfilm were complete, this was not always apparent as pages were often filmed twice or out of order. This information was seldom conveyed through the use of target sheets. In the reels surveyed, only two bureaux included targets drawing printing/filming irregularities to the reader's attention, as specified in AS2840-1986 Microfilming newspapers for archival purposes. Both students noted that even if each reel was checked frame by frame for completeness, there could still be a high error rate as the task is so repetitive. It was also noted that the task became more difficult as the newspapers increased in size and regularity, which suggests there could be merit in only checking microfilm for issues before a defined date, provided paper copy of the later issues is in good condition. Generally it took the students from 5 minutes to check weekly issues covering a period of one month, to 25 minutes to check daily issues covering the same period.
A total of 5 reels surveyed were reported to be difficult to read according to the severity classification table. This could be attributed to any one of the following factors:
- faint text in the hardcopy
- physical condition of the hardcopy
- poor filming technique/materials
- difficulty in duplicating service copies.
As the survey only involved checking the service copy it was not possible to determine whether the poor quality was due to poor duplication from the printing * master. Some bureaux actually included target sheets on the microfilm stating "hardcopy unsuitable for microfilming"but in other cases it was not possible to be precise about factors causing poor quality. Though considered to be acceptable quality according to the severity classification table, in many other instances, the reels were reported to be "just legible" which suggests that the problem could have arisen from poor contrast in the original and/or poor filming technique. Aside from the difficulties this poses for readers, it could also cause problems in future if a decision was taken to digitise the microfilm. In at least one case, the microfilm was difficult to read because the hardcopy was tightly bound and the text was torn in some places. A check against the hardcopy held by the NLA revealed that the Library's holdings were in far better condition than those from which the microfilming had been taken. This reinforces the desirability of developing a mechanism which will ensure that the best quality paper copy is used for microfilming and is also the copy which is retained.
All reels surveyed were in cardboard boxes and the boxes were in good condition. Plastic spools were in good condition for all reels.
According to the overall assessment rating system, 10 reels were rated 2 (deterioration clearly visible but confined to non informational areas - acceptable condition) and 43 reels were rated 1 (no deterioration detectable- film in excellent condition).
Five reels were found to be on cellulose acetate film base. Although no distinctive odours were detected, it is known that this film base is less stable than polyester. It would be necessary to check that the first generation master was not also on acetate film and if this was the case, then refilming would be necessary to ensure the long term survival of the information. Assuming the first generation and printing master is acceptable, it would only be necessary to re-duplicate the service copy to ensure that the acetate film base does not contaminate other microfilm.
The majority of service copies surveyed was on silver halide film. Apart from minor scratching and redox blemishes on two of these reels, the remainder appeared to be in either acceptable or good condition for their age. These results tend to confirm reports that diazo or vesicular film are more appropriate for service copies.
It was noted that some of the copies had not been used. This implies that it would be unwise to rely on reports from readers to detect filming errors or irregularities if the paper copy is in poor condition.
Some of the microfilm surveyed was of negative polarity which could cause problems for newspapers containing a mixture of text and photos as identifying details in photographs, such as individuals, would be difficult with negative polarity. This is another example of the need to consider the user when selecting the most appropriate microfilming technique.
Condition of Hardcopy of the Original
Due to time constraints, only 12 of the 15 titles were checked for condition of the hardcopy. These volumes were found to be in generally acceptable condition for newspapers of that age. There was evidence of tearing and brittleness around the edges of some volumes while the paper in the older volumes (early 1900's) was discoloured. Faint text and tight/poor binding were also detected in some volumes.
Conclusion
Both good news and bad news emerged from the survey. The condition of the film itself is very good, with 81% of the reels rated as in excellent condition. The storage of the service copies was also found to be acceptable. However the picture is much less rosy when looking at quality issues such as completeness and legibility and it is disturbing that in establishing the former, target sheets were often inadequate and in some cases actually misleading. This is of particular concern as these faults in filming compromise the acceptability of the final product as a preservation copy. The causes of poor legibility could include a range of factors including poor condition of the original . The existence of a good quality paper copy in the NLA of a title which had been filmed from poor paper copy from another source strongly reinforces the need to collaborate to ensure the best available paper copy is filmed and valuable resources are used to the best possible effect. If paper copies are to be discarded, it is also important to ensure that the best quality paper copy is retained. As would be expected from the time frame of the film sampled, most of the film was on polyester as opposed to the unstable cellulose acetate. However the fact that a large portion of the issues filmed were found to be "just legible" would understandably reinforce the perception of many readers that microfilm is not user friendly. Since the principle aim of preserving materials is to facilitate access to them, it would be of cold comfort, from the readers perspective, that the condition of the film itself was generally found to be excellent.
It is the existence of well established standards for microfilming which contributes to the general acceptance of the continued importance of microfilm in ensuring the preservation of our documentary heritage notwithstanding the need to take account of scanning technologies to complement that role. Indeed the prospects for employing a hybrid approach employing both film and scanning offer exciting possibilities for enhancing both preservation and access but is also dependent on ensuring the microfilming has been of sufficient quality to allow the opportunity for digitising at a later date. The importance of microfilming in preservation was reaffirmed at the recent conference on Preservation Microfilming conducted in Adelaide by the National Preservation Office (NPO). The conference also reinforced the critical importance of maintaining a first generation master of appropriate standard and stored in environmentally controlled conditions if long term preservation is to be assured. Resolutions agreed at the NPO's Preservation Microfilming conference should greatly assist in establishing consistent standards covering all aspects of future preservation microfilming, in ensuring much greater overall quality, and in reinforcing that the basic principle guiding preservation microfilming programs is the desire to facilitate both current and future access.
It should of course be emphasised that this was a very small survey and caution would need to be exercised in drawing too many assumptions about overall quality and condition of microfilm collections. However the results do confirm that the mere existence of microfilm, even if produced on film stock of appropriate standard, cannot guarantee the preservation of the information and therefore future access to that information. Nor does it guarantee that users will be provided with an acceptable alternative to paper copy. The NLA's cooperative microfilming policy does include the potential for considering projects to refilm poorly filmed material as well as projects to film material which has never been filmed. Results of this small survey reinforce the need to consider that possibility if acceptable current access is to be achieved and future access is to be assured.
** The terminology used to describe the three generations which are required for preservation microfilming is that which has been proposed for use when adding information about microfilm to the NBD. As these terms are still not familiar to everyone (including the authors!), the following glossary may be helpful:
First generation master = preservation master
Printing master =
copying or camera master
Service copy = working copy
Added 10 July 1995.
Link(s) modified 12 December 1997
| About This Site | Copyright | Privacy | Accessibility | Site Map | Site Search | Content A-Z | Contact Us |